Discussion in 'Interpretation; Advantage; What if?' started by braxer001, Mar 9, 2007.
Can't think who they might be.
Go on redumpire. Do tell... :yes:
Ah, but you daren't point out another's "lack of status in the game" for fear of being labeled an entitled elitist. Catch-22, isn't it?
Don't get me wrong here guys - everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's. It's just that one would think that those people who have an international umpiring badge or who have played at the highest level may have some idea what they're doing and may, occasionally, be worth listening to when contentious issues are being discussed.
Anyway, this is FHF: a friendly forum where everyone's view is respected and differences of opinion are dealt with in a civilised way. Let's keep it that way!
[PS. Diligent, I'll keep my counsel for now thanks!!]
yeah redumpire. I think when it comes down to it i would listen to the person with the international badge. But on these forums the whole point is to debate whether what they say is actually right
n_i_t_w - absolutely! But in a respectful way, recognising that they must have some idea what they're talking about otherwise they wouldn't have the badge! I know that Keely (and other FIH umpires) don't claim to have the answers, but they sure as hell can help the rest of us on the way to working them out... Pretty much as happens on FHF!
I've sometimes pondered an analogy between different modes of approaching the question of discussing rules and the Reformation, on the one hand you have the "Protestant" umpires with the equivalent of Sola scriptura (by scripture alone) the rule book is sufficient, anything that's not in the rulebook is heresy; and on the other the "Catholic" umpires in the Sacred Tradition appealing to the Magisterium of the FIH and the Imprimatur of local umpiring bodies.
Obviously the analogy is not exact, if nothing else it's clearly within the power of the FIH to change the rule book if it sees fit, however, as befits a born and bred Anglican (albeit lapsed), I think I subscribe to a Via media between these. There's no way the rulebook can cover every eventuality (without being prohibitively large) so "tradition" (aka "custom and practice") has its place, but that should be spelled out in such a way that it's clear (and equally available) to everyone, this may require changing either the rules, or custom and practice .
However, I don't think any of us would be happy with a "Gnostic" approach to umpiring - "gain this badge and you will be granted knowledge of the rules not given to ordinary mortals"...
Can I have some of what you've been on this lunch time please David...!? lol
I just need to spend less time looking at Wikipedia (the latin words are all linked...)
That's not what the CofE thinks
: From HIS Majesty's Declaration at the start of the 39 articles of Faith:
I JUST KNEW I'D FIND THAT INFO USEFUL SOME DAY!
The above is for fun. From a lapsed Presbyterian..
Please don't think I'm poking fun at anyone's religion.
The serious bit:
I agree, the rules ( and briefings/ interpretations) should be equally available to everyone.
I wonder what happened to the idea that all necessary interpretations and guidance were in the rule book? ie I don't need to read an umpires briefing.
From the fih site/ rules/faq:
My memory says that the umpiring committee bit didn't use to be in there?????
There is no indication that the answer to the question has been revised.
So, the FIH have changed it. They're allowed to: it's their rulebook and their website...
No no! Change is bad! Change is bad!
(repeat as many times as necessary to prevent oneself from getting with the times)
sorry folks the point is that the change, if any, is not made clear.
Don't jump to conclusions that people object to change.
I think your remarks were objectionable.
I am not objecting to the fact that there IS a change.
It appears to upgrade the status of the Umpires briefing.
As such the briefing should surely be mentioned in the rule book.
What in the briefing could not be included in the rules guidance and the umpires section?
Don't jump to conclusions that people object to change.
They do object to ill defined new rules, or rules so unclear that international umpires don't agree.
And sometimes, yes, they don't like the changes.
After many edits.
Let's not get all "talkinghockey.net" on here guys... Please.
Apologies if my post about the FIH and the rulebook was misconstrued. :sorry:
As far as I am concerned, the forehand hit is illegal in all instances. I don't even touch on the subject when coaching now. If players don't get taught the skill, then they should never need to question any decision from an umpire about teh forehand edge.
To be safe, jsut don't do it!
But if you don't teach them not to do it, they may pick it up from somewhere else.
Hey, don't we know you from somewhere?
I wished to have a "Frank and open disscussion" (Argument with plenty of armwaving but no offers of violence) with an umpiring co-ordinator who barred a child of mine from wearing a particular helmet. I was informed that the 'person' was not available on Tuesday or Thursday 'cause they were her "bowls days" and she would not answer a page at the bowls club. When I finally got to talk at this old bag she was very surprised to learn that she was bloody wrong and she had not only misread the rulebook but had misquoted it to the umpires at the tournament (not a single umpire was game to say she was wrong- even though a few knew she was). That is why we must not only have regular access to a current rulebook but why as players we must learn the rules.
oh how right you are Animal. I'm a firm believer in that players should at least know how to umpire even if they don't actively do it oh:
In that video, the first example of the legal (according to the video) hit, is that actually legal? They banned that shot because they said that a player has very little control over direction and hit of that hit.
I have to disagree, I find using that hit to be the most accurate, and 6-8 times out of ten could hit a nominated upright post from the top of the D, which is more accurate than the likes of my drag flicking.
Separate names with a comma.