Manufactured Foul – Ball flicked towards a player within 5 yards

I’ve been milling this one over for a few weeks now and I just can’t come up with a definitive answer.

If I close down an attacker with the ball on the halfway line, to make a genuine attempt to play the ball. If the attacker simply lifts the ball in to my knee cap when I’m about 1.5 meters away, I would be expecting either a ‘play on’ - or FHD if I’ve been disadvantaged. I’m thinking because of…

9.9 - Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

9.15 - Players must not force an opponent into offending unintentionally.

There is no way of me getting out of the way of the ball, so even if he’s trying to pass it to someone behind me if I’m genuinely trying to play the ball surely he’s either forcing me to foul OR flicking the ball towards me when I’m within 5 meters. Either way play on or give me the ball I’m certainly not thinking it should be a foul against me.

The problem is that this didn’t happen on the halfway line. It happened in front of the goal. I’m fairly sure if it hadn’t hit my knee it was going in to the goal behind me. If I was the attacker I would be screaming PS. But now that I’ve had the pleasure of being the defender I’m in two minds what I should do as an umpire if this situation occurs when I've got the whistle.

I’ve done loads of searches and been trying to find my own solution, but now it’s nearly three weeks after the incident I’ve decided it’s time to ask for direct help.

Should the open goal behind the defender change my interpretation of these rules or am I making an even more obvious mistake?

I would assess the danger of the lifted ball based on the pace, the proximity of the defender hit and the height to which the ball is raised.

As to the decision?! It sounds right on the margin and I know you could successfully argue for either a PS or FHD. So it comes down to the umpire's interpretation on the day.

Was it dangerous?

Nor will you, and you certainly won't get one on this forum.

As you're umpiring a situation similar to that which you described, you're taking a myriad of factors into consideration: height of the ball, speed of the ball, trajectory of the ball, distance between the players, positioning of the defender, posture/stance of the defender, positioning of his teammates including the GK, positioning of the attacker, positioning of the attacker's teammates, distance to the goal, options available to the attacker, options available to the defender, etc. etc.

There is no absolute answer for this occurring in the middle of the pitch any more than there is in front of the goal. There is "more likely" and "less likely", but that's because of the likelihood of the factors I've listed occurring changes according to where it's happening.

For an exploration of how these factors are applied, you'll have to go into a variety of sin bin topics:

• New "Dangerous" Goal?
• MOVED: PC- Interpretation of danger
• MOVED: Causing Danger by defending.

And many others. Unfortunately, exploring the issue again will very likely result in this topic being locked as well.

Hopefully, being released from this idea that there is a black and white answer may allow you to simply react instinctively to what you see in a particular circumstance, which will most likely get you to a fair decision.

Well...very important in this case is the interpretation of DANGER.

You write..."If the attacker simply LIFTS the ball."
Now in the rules it is clearly stated regarding flicking & scooping.

From that what you wrote we surely can't really decide in whose favor it will be. To interpret ball as dangerous you have to consider the height & SPEED of the ball. Umpire must (should ) consider also other things such as the level of the game, and the standard that he/she set up with his team-mate-umpire during the beginning of the match.

And it shouldn't really matter where in the pitch does it happen. If the ball is clearly slow and wouldn't cause any DANGER, then it's okay. NPUA has some great videos about this...

Speaking about the two situations that you have mentioned. From what you & I wrote here, I would rather think that the second situation would be dangerous, because I would expect the attacking player to SHOOT at the goal. So how was it?

Anyone has a different opinion about this situation? ???

Wow...plenty of new opinions just emerged...

Thanks guys, to avoid the whole 'danger argument' on this one the ball wasn’t crashed at me or anything, it left a bruise but nothing to be writing home about.

It was a simple flick from about 6 meters away from an open goal, he was making a genuine effort to get it over my stick and in to the goal, and I was making a genuine effort to get my stick on it. It just so happened that because it went over my stick (by virtue of how close we were) I could do nothing about it hitting my knee.

Everyone I spoke to afterwards seemed to agree that if it happened in the middle of the pitch it was a cert to be either play on or my ball. I was just wondering if there was some sort of interpretation that changed this when you were in front of an open goal. Like I say if I was the striker I would have been saying PS but I also knew that I did nothing at all except not be able to get out of the way because I was too close.

Cheers Red, I've got no qualms about it being a PS, like I say if I was the attacker I know that's what I would have been expecting.

It was more a case of the doubt it placed in my mind for next time I'm umpiring what would I give. I have to say that the everyone's answer has been great and certainly helped. Just look at whats happening at that point and blow relevant to the situation rather than looking for a hard and fast.

Thanks everyone.

Disagree.
The rule: ( guidance) A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous
End of story.
Was it flicked?
Yes
was it within 5m?
Yes.
Does the rule take into account speed?
No
Does the rule take into account height?
No.
ERGO : Dangerous.

At this distance a player has no reliable ability to defend himself, or avoid using the body.

So I presume the lawgivers therefore decided to make a hard and fast rule.

Any requirement the ball to be hard, or fast, or high, to breach the rule was excluded.
" considered dangerous" : read as "deemed to be"

And IMO a raised flick from close range doesn't need to hit high to be dangerous... The height at which it actually hits the player is totally unpredictable,the stroke is neither more or less dangerous to players judged on result alone..
A slight difference in lift angle, a check or lunge by the defender makes a huge difference.
It is potential that counts

deegum, you would penalise any flick at a player within 5m that was off the ground? even one hitting the top of the shoelaces? jinks over sticks?

Its that the thought process that the FIH has been trying to get people out of for the last few years?

for me the two big things are height and speed. Was this your knee at standing positition, or with your knee only 15cm or so off the ground after a lunge, and was the speed enough to endanger you?

jinks over the stick is hardly at the player.- refer raising into the circle when that was in vogue.......jinks over the stick were specifically excluded as raised.
the same common sense view applies here.

Scooping towards the player so close that it only gets shoelace high?

For the HRB the two things are 1. scoop/flick 2.within 5m towards the player.
HRB one, nerd zero :yes:

You mightn't like the rule but it is quite clear. Don't do it

well a flick is defined as a push that is raised off the ground, shoelaces are off the ground.

i have seen heaps of times when a jink over a flat stick ends up hitting the defender in the ankle.

anyway my point seems to be that every single decent umpire i have from the olympics down to local a grade seems to have this sorted out, but you are umpiring completely different, why?

So your local umpires don't penalise a scoop into a player within 5m?


Read the rest of the guidance regarding shoelaces.: If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.

ok missed the point again deegum. Ill try and spell it out for you.

You argument (as far as I can tell): anytime the ball is played in a way that has it going off the ground and at a player, regardless of height or speed it MUST be blown for danger.

My (and im fairly confident, everyone elses) argument: if it is not dangerous at all (i.e. it is hardly off the ground, or going so slowly that pieces of fluff are overtaking) then it shouldnt be blown as dangerous. The guidance is there mainly to refer to the first runner/df debate. not to turn the game into indoor hockey.

nerd, would you call such a thing a scoop?
let's not get into the obviously ridiculous .

But also don't try to invent rules.
for some reason the lawgivers have said that under certain conditions, a scoop is "dangerous'....... and no qualification about height or speed.
earlier I stated what I think could have inspired what at first sight is a peculiar rule

so restating: I happen to think that there is good reason to penalise it, because a player has little or no opportunity in many cases to avoid it.

If they said" a scoop or flick towards a player within 5m shall be considered as a forced foul" would be much more understandable to most- as suggested by the first poster.
There is such reluctance to use the forced foul rule.

PS that damn hi speed fluff can be dangerous if it gets up your nose.

AAAAAAAAAAAA chooo

pps I'm not trying to get up yours. .

where did i invent rules? the next line of the rulebook after the 5m part is 'if an opponent is clearing running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball then they should be penalized for dangerous play' that would generally be regarded as referring to either overheads or dragflicks at PCs.

the definition of a flick is 'pushing the ball so that it is raised off the ground'
a scoop is 'raising the ball off the ground by placing the head of the stick under the ball and using a lifting motion'. verbatim from the rulebook. You have just said we need to umpire this rule exactly as it is written, then ignored what the rulebook says about flicks and scoops.

so yes, both those cases could very easily be considered as a scoop or a flick by the rulebook.

so either we are blowing every time the ball is 'pushed so that it is raised off the ground' at a player within 5m, regardless of height or speed. or we are going to judge every situation on its merits.... which is it?

I have no wish to stir things up, and apologise if it seems sr be hard line.

When a ball could not be lifted into the circle, people were penalising any ball entering off the ground - even little hops caused by the ground. sensibly
guidance was added,almost exactly the same as the guidance quoted below- identical in meaning.

Except that the" 5m" clause has been added.

If the ball is raised over an opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

Lift it over the stick, foot, or body, no worries.
Hit the defender, and it is an offence against the lifter.

I ask you all , and particularly Twister, with whom I initially disagreed:

Would the deletion of the clause:
A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous.

ever make any difference to your decision?
if so, why?

I think most of us have been around the block enough times to know how to umpire this sort of thing reasonably fairly and consistently....it's the 'newbies' to umpiring who can be confuzzed' by poorly-worded rules.

If I were a defender on the goal-line(not very likely)and an attacker flicked at me/the goal, from <5m and it hit my hip-bone, I'd not be TOO discombobulated by the award of a PS.
If, however, he hit me square in the 'crown jewels', I would think that was dangerous play and would hope...probably in vain.. for a FHD, (as I writhed on the ground).
There IS a responsibility for the striker to make all reasonable attempts not to endanger players who have no chance of avoiding the strike.... on the hip looks as if he's trying to miss me, 'amidships' suggests recklessness on his part. The rules support this view, and it's how, IMO, it should be interpreted.
It is stupid play, anyway, not to aim at the goal, because PSs are sometimes missed!

[In a ladies vets game an attacker attempted such a flick, from very close-in, aiming between 2 defenders on the line, one of whom put out her stick and deflected the ball into her face. It fell down and was cleared....the player was uninjured, although that, IMO, was irrelevant to the decision.
I awarded a PS...much to the chagrin/anger of the defence, but I had no concerns...the attacker had not caused danger]