Imagine, if you can, really shoddy grass fields. In order to play properly, everyone needs to adjust their play style to accomodate for the rough and grippy surface. In order to do anything effective, more strength and power needs to be applied; pushing, hitting, passing, dribbling, tackling. During a game, more often than not, a clean tackle would be made which sounds admittedly loud, making a chopping-like sound. It is clear to players that there was only stick-to-ball-to-stick contact, but the sound, thanks to the degree of strength application, definitely makes it sound like hacking. Are there umpires out there who would let this go? If I was umpiring, I would like to think that I would have taken the field into account and paid extra-close attention to tackles etc for contact. Or, which I guess I understand, is there no leniency with this sort of thing in order to prevent risk to players?
If it's clear that they're stick-to-ball-to-stick tackles, then what are you being more lenient on? I don't quite understand. Sounds like your describing a clean tackle to me...
And if the decision is "fair tackle" even though it might look/sound bad to more distant players and spectators, then the umpire should call that, nice and loud so everyone can hear. The signal is not in the book, but hockey umpires at all levels seem to have adapted soccer's 'advantage' signal for 'no offence, play on': (apologies: couldn't find a smaller pic to link to) In the Umpiring section of the Rule Book, 3.6 Signalling says: "b only the official signals must be used". So perhaps it needs a new signal 4.6a "no offence: extend both arms high from the shoulder towards play"
I'm talking about when an umpire will go on sound alone of a tackle and whistle for a dangerous chop, rather than consider the terrain and what players may have to do in order to play properly.
An umpire, a "real" one, wouldn't go on sound -- visual acuity, not audio acuity. If there's no obstruction there's no foul there (the ball is between the sticks). The new signal that comes my mind is one offered to the person who shouts out, "Are you deaf?", and two outstretched arms are definitely not required to perform it.
Surely a deaf umpire could only ever umpire could only ever umpire on visual acuity, which would make them ideal, assuming they knew the rules of course - why aren't there more ? (although i know that isn't what you were referring to )
How can there be stick contact to make any sound at all if the ball is 'between the sticks'? By definition, someone has gone past the ball into the other stick. The only consideration then is has it made a difference to the flow of the game, or do I need to stop the game to apply a personal penalty?
Or maybe just a team penalty... I doubt every time there has been enough disadvantage that a stick obstruction actually has occurred that you need to card the player! My coaching tip for better decision-making in this area is when they see two players coming together for the umpire to shift their focus away from the ball carrier (we all love to ball-watch, don't we?) to the defender/tackler. Once you're watching the defender's stick instead of the attacker's, it's much easier to see whether the defender has actively prevented the attacker from carrying the ball or playing it as they're planning to, whether the stick noise amounts to nothing, or the attacker is actually the one interfering with the defender's stick (stick blocking).
Top tip Keely, many thanks. Will try that one out! As usual, I realised my post contained some 'circumstantial assumptions' which I didn't make clear. I still had in mind the specific scenario of Peakey's - a 'dangerous chop'. Under normal circumstances, my thought process is basically based around the simple question do I need to intervene here - i.e. "Is the foul serious enough to warrant an immediate personal penalty?", combined with "has the foul interrupted the flow of the game to the extent that a free hit is a greater advantage?". There might also be a secondary consideration of "do I need to make a point at this stage by peeping it?" That doesn't mean I never let play go on then come back for the card. In fact, if a quick peep is a good advantage but I want to card the player, I may still come back at the end of the passage of play to card, even after play has continued after the free hit. If I carded every stick tackle/stick block I don't think they'd ever let me near a game with a TD again!
