Conduct of play When does an aerial become an aerial?

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions & General Chat' started by lewijono, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. lewijono

    lewijono FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Left back (in the changing rooms)
    Stick/s:
    Gryphon Tour Samurai
    Had this scenario last night at training and had me started to think about what point an aerial becomes an aerial?

    Basically the ball was passed to me as an attempted aerial. What I mean by this is the aerial was messed up so the ball at it's peak height was around head high, so not that high really, and as the ball arrived to me it was about knee height. There was no one around (within 5m) as the pass was made or during the flight of the ball so the element of danger isn't relevant in this scenario. I was stationary in space waiting for the ball to come to me when someone from the other team ran in from of me (no more than 1 meter away) and intercepted the ball. I was obviously shouted at for not coming to the ball to receive it, but my argument was it was an aerial, and therefore it would have been a free hit for my team as the opponent wasn't 5m away from me whilst I was receiving the ball.

    I am just wondering at what point a lifted pass becomes and aerial and how you would judge this with the giving the receiver 5m or of course, throwing into a crowd.
     
  2. NorthUmpire

    NorthUmpire FHF Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    4
    What you describe is "an aerial" like any raised ball and the same rule applies, 9.10 "Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground." The rule book does not use the term "Aerial ball"! Don't you just love the old wives tales of hockey rules? :)

    A miss-trap, a rebound off a stick or GK foot that travels into the air through a space becomes a raised ball in my interpretation, the exception being a 3D dribble where the ball is lifted close to a player to a modest height (no I'm not going to try and specify what height) for which players can contest the ball subject to no danger and according with rule 9.7. IF there is no space and the raised ball is dangerous or leads to dangerous play, that is a free hit in line with rule 9.8.

    If the ball is thrown into a crowd, it is a free hit to the team that did not raise the ball. Arguably, this should be taken from where the ball was lifted (if the danger was inevitable from that instant) but custom and practice that players accept, is to take the hit where the ball lands (that's where the ball is and gets the game back in play ASAP.
     
  3. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    656
    There's no "arguably" about it.
    Unless the danger is caused directly by the player raising the ball, i.e. raised towards an opponent within 5 metres, no offence occurs at the lifting point and no penalty should be placed there.
    It is either a breach of 9.10 (approaching receiver) or 9.2/9.7/9.8 (some kind of danger by the players in the landing zone). These necessarily occur at the crowded landing zone - the penalty must be taken there.
    Custom and practice exists for a reason.

    Lucky for you, the rules do not define an aerial or an overhead or a raised ball, even though the definition of several other terms relies on whether a ball has been raised!
    So of course we use common sense and the spirit of the rule. Is this a situation that rule 9.10 is meant to cover?

    At the top grade, no: the ball is never lifted beyond the point a player can play or control it from a natural body position. It's no different from an ankle-height jink to beat the flat stick. Play on.
    At the bottom grade, yes: the ball is raised above the natural level of where play is expected to occur, and allowing players to do whatever they please here will lead to danger. FH to the initial receiver, against the intercepting player.
    In between, I'll gradually raise the bar based on what skill and capacity for the game is shown. It might raise very sharply in a small change of grade or be consistent across several grades.
     
  4. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    Op states the ball is lifted as an aerial but not that high. For me its still an aerial. However where it was landing the receiver was in free space . the ball was below knee height at this point so for me its no longer a raised ball and defenders are allowed to encroach as it is no longer potentially dangerous. Only f anyone approaches that raised ball whilst it is still in the air AND potentially dangerous should it be penalised. The free hit is taken from where the danger occurred ie. who made it dangerous the lifter or the players approaching. If the lift caused the danger fh from the point of lift. if player(s) caused the danger fh from where the ball was landing. I agree with Nic what is dangerous at National League level and the girls U12 on a Sunday morning is vastly different. The lower the level the quicker the whistle as, at the lower levels, the likelihood of someone getting hit is that much greater.
     
  5. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,185
    Likes Received:
    844
    Where is knee height defined as the point at which a ball is no longer raised?
    The rule book specifically speaks of it being on the ground if i remember correctly?
     
  6. Gold

    Gold FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2012
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Sussex, England
    To my mind, the ball is clearly a "falling raised ball" and therefore falls within the ambit of Rule 9.10. However, a player expecting to receive the falling raised ball is not automatically the "initial receiver"; a player that is in a position to receive it would be the initial receiver unless an opponent is in a position to legitimately play the ball before it reaches the potential initial receiver; the opponent would be able to play the ball legitimately if s(he) can intercept the ball at a sufficient distance from the anticipating receiver so that the question of danger does not arise. I would put that distance at at least three metres so in the OP, where he is only one metre away, I would consider this an offence.

    I would be very interested to hear of other views.
     
  7. Ravennghorde

    Ravennghorde FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    411
    Location:
    Southern England
    /Devil’s advocate mode
    We generally treat below the knee as not dangerous and the shin pad as a foot. Seems reasonable to treat below knee height as on the ground.
     
    Krebsy likes this.
  8. Mdevanshk

    Mdevanshk FHF Star Player

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The comment about the skill level of the teams is a good one and while there is very much a YHTBT element I suspect I would be umpiring this very differently across the levels I cover.

    I would also consider the relative positions of the two players

    If the intercept was made from a run from behind then far more likely to be penalised. If from a run perpendicular to the oath of the ball and at higher levels (and likely assuming the intercept was just outside playing distract of the original receiver) then great skill play on
     
  9. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,808
    Likes Received:
    560
    Problem is that the rules say on the ground and controlled

    The ball merely being below shin-pad height does not make it ok to approach inside 5m, it must meet all 3 points before they can approach
     
  10. johnreiss

    johnreiss FHF Top Player

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    teesside
    i agree that the written relevant rule states "controlled" AND "on the ground" . The defender has the option of staying where he was (within 5m) or attempt a tackle. He does not have to back off. If he approaches the receiver when the ball is still high that action becomes dangerous and should be blown. Dependent on the level, if he stays where he was or does not engage until the ball is at a reasonable (below the knee) height it's fine. Only if the defender's action is deemed "leading to danger" should it be penalized.
     
  11. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    656
    Your definition of reasonable cannot be constant. Anything off the ground is unreasonable at some levels; almost nothing not directly dangerous is unreasonable at the highest level.
    Saying "knee height" suggests this is the only sensible limit or even that it is a limit in the rules. Without a clearer statement of context, it is misleading and wrong.
     
    #11 Nij, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:42 AM
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017 at 10:36 AM
  12. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,185
    Likes Received:
    844
    I completely agree.
    It will be difficult to tell the forward lying in hospital with a fractured tibia or the midfielder on the physios bench with a torn calf that what put them there was not dangerous when driving a ball into a player's shin/calf from short range is clearly dangerous.
    There are many instances where an umpire may judge that actually the afflicted player should have either stopped the ball or abstracted themselves from that location, but you cannot possibly say for certain that all these events are safe. They aren't.
     

Share This Page