Conduct of play Your decisions please

Discussion in 'Outdoor Umpiring Questions & General Chat' started by OldGitEd, Jan 28, 2018.

  1. Folmer

    Folmer FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    583
    For me this part:
    is enough reason to play on, with a very small amount of YHTBT. GK is trying to close the gap to save the ball, not intentionally interfere with the "receiving" of the ball. (I wouldn't call it receiving, rather making a desperate last ditch attempt to make something out of an impossible pass) If anything it is a PC.

    Other two are good calls.
     
  2. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    693
    The higher team penalty because that's the opportunity lost by the team. The personal penalty because they personally did it. Having said that, yeah, if I'm thinking about a card for a goalkeeper, it's probably yellow or nothing. It isn't worth the fuss and doesn't make the point to players to "just" GC.
    You give far less credit than due to many goalkeepers. I know several who would do exactly this charging down, knowing it's a deliberate offence, purely because they expect to get away with it (and depending on appointments, probably would, at worst a PC-only).
     
  3. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    Exactly, it's like above, keeper coming out to narrow the angle/make a save is a deliberate act to encroach, even if that wasn't the intent per se.

    Looking at the attack point of view - you've done a skillful run to beat the defence, you're ready to receive the ball and take it down and place your shot and the GK runs out and blocks off your angle and puts you off, it's what you'd call "denying a goal scoring opportunity" in football
     
  4. F1-mania

    F1-mania FHF Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    181
    I don't think the interpretation is as black and white as you think. An intentional offence
    I agree in both circumstances it is an offence. But, I also think it does matter whether the player is looking to control or hit a ball though, certainly in how I adjudge the intent of a goalkeeper. If the player is trying to stop the ball, the goalkeeper is encroaching with the intention of distracting the striker/contesting the ball which is an intentional foul in the D - PS. If the forward is clearly looking to shoot first time, then I know from years of having played in goals that my intention if I encroach is to stop the ball going in the goal, not to stop the player playing the ball. A player can do the exact same thing in two situations and have a different intent in both actions.

    Does that mean that in situation number two the keeper has not broken the rule? Of course not, but they have not intentionally done so and thus I'd be giving a PC or calling play on if I think the encroaching has not interfered with a forward. Situation number one you can't read any other real possible intent into it other than trying to disrupt play illegally, and a PS is fair enough, but there's enough doubt as to the intent in situation two to make a PC a fair outcome assuming no other offences on the part of the goalkeeper.

    If the disagreement here is to how we judge intent, then we'll keep going around in circles though. Without a more definitive measure in the rule book it's going to be a matter of interpretation, and I'm happy to disagree on how we interpret the intent in both actions if that's all the decision comes down to.
     
  5. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    You're over complicating what is a "KISS" moment. There is nothing in the rules that says it's ok in some circumstances to approach the receiver - it is ALWAYS a foul (though of course you don't always penalise it). Similarly, what the striker is doing is also irrelevant, remember, the rule says the other player cannot approach within 5m until the ball is controlled and on the ground so regardless of whether the striker is controlling it or shooting in the air, the keeper MUST NOT APPROACH.

    A keeper trying to stop the ball going in the goal by narrowing the angle to shoot is no different from a keeper approaching to stop the attacker controlling it in terms of the rules - the GK is intentionally approaching the attacker to gain an advantage. It cannot be a PC in the situation where the player can play the ball because the PS rule is absolute - an intentional foul against a player with the opportunity to play the ball.

    That's not the rule, that's your own personal interpretation, it is not supported in the rules. The keeper has approached to gain an advantage (by narrowing the angles / making it harder to score) - an intentional act. If you feel the ball could not be played or the GK didn't affect the player, then there is no foul so why are you giving a PC? Smacks of gotcha umpiring - you technically fouled, there was no effect but I'm going to give a massive team penalty anyway

    It isn't. There are the rules of hockey, and your interpretation.

    The attacker cannot be approached within 5m
    The GK is intentionally moving into the 5m to gain an advantage
    It's a PS
     
  6. Cookie

    Cookie FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    139
    On the Arial - I can see that it could be a PS. However - I don't often see a PC called when a defender commits the same offence inside the 23. In actual fact on the FIH video channel on Dartfish, there is an example of such an offence being committed by a defender in an international NZ v NED ladies game - in the 23 and the umpire blows for FHA and not a PC (I don't know how to put a link up but its titled "Arials13 with free hit self pass" of the videos) . That would be an indicator to me that a PC would be enough rather than a PS but agree that technically in the rules a PS can be justified.
     
  7. F1-mania

    F1-mania FHF Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    181
    The keeper must allow the player to receive the ball, and he must allow the player to receive the ball in any fashion that he wishes (be that a first time hit or otherwise). The keeper encroaching does give the keeper an advantage in saving the ball, but there's no rule against this (specifically). Additionally, gaining an advantage does not matter if the opposition has not been disadvantaged. If the only disadvantage incurred from the encroachment for the forward is that scoring is now more difficult, which is not an illegal action for the goalkeeper to make, and the encroachment hasn't disadvantaged the actual playing of the ball by the forward, then it would simply be play on, correct?

    I just struggle with this - an intentional offence is an act committed with the purpose of it being against the rules. Clearly it is not an act that that is performed deliberately that happens to break the rules, or any stick tackle in the circle is a PS which I think we agree is incorrect. It is a reasonable assumption to make that when faced with a first time shot a goalkeeper is going to do everything in their power to save that shot, clearly making the intention of any action in this case a perfectly legal save rather than the intention being to encroach and break the rules. The goalkeeper is intending to do one action, and as a consequence breaking the rules, rather than intentionally disadvantaging the forward by breaking the rules. Thus it is an unintentional offence, and if the action is not considered intentional and is then deemed to disadvantage the forward the result is PC. You may deem the very fact the goalkeeper has encroached as a signal for their intent to break the rules, I do not, hence why our definitions may not meet. At no point do the rules actually define what they mean by intent. We can argue what is meant by intent all day, but as soon as we deem the intent of the goalkeeper to be doing something other than breaking the rules (in this case, I consider it to be making a save), then we can agree in such a circumstance the result would be PC.

    The reason I believe the situation where a player controls the ball is different, is because I don't think a keeper can be considered trying to save the ball in that situation. Thus any encroachment is with an intent to interfere with playing the ball and intentionally breaking the rules. If he disadvantages, it is now an intentional offence, and the result the aforementioned PS.
     
  8. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    You have to have different scenarios and different penalties given that you can't score outside the D so the penalty has to be more severe.

    That video is a bit different though I appreciate the scenario looks similar, defender barely approaches, player is only just inside 23m zone and plenty of defenders around vs a striker in space in the D ready to have a shot
     
  9. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    Yes there is
    The keeper has no right to approach the attacker for ANY reason

    Correct but we're talking about a situation where the striker could play the ball, a little bit different to the original scenario where the ball could not be played so yes in the scenario the OP presented, there is no disadvantage so no foul as the attacker couldn't reach to play the ball let alone control it

    Refer you to 9.10 - it IS a foul to approach

    The keeper intends to approach to narrow the angle, the action and intent is to approach and gain an advantage which breaks the rule, even if they were not intending to break 9.10, their action is the same result i.e. an intentional breach of the rules
     
  10. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    245
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    To call it deliberate (and therefore a PC in the 23, or a PS in the circle)
    1. The attacker needs to be clearly receiving the ball (and that means, the defender needs to know that he is clearly receiving it),
    2. The defender needs to know that he is initially outside the 5m, and
    3. The defender needs to deliberately run in
    It's not uncommon to see this outside the circle with a defender running in to an attacker receiving the ball in space. It is a lot less common in the circle, where it is usually a lot more crowded and therefore more difficult to judge both the initial receiver and the distances involved.

    In terms of the OP, I would argue that a ball that's well over a player's head (to the point of having to reach out at full stretch) doesn't make that player clearly the receiver. If they are able to play it in a controlled way (not just get an edge on it) then I would treat them as the receiver, but probably would only give a PC. If they don't get a touch, I'd call it play on and no foul. The point of the rule is purely around danger, and there's clearly no danger in that situation.
     
    Folmer and Ravennghorde like this.
  11. F1-mania

    F1-mania FHF Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ok, I see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation, but understand it.

    The only thing I'd ask is does the goalkeeper gaining an advantage equate to an illegal disadvantage to the attacker (hear me out)? The attacker can play the ball anywhere within a 360 degree angle of where they are standing. A goalkeeper narrowing the angle does not limit the legal options which a forward has at their disposal. Do we apply disadvantage based on reduced outcome or based on reduced opportunity? In the first instance, it may not have hit the goalkeeper had they stayed back and could have gone in, so PS, while in the second you still have the option of playing it in whichever way you wanted to, but decided to put it at the goalkeeper. I simply ask because in the former case this makes any encroachment a PS, whether there is a shot or not and the reward for an attempted action has been decreased through the illegal action and is thus a penalty, while the latter gives scope for saying "you've had your advantage from the open shot, you just didn't use it, play on". I'm just interested because I can't currently think of any other offence where there's potential for penalising on reduced outcome due to a mistake, other offences inherently limited one of the possibilities a player has at their disposal.

    The latter makes more sense to me, but it would also make the encroachment rule redundant as I could technically encroach to within meter away on not have an influence on the play and not cause disadvantage, but I would inherently be breaking the rules through doing so... God, I'm glad I don't umpire a reasonable level.
     
  12. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    Sorry, I am completely puzzled as to why one might think that the attacker's intention (to score) is not disadvantaged by a goalkeeper's approaching and 'narrowing the angle'. and if that approach is in contravention of the rules, then, IMO, one of the conditions for awarding a PS is met.
    The fact that the attacker may have other options than shooting is quite irrelevant ... no attacker worth his/her salt wants to do anything but put the ball in the net. OK, if his/her path to goal is (legally) blocked by the keeper, and (s)he can pass to a better-placed attacker, then that is, probably, a better option. But, if, by the keeper's foul, (s)he is forced to consider this option, it has, IMO, to be a PS.
     
  13. Diligent

    Diligent FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,288
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Hampshire (South Coast of England)
    Hmmm... to my thinking this argument is too much the football concept of 'denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity' (Law 12).

    In hockey 12.4 is either a prevents a probable goal, or .b intentional offence against opponent with possession or opportunity for possession. Can't have a bit of both.
    To me, 'probable goal' is for when the offence stops/deflects the ball on its way in, and 'intentional offence' is to be judged against possession, regardless of goal-scoring chances.
    To me, the ball wasn't touched in the circle, so 'probable goal' is out. The offence is approaching the receiver, the disadvantage is the distraction causing the miss, and the remaining judgement is: was it intentional enough for a PS, or do we leave it as PC? And if PS, is it enough for a card - probably not, unless the approach carries through to actual contact. That'd be a yellow.
     
    #93 Diligent, Feb 15, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
  14. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    245
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    @F1-mania I think you're overthinking the situation. The potential PS in the situation is because of an intentional foul in the D against a player with possession or the opportunity for possession. Nothing to do with goal-scoring possibilities at all. If it's a foul by the keeper and it's intentional (IMO, as per my definition above), then it's a PS.
     
  15. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    Yes indeed, in the OP scenario as the attacker wouldn't play the ball so play on

    I would disagree that the point of the rule is purely around danger. Why did they write the rule to specifically say you need to allow them 5m to get the ball down onto the ground and under control if it was just about danger? That to me says the point of the rule is both on danger and to allow the player to receive the ball. If it was purely on danger, why do you need 5m AND to have it under control on the ground? You only need 2m to be out of stick range and for danger purposes, as soon as the ball is on the ground (not under control) it's ok. That's why to me, a deliberate act of moving into the player who can otherwise control the ball and shoot is a PS (again in a slightly different scenario to OP)
     
  16. Ravennghorde

    Ravennghorde FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Southern England
    If it’s not about danger why should the receiver have the privileges of an FH, that is 5 metres clearance from opposition?
     
  17. Bondy

    Bondy FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    245
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    There has to be some arbitrary end-point where we say "OK the aerial is over, it's now safe to play normal hockey again" - and the rules say that happens when the ball is on the ground and under control. That is why at high levels, there is an increasingly liberal definition of what constitutes "under control" - because it's recognised that once the ball is in a position where a contest will be safe, the receiver neither requires nor deserves any protection outside the normal rules. I don't think the rule as written is perfect (especially given that it was written before you could play the ball over the shoulder), but I think that the interpretation that has developed over the last few years meets the spirit of the rule without unduly impacting the flow of the game. (and yes, I realise this is a bit of a high-level elitist approach, and it might be different in the lower leagues)

    Whether he can shoot or not is utterly irrelevant. If you are convinced that the foul is intentional, all the receiver needs is the opportunity for possession.
     
    SPetitt likes this.
  18. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    None of that says why the rule is purely about danger as you said, the rule has to be for all levels of hockey and giving them 5m to control without pressure or being tackled is as important as safety.

    No it isn't - as the ball can be played about head height, the striker can shoot with the ball in the air so it doesn't need to be under control - I should have said "and/or shoot" to make it clearer
     
  19. Gingerbread

    Gingerbread FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    608
    I'm not saying it's not about danger, I'm saying the purpose of the rule is not just for danger/safety, there are 2 elements - allowing them to control the ball and making sure they can do it in a safe manner. If it was just about danger then allowing the GK to approach and pressure doesn't really matter so long as he doesn't have his stick high up (which would be dangerous to the striker)
     
  20. SPetitt

    SPetitt FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire & Costa del Sol
    I agree, and didn't mean to suggest in my last post that you can have 'a bit of both'. The only reason for mentioning 'scoring opportunity/possibility'(if I did) was to illustrate that a 'keeper approaching and 'narrowing the angles' is in practically every case going to be disadvantaging the attacker.

    As for why the receiver is allowed 5m of space to get it down safely, I'd say that it is exactly, as I believe @Bondy says, to avoid a defender charging in dangerously, while the ball is still off the ground.... why else would one make this somewhat arbitrary stipulation?
    And that's why, I assume, that, at the higher levels, we are told this is dealt with in a more relaxed/flexible manner ... because it is less likely to lead to danger.

    (The 5m which one is allowed at FHs is less about player safety and more about allowing the offended-against team to take a more full advantage of the penalty they have been awarded. )
     

Share This Page