 |
| Search |
|
|
UmpireHockey.com
is published by
Cris Maloney.
|
|
Blog/Opinions
There is a confusing of terminology in the application of Rule 9.11., the ball-body contact Rule (breach of Rule or offence?) and a confusing of the deleted 'gained benefit' exception clause of Rule 9.11. with Rule 12 the Advantage Rule.
An OFFENCE that disadvantages opponents should be penalised by an umpire: this is NOT the Advantage Rule. Disadvantaging opponents is not of itself an offence and nor of itself does it make any action an offence. An accidental ball-body contact remains an unintentional contact it DOES NOT become an offence just because opponents are disadvantaged by it. There is no 'gained benefit' exception - when there is a ball-body contact but no offence there is no reason (other than injury)to stop play or to penalise.
When an offence by a player DOES NOT disadvantage opponents - opponents are able to play on with advantage - then an umpire must not penalise the offence (with a team penalty) but must allow play to continue: this is the Advantage Rule.
I have stopped being surprised at the questions asked by players and sometimes even umpires, that could be 'answered' by a few minutes reading the rule book. The questions are probably prompted by the differences observed between 'umpiring practice' and a common sense reading of the Rules. I doubt I shall ever cease to be astonished by the replies provided by those who are supposed to be knowledgeable or even expert on the interpretation and application of the Rules of Hockey. Here is one such question put recently on a hockey website.
"So let's say a player gets hit on the foot whilst controlling the ball with no one around them to take the ball off them.
The rules say, I seem to remember, that it's not necessarily a foul if the ball hits a foot.
So my question to you is - is it a foul if it hits a players foot and they don't gain much of an advantage from it, or "no one is around".
Most of the answers offered were bizarre. Why are we, as in this case (see full article on website link), continually being taken in circles about the gaining of an advantage and disadvantaging opponents?
This needs to be learned :- An offence is a breach of Rule that may be penalised by an umpire. An OFFENCE that disadvantages opponents should be penalised: this is NOT the Advantage Rule. Disadvantaging opponents is not of itself an offence and nor of itself does it make any action an offence. An accidental ball-body contact remains an unintentional contact it DOES NOT become an offence just because opponents are disadvantaged by it. There is no 'gained benefit' exception - when there is no offence there is (other than injury) no reason to stop play.
Disadvantaging opponents by for example, actions such as scoring a goal or tackling for the ball are not offences - they never have been and never will be. Hockey is a competitive game in which the aim is to win and winning disadvantages opponents.
Nor (and this has proved difficult for some to accept because it requires they change what they have become used to) is it any longer possible to 'create' an offence by reason of an unintentional breach of Rule 9.11. (a ball-body contact) that gains a benefit or an advantage for the team of a player hit with the ball.
The provided explanation of Rule application to this Rule, clearly states that such contact (even though a breach of Rule) is not an offence unless there is intent to play the ball with the body (a voluntarily made contact).
There is a problem with the terminology used in the rule book. The Rules of Hockey uses four terms 'Breaking the Rules' 'Offence' 'intentional offence' and 'unintentional offence' - where three 'Breach of Rule' (not an offence) 'Offence' and 'Intentional offence' would be sufficient - and the explanations provided do not properly differentiate between the four. Nor do these four terms provide a means of describing a breaking of a Rule where there is no offence, for example an unintentional ball-body contact, which is clearly declared within the Rule explanation NOT to be an offence - but it is contrary to Rule.
Removing the word 'intentionally' from the Rule proper - which necessitated the explanation clauses below - was clearly an error by the FIH Rules Committee as it led to the above confusion and inadequacy of terminology. And the following current explanation of Rule application:-
"It is not always an offence if the ball hits the foot, hand or body of a field-player. The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball or if they position themselves with the intention of stopping the ball in this way".
is badly expressed (and the word 'always' has been unnecessary since the deletion of the 'gains benefit' exception clause), but the context in which the word voluntarily is used is not ambiguous (at least not if the commonly used Plain English meaning is given to the word "voluntarily" – i.e. a choice of response willingly and knowingly made).
The 'creation' of an offence following an unintentional ball-body contact because an unfair advantage was gained (or, in other words, opponents were disadvantaged by a breach of Rule that was not an offence) WAS the 'gains benefit' exception clause. It WAS until Jan. 2007, an exception to this Rule explanation sentence:- "The player only commits an offence if they voluntarily use their hand, foot or body to play the ball... etc." It is an exception that has not been in a rule-book since 2006.
To use "disadvantaged opponents" as a direct replacement for the deleted 'gains benefit' exception clause that was once part of Rule 9.11. ball-body contact - which is what is now being commonly done, subverts the intent of the Rule, which is to discourage with penalty any intentional playing of the ball with the body - it is also a subversive way of trying to retain a clause which the FIH Rules Committee have deleted. That is a pernicious action because it undermines the authority of the FIH Rules Committee.
Substituting a different form of words for 'gains benefit' contradicts the currently provided Rule explanation. It is also illogical - conflicting with clear instruction within the Rule explanation - and therefore insulting to participants. Are players or umpires supposed to be silly enough not to notice the contradiction or to accept that other umpires can just change the Rule as they wish and at any time that they want to - when they have in fact (not even as International level umpires) no authority whatsoever to do so? No umpire should say "Look at the Rule, ignore the explanation of how it must be applied." The FIH Rules Committee obviously expect the Rule and the Rule explanation to be read together: there is otherwise no purpose to them providing the explanation.
The 'gains benefit exception clause' should not of course have been deleted by the FIH Rules Committee, it should have been amended so that it could no longer be used as a 'catch all' (the reason for the deletion) rather than, as originally intended, an exception. There is now a pressing need for this FIH Committee to restore a suitably modified version of 'gains unfair benefit' to Rule 9.11. to cover some specified incidents.
The direct prevention of a goal with an accidental ball-body contact following a (non-dangerous) shot at the goal is an obvious example of an unfair benefit that should be penalised. There is also a case to be made for penalising 'unfair benefit gained' when a player who is in controlled possession of the ball (not a player trying to stop the ball or just hit with the ball) makes, for example, an unintended but unfairly beneficial ball-foot contact. These are not incidents which occur frequently, an exception to the Rule adequately covers them.
There is no good case to be made (other than the direct prevention of a goal) for penalising 'gained benefit' simply because a ball has been propelled towards and hit a player, that is usually just a lack of skill by the passing or shooting player (or deliberate "looking for a foot"). At the extreme a player being hit with the ball may have been hit as a result of dangerous or reckless play by an opponent and in such cases it is the player who propelled the ball who should be penalised. That of course brings us to the dangerous shot at the goal – another supposedly "dead horse".
martinzigzag.wordpress.com
Copyright © 2002-
UmpireHockey.com
Top of Page
|
|
|
Blog/Opinions
Latest Headlines
|
|
