Blog/Opinions
Obstruction is the illegal prevention of a tackle attempt.
Shielding the ball, with the body or stick, to prevent a tackle attempt and/or moving bodily into an opponent while in possession of the ball are both clearly specified within the Obstruction Rule as illegal actions (actions that are contrary to the Rule) but you wouldn't learn that from watching a hockey match.
Nor this :- Playing the ball with any part of the body is an offence, but 'playing' (to play) the ball with the body must be a voluntary action for there to be offence.
Ball body contact is not an offence unless done voluntarily, that is, there was a choice about whether or not to make body contact with the ball or to allow the ball to hit the body, i.e. the player concerned willingly and knowingly chose to actively make or (inactively) to allow a ball-body contact.
Whether or not the team of a player who has made an unintentional ball body contact (has been hit with the ball) gain an advantage or (the same thing) have disadvantaged their opponents, because of such a contact is absolutely irrelevant in the matter of offence, such advantage does not create an offence where otherwise none would exist.
The 'gains benefit' EXCEPTION to "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." was deleted from the Rules of Hockey after 2006 and has not been replaced, so there is currently no exception to that rule statement
An accidental or forced ball-body contact can never be an offence. Those are the Rules: now here is a recent example of the application of these Rules.
There is an obvious disconnect between the meanings of words given in the Rules of Hockey and the interpretation of the actions of players in the above match.
Link to article on web-blog
Practice
Copyright © 2002-
UmpireHockey.com
Top of Page
| 
