Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Officiating Advisory Group formed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Officiating Advisory Group formed

    Hockey Australia, in consultation with the recently expired Officiating (Men & Women) Appointment Panels, have formed the new Officiating Advisory Group (OAG).

    Read more

    Click image for larger version

Name:	mdy0dsj2idzjpqvi.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	128.5 KB
ID:	189

  • #2
    When such umpire appointment groups are composed of members who hold strong and often distinctive views on how the Rules of the game should be applied, and they usually do, and they communicate these views to the umpires they appoint - as they invariably will - then such views become the de facto 'rules', and there is apparently nothing the FIH Rules Committee can do to prevent this from happening. Umpires will of course take careful note of the opinions of the people who appoint them and rather less notice of the Rules published by the FIH RC where there is conflict between the two.

    One of the earlier examples of this I came across was the appearance of edge hitting as practiced by the Argentinian team when I was coaching in Cuba in the mid 1990's. When after a friendly training game between the two countries I pointed out to the Argentinian players that the stroke was illegal (which it was at the time) they just grinned and said "Not in our country".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Conundrum View Post
      When such umpire appointment groups are composed of members who hold strong and often distinctive views on how the Rules of the game should be applied, and they usually do, and they communicate these views to the umpires they appoint - as they invariably will - then such views become the de facto 'rules', and there is apparently nothing the FIH Rules Committee can do to prevent this from happening. Umpires will of course take careful note of the opinions of the people who appoint them and rather less notice of the Rules published by the FIH RC where there is conflict between the two.

      One of the earlier examples of this I came across was the appearance of edge hitting as practiced by the Argentinian team when I was coaching in Cuba in the mid 1990's. When after a friendly training game between the two countries I pointed out to the Argentinian players that the stroke was illegal (which it was at the time) they just grinned and said "Not in our country".
      Why so negative? The OAG is an internal group of Hockey Australia to develop and promote their umpires.
      • Yes, I read your post that their umpires may make calls differently at international events but that's not unique to top countries
      • We have umpire managers at events to brief umpires and ensure, as best as they can, to ensure consistency in calls.
      • Yes, I know that there will be some inconsistent calls but they are trying! This is not unique to field hockey. It happens in a lot of sports where judgement is part of officiating. Examples: football (soccer), ice hockey, gymnastics

      Comment


      • Conundrum
        Conundrum
        FHF Starter
        Conundrum commented
        Editing a comment
        Why am I negative? Because of long experience of the way things are - and will remain.

        I have been writing about change to the Rules of Hockey for over thirty years, including directly with the former HRB before the advent of internet hockey fora, I am still seeking the same changes I was seeking thirty years ago and if anything they are further away than they were in 1990. The same three subject areas, ball body contact, dangerously played ball, obstruction. The same faults persist in each but now to an even great degree than previously. The Forcing Rule has been deleted while leaving the offence in place (so it is ignored), playing the ball at above shoulder height has been facilitated with no tangible safeguards, and many seem to think that the obstruction Rule was 'dismantled' long ago and no longer applies. I am more than negative I have become depressed.

        Each change seems more idiotic than the last. The changes announced to Rule 9.10 for 2022 are a case in point. A situation has been created in which umpires will need to be aware of the position of the ball so they can judge when it is 20m from potentially competing players; when previously umpires could focus on what they should be focused on once the ball was in the air - the relative positions of players when the ball was raised and the movement of players in the area of a potential intended receiver.

        Will the changes make aerial passes safer? No absolutely not. Will they make umpiring easier - again no . The sole purpose of them seems to be to make the game 'exciting' i.e. more dangerous to players and more difficult for umpires to deal with. The video put out to illustrate a safe interception even shows one which is clearly an offence by the intercepting player. according to the criteria issued in the changes - this is reminiscent of the coaching videos produced for Dartfish.com which bend over backward in the provided explanation of the action to justify the obviously incorrect umpiring seen in many examples.

    Related Topics

    Collapse

    Working...
    X