Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FIH 2022 Rules of Hockey - Discussion Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FIH 2022 Rules of Hockey - Discussion Thread

    2022 Rule of Hockey from the FIH - Effective January 2022
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Again I am disappointed that the FIH Rules Committee have let go a chance to amend Rules that badly need amendment as if 'every thing in the garden' is wonderful. We still do not have a set of adequate dangerously played ball Rules or one comprehensive Rule covering the topic. The Obstruction Rule is still not clearly about the illegal prevention of a tackle attempt, with an onus on a player in possession of the ball not to breach it. There is still no additional instruction to umpires not to penalise for ball body contact (as they do) if the criteria for offence are not clearly and obviously met and the Forcing Rule has not been restored despite the offence of Forcing being very very poorly applied (not applied at all) under other Rules, as it was supposed to be after 2011.

    and then we have this.

    9.10 Players must not approach within 5metres of an
    opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been
    received, controlled and is on the ground.

    The ball may
    be intercepted within 5 metres but outside of playing
    distance provided it is done safely.

    Which adds more confusion to an already confusing Rule. The previous version had a built in assumption (which is still present) that players instructed not to approach to within 5m of an opposition receiver were at the time the pass was made beyond 5m of that receiver. There is no mention of opposing players being permitted within 5m of a receiver but the additional instruction cannot be acted upon unless there are opposing players within 5m of the intended receiver.

    Part of previous Falling ball Rule vandalism was the removal of the offence of playing an aerial ball to fall between two or more opposing players who were at the time the ball was raised within 5m of each other. Previously this was treated (as it should be) as an offence by the player who made the flick or scoop pass and penalty was awarded at the point the ball was lifted. Presumably we will continue with the nonsense of all penalties (when there is a penalised encroaching or other offence) being awarded at the place the ball was landing.

    The amendment added to the Rule will, inevitably, erode the Rule. This always happens when some additional action is permitted "provided it done safely"; done safely being a personal opinion which will vary greatly from one individual to another and will be pretty much ignored at the top levels of the game. Of course if an international level player gets wacked about the head with a hockey stick it will not injure that player at all, only lower level players get injured. Craig Parnham will confirm that fact.

    In 2001
    Parnham was struck in the throat by a stick during a match against Pakistan in a tournament in Malaysia, a blow which destroyed his larynx and stopped him from breathing.
    He life was not lost only because a doctor on the side of the pitch realised what had happened and performed an emergency tracheotomy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Conundrum
      FHF Starter
      Conundrum , that is where the umpire briefing becomes useful. It clears up most ambiguity, and if you’re an experienced/competent umpire you should be able to use common sense and apply principles to determine whether it’ll be legal or not.

      Comment


      • #4
        I regard the UMB as a divisive instrument. It is NOT the Rules of Hockey and has not the authority of Rule, yet it is given preference by many umpire coaches and umpires, over what the Rules of Hockey actually are.
        To mention but two examples, both from Rule 9.9 and Explanation. "Forget lifted - think danger" and " A ball below half-shin-pad height is not dangerous" both far too simplistic 'memes' which contain respectively partial or complete contradiction of what is given in Rule 9.9.

        In 2002 in the Preface of the Rules of Hockey , it was announced that the upcoming revision of the rule-book (which took place in 2004) would contain all the Rule information that umpires and players would need and that no further documentation would be necessary. What in fact happened was that the rule-book then produced was reduced to a skeleton - even technical specifications for that year were published in a separate booklet - but the UMB, which was supposed to have been discontinued (and still should be) was greatly expanded. Now it is even more expanded to include video links (which are no better than the disastrous umpire coaching videos which were published by the FIH Umpiring Committee via Dartfish.com - which have now, thankfully, been taken down).

        We have for many years had individuals from two FIH Committees (Umpires and Rules) going 'hammer and tongs' at each other over Rule interpretation and application, and never the twain will meet. We even have umpire coaches who disdain both of these FIH Committees (as political appointees) and take a third independent path of their own.

        Why on earth can't there be ONE document containing all the Rules of Hockey and guidance for application, along with the Tournament Regulations that players and umpires need to know e.g. Video Referral Regs? A rule book the size if a bible? Nonsense.

        Why are the drafting and approval of the Rules (FIH Rules Committee together with the FIH Executive) and the application of the Rules (FIH Umpiring Committee) deal with by separate bodies (with an FIH Competitions Committee in the background in charge of Tournament Regulations) ? It is a recipe for exactly the kind of mess that we have.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KinlochH_ View Post
          Conundrum
          FHF Starter
          Conundrum , that is where the umpire briefing becomes useful. It clears up most ambiguity, and if you’re an experienced/competent umpire you should be able to use common sense and apply principles to determine whether it’ll be legal or not.
          I agree but it is not easy to find the umpire briefings. I looked under Official Document->FIH Umpires & Umpire Managers and could not find them. I even looked under Event Resources

          This is something that should accompany the rule book.

          Comment


          • Conundrum
            Conundrum
            FHF Starter
            Conundrum commented
            Editing a comment
            As I wrote previously that was the stated intention, set out in the Preface of the Rules of Hockey in 2002 - the rule-book was going to be, after 2004, a complete and comprehensive Rules document such that other documents (like the UMB and relevant parts of Tournaments Regulations) would not be be needed for a full understanding of the Rules of Hockey.

            The FIH Umpiring Committee appear to have got in the way of that aim; I suppose because they wanted senior umpires to be able to 'interpret' Rule in their own way, i.e. inform the FIH Committees and the FIH Executive who respectively wrote and approved the Rules for publication, how the Rules were going to be applied. That was never going to be acceptable to the FIH Rules Committee or the FIH Executive because the personal opinion of individual umpires, while umpiring, is not a transparent and accountable or satisfactory way of devising Rule. How a Rule should be applied has to be set out in the provided Explanations.

            Eventually the umpires may get together and put their Rules ideas in writing and submit them to the FIH Rules Committee for consideration, but there is no sign of that happening anytime soon.

            The irrationality of the present set up was illustrated for me by the content of a video which featured the Australian Umpire Manager, Umpire Coach , Jan Hadfield conducting an umpire coaching seminar. During the course of it she advised umpires to throw their rule-books away, stating it was not the Rules which were important but the interpretation. That statement of course begs the question "The interpretation of what?" Actions which are nowhere described in writing as being either legal or illegal because the document which contained them has been withdrawn or destroyed?

            The 2022 UMB can be found here:-

            http://www.fih.ch/inside-fih/our-off...pire-managers/.

            It is the last link given at the bottom of the page. It is I think a Power Point presentation so that app is needed to see all of it i.e. the videos and slides.that are included.
            Conundrum
            FHF Starter
            Last edited by Conundrum; Yesterday, 02:47 AM.

        Related Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X