Dangerously raised shot at goal

[PartTimeUmp]

So.... Can a shot at goal ever be considered dangerously lifted?

[fieldhockeyforum]

I'm no umpire, but having played in defence for all my life, my answer has to be yes! I would say if the defender has to take serious evasive action to avoid being hit by the ball, it could be considered dangerous.

Although, having said that, I've experienced many occasions where the umpire ruled against this

[Cozzie]

I had an umpire explain it to me, they said that as long as the player is over 5 meters away and the ball is going towards goal a lifted shot it legal if the player is within 5 meters and a shot is lifted dangerously at a player it is a foul even if it going at goal.

[Nerd_is_the_word]

Lol how did I know this would be the first post in the umpires area.

Yes it can be, what is dangerous will, of course, depend on the level that you are umpiring.

[Matt Dench]

I've cut and pasted the relevant rules below. Bits in bold type are the parts I think are most relevant:

98 Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way
which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is also considered dangerous when it
causes legitimate evasive action by opponents.

99 Players must not intentionally raise the ball from a hit
except for a shot at goal.
A raised hit must be judged explicitly on whether or not it is raised intentionally. It is not an offence
to raise the ball unintentionally from a hit,
including a free hit, anywhere on the field unless
it is dangerous. If the ball is raised over an
opponent’s stick or body on the ground, even
within the circle, it is permitted unless judged to
be dangerous.
Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick
or scoop provided it is not dangerous. A flick or
scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is
considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly
running into the shot or into the attacker without
attempting to play the ball with their stick, they
should be penalised for dangerous play

I think there is a lot of room for interpretation, especially on raised hits. It would be good to have more guidence to get more consistency. I flicked a ball into the goal at the weekend. Defender was on the line less than 5 metres away. Didn't have to move to get out of he way but the flick was 'towards an opponant' so could have been disallowed? Shouldn't be in my view but legitimately could have been? Rules seem very subjective on raised hits. Do we only disallow when evasive action is required? Is it different say from a 16 yrd hit out to when there's a shot? Not according to the rules but in practice i think most umpires will give a free hit when a hit out goes somewhere near a player but only of evasive action is required from a shot. I do think the rules could be clearer personally to help umpires be consistent. I'm sure this has been looked at in depth elsewhere but it's new to me! Sorry if this is all old ground for wiser and more experienced umpires!

[Conundrum]

Matt. Strange as it may seem (and it is) Rules 8 and 9 do not contain the answer to the question asked, but when they are combined with Rule 13.3.l (first hit shot) and 13.3.m (all other stroke shots and any subsequent hit shots) a sensible answer may be arrived at. (Note, a first shot which is a drag-flick is included in 13.3.m)

The idea that a ball can only be considered to have been dangerously propelled when it is raised at a player within 5m is incorrect and that should be obvious because there is no distance limitation on legitimate evasive action - which is as it should be.

The idea that a shot at goal cannot be considered dangerous play is incorrect by deduction. Rule 13.3.m states:-

for second and subsequent hits at the goal and for flicks, deflections and scoops, it is permitted to raise the ball to any height but this must not be dangerous.

I am supposing that the FIH Rules Committee would not have warned that a shot must not be made in a dangerous way if it was not possible to make a dangerous shot at the goal.

The dangerously played ball Rules could of course be written in a much clearer way and they could (and should) contain more objective height criteria for 'dangerous' than the limit on the first hit shot made towards an out-runner during - which is in any case, I was informed by Roger Webb some years ago, not about dangerous play but about the conditions to be met for a Rule compliant shot at the goal i.e. a shot that could be scored from.

Clearly a high first hit shot is said to be not Rule compliant because a hit raised at that range into an opponent is likely to be dangerous - and there is supposed to be an emphasis on safety (ha ha), but then there is no such height limit on any subsequently hit shot.

Raised shots are seldom penalised as dangerous despite what is given in Rule 9.9, (which does not mention hit shots even though Rule 9,9 is a Rule about the intentionally raised hit) when they are made in open play or as a subsequent shot even when propelled at opponents within 5m.

We often see a raised ball that is propelled towards an opponent above knee height in the areas outside the opponent's circle penalised as dangerous play, but not when the ball is raised to below knee height (in that case it is usual for the player hit with the ball to be penalised). This is obviously an aberration of a Rule which is supposed to be applied only during a penalty corner and then only when a first hit shot is raised towards an out-running defender. In other circumstance the text from Rule 9.9 applies (no minimum height for danger if the ball is raised at all - but then again no mention of raised hits either - which is absurd.)

The dangerously played ball Rules are a mess, and umpires, as we so often see, apply them in a seemingly haphazard way based on personal opinion (or do what they have been told to do). The umpires in the Netherlands for example have been instructed by their ruling body that legitimate evasive action does not apply to defenders defending the goal during a penalty corner !!! That is an illegal instruction, but the FIH although they have been made aware of this situation (in 2018) have yet to instruct the RNHB to withdraw it.

Nobody really gives a toss about the dangerously played ball as long as they are not the ones defending against them or the one hit with the ball. Even players who have been injured with a raised ball don't pay much attention when other players suffer the same misfortune, even when the ball is raised at them intentionally or recklessly or carelessly. Why do I say that? Because we have been talking about this subject for more than thirty years, but the most recent important change has been to allow attackers to shoot at the goal on the fly from above shoulder height - often from above head height, and also because there are still idiots about who insist that a shot made at the goal cannot be considered to be dangerous play. For an example watch the Umpire Briefing Video produced for the Rio Olympics in 2016. Quote "....of course a defender on the goal-line cannot expect the protection of the Rules..." So what are the Rules for?

[gapiro]

Nearly always YHTBT

For me : Did the defender have a chance of being safe. That's the question.

Factors:

Height, Speed and distance of shot - Higher shots are more dangerous. Faster shots are more dangerous. Closer shots are more dangerous.

Defender's positioning/awareness - are they ready for a shot, are they on the ground or facing another direction having taken evasive action. Danger level varies based on this. Are they in the goal expecting a shot. Did they put their body intentionally in the way ? Did they attempt to play the ball? Did they try and use their body like a goalie / just making themselves big in the goal.

Attackers choice - did they aim to go high at a defender when there is an equally reasonable low shot? Has the attacker done several raised hits before?

[Conundrum]

You write. Height, Speed and distance of shot - Higher shots are more dangerous. Faster shots are more dangerous. Closer shots are more dangerous.

But these things are not generally considered together and often, individually, not at all.

The Explanation of Application given with Rule 9.9, which is all we have by way of objective criteria (causes legitimate evasive action. the mainstay of Rule 9.8. is entirely subjective, in fact one subjective judgement which depends on another subjective judgement). And all we are given in Rule 9.9. are three criteria 1) "raised towards" 2) "with a flick or a scoop" and 3) "within 5m". Umpires have generally sensibly added the raised hit from within 5m, but not consistently and are able to defend this inconsistency by pointing out that Rule 9.9 does not mention a raised hit as being dangerous play or even possibly so. (How did that happen?)

There are a number of things which you mention as considerations for dangerous play if the defender does them. Aside from intentional use of the body to stop or deflect the ball, I can't see the relevance of any of them to action taken by the player propelling the ball. Does the player propelling the ball take notice of them? The fact that a defender is expecting a shot to be made and is prepared to defend against it cannot be considered reason to allow the ball to be lifted high at him without penalty, if he tries but fails to evade the ball or if he has no time to evade and is simply hit with a raised ball.

"Acceptance of risk" is often trotted out as a reason not to afford defenders the protection of the Rules but it is nonsense to do this. Endangering an opponent (putting him at risk of injury) by propelling the ball at him should be a dangerous play offence - period. No player in any sport is obliged to accept as a risk behaviour by opponents which is contrary to the Rules of the game being played. Our problem is that in hockey we have no clear cut dangerously played ball Rule when a defender is more than 5m from the ball being propelled - in fact it might be said that in those circumstances we have no Rule at all we have only individual opinion.

I dislike the meme YHTBT because it is untrue. One does not need to see an action to be aware of the Rules which generally apply to these sorts of actions (by either shooter or defender). 5m is a fixed distance and in considering a scenario in which we are told that a defender was well within 5m of the ball we do not have to be on the pitch to know what decision should be made in such circumstances. YHTBT is in fact a declaration that dangerous play is an entirely subjective decision - that may be true, but it should not be. Unfortunately the knee height criterion is often incorrectly 'imported' into Rule 9.9 and that objective criterion misused - and Rule 9.9 ignored - if the ball is raised to below knee height into a close defender. The FIH Umpiring Committee even conspire to contradict the Rule written by the FIH Rules Committee, by stating in the UMB the contradiction that "a ball below half-shin pad height is not considered to be dangerous". Forcing offences (which since 2011 are supposed to be dealt with under other Rules, e.g dangerous play) are therefore often ignored and a free ball given against the player hit with the ball. Only in hockey do we interpret or invent Rule and arrive at a result which is the opposite of the intention of the Committee who originally drafted the Rule.

[gapiro]

Conundrum you mention criteria for other things here - the criteria you have mentioned are dealing with raised (or aerials) on the outfield.

You've mentioned endangering someone by propelling a ball at them - if the defender is the one endangering themselves then that needs to penalised too - you seem to forget this goes both ways.
A player should reasonably be expected to be allowed a shot at goal. It is also reasonable to expect a defender to try and stop it.?
If a defender is making no attempt to play the ball, which is covered in the guidance on 9.9, they should be penalised - standing in the way denying a shot because the attacker will be blown for danger is exactly that.

As for a defender expecting a shot to be made or not is important. One factor doesn't solve all and unless have comprehensive video of an event, YHTBT is legitimate, because the actions and positioning is almost impossible to describe in most circumstances in text - the difference of 4-6 inches makes a huge difference in the world and is not liekly to be conveyed effectively in text.

[Conundrum]

Gapiro I am talking about ALL dangerously played balls. The Rules of Hockey make no distinction whatsoever between a ball raised as a shot at goal in open play and one raised towards an opponent who is outside his own circle - which is as it should be. Why should there be a difference? (That the first hit shot during a penalty corner is subject to a height restriction should not lead to fuzzy thinking about any raising of the ball in a dangerous way. In fact 13.3.m, as I pointed out in my previous post, prohibits the making of a shot at the goal in a dangerous way with any stroke, it first having been stated in 13.3.l that a first hit shot is height limited).

The idea that a defender legitimately defending the goal by positioning between a shooter and the goal is somehow causing danger is a nonsense for two reasons 1) There is no other position from which a defender can reasonably defend the goal from a shot. 2) Danger to an opponent that the ball has been raised towards is ALWAYS caused by the player who chooses to raise the ball. The defender cannot know in which direction exactly the ball with be propelled or at what height - at best he can make a guess and anticipate, but he has no control at all over what the opposing shooter does.

As for your mention of 4-6 inches making a difference, I can agree with that only in part. I think that if the ball is raised towards a defending player at head height and will pass by his head within the point of his shoulder and the side of his head then any evasive action should be considered legitimate (there will invariably be a reflex move away from the path of the ball in these circumstances) but other than that situation, if the ball is wide of the defender's position, evasive action is unnecessary and therefore not legitimate evasion because there is no possibility of injury caused by the ball. But that observation is just a personal opinion it is not any part of Rules 9.8 or 9.9. I have seen others claim that a ball passing within 6" of an opponent's body should be considered at that opponent - I disagree.

I also believe that legitimate evasive action can be taken before the ball is actually struck. I have video examples of players within 5m of the ball moving sharply to get out of the path of a ball raised with a reverse edge hit which would certainly have hit them if they had waited for the ball to be hit before moving out of the expected path of it.

When a player is described as having taken legitimate evasive action I assume from that that he moved to avoid being hit with the ball and I don't need to be on the pitch to understand that description.

[Nerd_is_the_word]

Gapiro I am talking about ALL dangerously played balls. The Rules of Hockey make no distinction whatsoever between a ball raised as a shot at goal in open play and one raised towards an opponent who is outside his own circle - which is as it should be. Why should there be a difference? (That the first hit shot during a penalty corner is subject to a height restriction should not lead to fuzzy thinking about any raising of the ball in a dangerous way. In fact 13.3.m, as I pointed out in my previous post, prohibits the making of a shot at the goal in a dangerous way with any stroke, it first having been stated in 13.3.l that a first hit shot is height limited).

The idea that a defender legitimately defending the goal by positioning between a shooter and the goal is somehow causing danger is a nonsense for two reasons 1) There is no other position from which a defender can reasonably defend the goal from a shot. 2) Danger to an opponent that the ball has been raised towards is ALWAYS caused by the player who chooses to raise the ball. The defender cannot know in which direction exactly the ball with be propelled or at what height - at best he can make a guess and anticipate, but he has no control at all over what the opposing shooter does.

As for your mention of 4-6 inches making a difference, I can agree with that only in part. I think that if the ball is raised towards a defending player at head height and will pass by his head within the point of his shoulder and the side of his head then any evasive action should be considered legitimate (there will invariably be a reflex move away from the path of the ball in these circumstances) but other than that situation, if the ball is wide of the defender's position, evasive action is unnecessary and therefore not legitimate evasion because there is no possibility of injury caused by the ball. But that observation is just a personal opinion it is not any part of Rules 9.8 or 9.9. I have seen others claim that a ball passing within 6" of an opponent's body should be considered at that opponent - I disagree.

I also believe that legitimate evasive action can be taken before the ball is actually struck. I have video examples of players within 5m of the ball moving sharply to get out of the path of a ball raised with a reverse edge hit which would certainly have hit them if they had waited for the ball to be hit before moving out of the expected path of it.

When a player is described as having taken legitimate evasive action I assume from that that he moved to avoid being hit with the ball and I don't need to be on the pitch to understand that description.

Ohhh wow... so much wrong... so little space..

If a player evades a ball that was not going to hit them then it wasnt evasive action.

The fact that a defender can expect danger when standing in the goal is the exact reason that the word legitimate appears in the rulebook, because it is possible for a defender to take evasive actionthat is not legitimate.

Legitimate evaise action cant be taken before the ball is struck, or else your entire argumentabout not knowing where the ball is going is invalid.

[Conundrum]

Ohhh wow... so much wrong... so little space..

If a player evades a ball that was not going to hit them then it wasn't evasive action.

Which is exactly what I said - but I added a reasonable rider about a shot close to the side of a defender's head while acknowledging that this is not Rule compliant - I'll say it was a suggestion that could be included by the FIH RC at some future date (tomorrow morning) for safety reasons. An example https://youtu.be/UwBzyCAUi2E

The fact that a defender can expect danger when standing in the goal is the exact reason that the word legitimate appears in the rulebook, because it is possible for a defender to take evasive action that is not legitimate.

Yes. So what ?

Legitimate evaise action cant be taken before the ball is struck, or else your entire argument about not knowing where the ball is going is invalid.

I have a good example video of exactly this scenario happening in a match but I can't find it at the moment because I cannot remember what title I used for it. If I come across it I will put it up. But this one is close to it. I am not sure if evasion is before or after the ball is hit but the umpire - bewilderingly - awarded a goal.

I of course disagree with your conclusion about my "entire argument". A defender can never know with complete certainty the direction or height of any ball that is about to be propelled in the general direction of the goal (which is 3.66m wide and 2.14m high). When two defenders are positioned next to the goal-posts inside the goal which of them can be said to be causing any danger? The one the attacker chooses to propel the ball at? That is irrational.

I have another video in which a reverse edge hit shot is evaded by a defender and a team-mate of the attacker 2m to the defenders left also takes evasive action, even though the ball was not propelled anywhere near him. Oft times a player making an edge hit executes the stroke so badly that even he is surprised by the path the ball takes - most of these mistakes result in the ball going over the cross-bar, but many also go wide of the goal. The drag flick is different however, attackers targeting the head of a post player (which happens a lot) are usually very accurate because they practice this tactic.

I don't think evasive action is a suitable criterion on which to judge a dangerously played ball (because it is a subjective judgement used to judge another subjective judgement). I would much prefer the use of objective criteria such as at an opponent about a given height (when beyond 5m I have long suggested sternum or elbow height - as you are no doubt aware because you were also a contributor to the previous FHF at the same time I was. As I recall you are a goalkeeper.)

Here is an example of what I would consider to be a dangerously played shot toward a defender. The umpire initially thinks the defender has been hit with the ball and awards a penalty stroke !! ??? Even though she clearly evades the ball - gets her head out of the path of it - in case her attempt to stop the ball with her stick is unsuccessful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfWqmTbp_X4

[Mathew]

So.... Can a shot at goal ever be considered dangerously lifted?

why would you do this. 😂