This article discusses in detail Rules of Hockey and FAQ with answers from the Rules Section of the FIH website [http://www.fih.ch/en/sport/rules/faq]. It looks from an analytical and evaluative perspective about the process for developing and changing the rules of hockey. The article has been written by Martin Conlon who contributes to Go Hockey News. It is good reading for those qualified umpires who have always wondered what the process for determining the Rules of Hockey are.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Rules of Hockey.
(The provided Questions and Answers from the FIH web-site are written in blue text)
1. What is the role of the Rules Committee?
(for clarity and reference I have here lettered the various roles listed in the provided answer)
The Rules Committee produces rules for indoor and outdoor hockey by:
a) specifying the current rules and working to ensure they are interpreted and applied consistently and fairly at all levels;
b) providing advice to umpires and other technical officials about rules;
c) developing the rules while retaining the game’s characteristics;
d) aiming to make the game even safer and easier to understand;
e) conducting trials and promoting rules changes;
f) contributing to the development of the game including the development of equipment and new formats.
Which of the above roles does the Rules Committee fulfill ? I would suggest only b) e) and f) , certainly little of a) and not all of c) and they are way ‘off target’ with d).
There is an impression, even among some umpires, that umpires decide what the Rules or especially, what the interpretations of the Rules are and can change either way this is a false impression.
Here is the relevant part of an FIH Executive Board Circular, issued to all National Associations in 2001, which, as can be seen from the answer given to Question 18 below, is still extant
In November 2001 the FIH Executive Board agreed with a recommendation from the Hockey Rules Board that there should only be one set of interpretations and that the Hockey Rules Board had sole responsibility for producing these. No other FIH body or official could vary the rules or their interpretations (my underline and bold)
(The HRB, the Hockey Rules Board, was renamed the Rules Committee in 2011. The term HRB was overlooked in some places when this Rules FAQ information was last edited – not changed to Rules Committee – see for example question 4 – other information is also out of date because of more recent Rule changes.)
It is important when using the term ‘interpretation’ to distinguish between the interpretation of the text provided within the Rule Book – which is intended to give an explanation of the purpose and application of the Rule – and interpretation of the actions of players during a hockey match; the latter can of course be carried out by an umpire present on the pitch at the time but not by someone who does not see the action.
The above recommendation from the HRB to the Executive Board – which the Executive Board ratified in its Circular – was obviously made in response to the making of unauthorized ‘interpretations’ of the provided wording and the invention (or ignoring) of ‘Rules’ by people outside the HRB or even by individuals within it..
The Rules Advisory Panel, which had been formed in 1993 to oversee Rules trials, was officially disbanded in 2001.
Because of its importance I have placed the question numbered eighteen (of twenty) here.
18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?
The message in the above Circular and the related answer given to this question – and what flows from this information – should be known by all Tournament Directors, Umpire Managers, Umpire Coaches and Umpires of all levels.
Ideas come from a variety of sources including players, coaches, umpires, the media, officials at events etc.
Ideas either come through National Associations and other groups or are referred directly to the HRB
Ideas are analysed and discussed in the Rules Committee usually over a period of time in two or three meetings ;
If the change is a relatively minor one, the Rules Committee may then be able to recommend a change;
If a significant change is involved, further investigations will take place and a working group is set up to look at all the implications. The steps are;
significant changes are progressed through trials and mandatory experiments
having received comment and advice, the Rules Committee will come to a conclusion;
it then prepares a report about proposed rules changes for the Executive Board of the FIH (which will also have sanctioned related trials and mandatory experiments if they have taken place);
the Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee;
the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change;
it does not happen often, but a change might then have immediate effect;
otherwise the change is incorporated in the next Rules Book.
The answer, given above, states who (which FIH body) has sole authority to make any Rule change. Who is as important, perhaps more so, than how. When there is control of the who then the how is easy to determine.
2. Why is the Rules Committee always changing the rules?
The Rules Committee are not always changing the Rules. However, unofficial but ‘accepted’ Rule change (accepted by those who invent it and ‘cascade’ it as ‘interpretation’.) arises from what is given in the Umpire Mangers Briefing for Umpires in FIH Tournaments (the UMB) which is produced by the Umpiring Committee. It also arises from:-
individual FIH Officials,
Tournament Directors,
Umpire Managers,
Umpire Coaches
Umpires themselves, and this gives other participants and spectators the impression of constant – monthly or even weekly – Rule flux, with the Rule book being seen as ‘out of date’. It is impossible for the Rules of Hockey to be “out of date” in matters of Rule or Interpretation.
The ‘interpretation’ of the explanation of application of the Self-pass (for example), underwent several revisions in the course of the first two seasons after its adoption into full Rule – without a single word concerning it being changed in the published Rules of Hockey. There have in fact been no changes made to the wording of the FIH published Rule or Explanation on the Self-pass in the Rule Book since it was adopted into Rule (and plenty of opportunity to make any desired change as the facility of the Direct Lift from a Free-ball was added to the ‘Free Hit’ Rule a few years after the Self-pass was) any additional material (such as that contained in the UMB) cannot be treated as if Rule or instruction about Rule application from the Rules Committee – the only body with authority to draft Rule and Interpretation – see contrary practice in this document NPUA Guidance. The purpose of trial or Mandatory Experiment is to resolve any difficulties before the Rule is permanently written into the Rule Book. It is not the case that the Rule is published and it will then be up to National Umpiring Associations, Umpire Managers or Umpires to interpret it as they see fit – although they are of course at liberty to make suggestions for improvement to the Rules Committee.
There are three main reasons for changes;
To keep up with technical advances such as synthetic playing surfaces , player fitness , stick manufacturing and coaching tactics safety issues . For example, thirty years ago goalkeepers did not wear helmets.
To insure that hockey stays a popular sport throughout the world and make it an attractive game to watch and to play.
There are actually at least five reasons for changes made to the Rules by the FIH Rules Committee. Included among them are a) correcting or amending previously made changes (i.e. mistakes), usually ones that have been recently made and where there was no trial or Mandatory Experiment. e.g. the Own Goal Rule and b) ‘catching up’ with ‘umpiring practice’. For example the deletion of Forcing as an offence.
There are in addition changes made to the Rules which are accepted into ‘practice’ by umpires but which are not part of the Rules of Hockey i.e. are not submitted to the FIH Executive Board by the Rules Committee and given the approval of the Executive. For example:-
1) obliging defenders to allow a player making an early self-pass (one made before opponents have been given the opportunity to retreat) to move the ball 5m without attempting to influence the play of the pass-taker – an addition given in the UMB..
2) permitting a player in controlled possession of the ball to shield it to prevent a tackle attempt on the basis that a tackler should ‘go around’
3) declaring that no ‘on target’ shot at the goal can be considered dangerous play.
4) declaring it to be an offence to run from within the goal to close down on an opponent, who is receiving or in possession of the ball, during a penalty corner.
There is also the effect of perverse (and lazy or stubborn – Rule change involves learning and the changing of established habit) refusal to accept deletions made by the Rules Committee. For example:-
1) the continued application of “gained benefit” (often expressed as “disadvantaged opponents”) to the ball-body contact Rule – deleted after 2006.
2) the placing of an ‘onus’ on an obstructed tackler to become unobstructed i.e. “go around” an obstructing opponent to re-position to make a tackle attempt – deleted after 2003.
3. What are rules “trials”?
When the Rules Committee considers a substantial rules change it will first encourage National Associations to try the proposed change voluntarily in various matches and report the results . The Rules Committee may then introduce a mandatory experiment.
4. What is a “mandatory experiment”?
A mandatory experiment is a proposed change that the Hockey Rules Board has included in the Rules of Hockey. Everyone must play by this rule until the HRB decides whether or not to make it an official rule.
Can you recall the last Mandatory Experiment? Have there been any changes made to the Rules of Hockey, unrelated to that Experiment, since it took place? Did you question how or why that may have occurred?
5. How can I forward ideas for a change of the rules?
Send your suggestion to your National Association and ask them to consider it and forward it to the Rules Committee. In this way the formal support of a National Association is associated with the proposal and they will also know how best to put the matter to the Rules Committee.
This is usually a way of ensuring that Rule ideas will not be forwarded to the FIH Rules Committee because :-
a) The suggestion has been made many times previously and the Rules Committee are very well aware of it.
b) The idea is thought to be unworkable or impractical, for example too expensive e.g. altering the size of the hockey goal, or requires too many additional officials e.g. having four flag officials and an umpire or introducing the periodic substitution of umpires during a match (e.g. at the proposed quarter breaks).
c) The idea goes against ‘tradition’, it is thought it will change unique characteristics of the game e.g. abolishing the offence of ‘back-sticks’ or replacing the penalty corner with a power-play conducted in the 23m area.
d) Who do you think you are? If an idea is worth trying at all, a currently practicing (and highly respected) FIH Official or FIH Umpire or International team coach or International player would already have thought of it.
The answer given has merit however, because going via National Associations ‘spreads the load’ and a similar or even identical suggestions may have been put to the Rules Committee previously – in which case a National Association should be able to (and ought) explain why the suggestion has not been adopted previously. It is probably best not to put forward suggestions for Rule change unless you are familiar with the current Rules of Hockey and also have a reasonable grasp of past Rules – and why any Rules in the area you want changed, were previously amended or deleted.
(But if you don’t have access to previous Rules Books there is no means of finding out precisely what the Rules were in any particular year. Of course what the written Rule was and how a Rule was applied at any particular time might have little resemblance to each other – which is much the situation we have now)
6. What is the hockey background of the Rules Committee members?
All have played and/or umpired hockey. Most of them are still very active in the game ranging from coaching at the top level to playing at veteran’s level! Members come from all over the world.
7. What is the use of a “briefing” for players and umpires?
International umpires may be briefed at major events by the Umpires Manager and / or the Tournament Director. This is to ensure consistency. Similar advice is included in the Rules Book to reach a wider audience.
The goal is to have a common understanding of rules and their application.
The FIH Rules Committee are so far wide of this goal that they might just as well have been aiming in the opposite direction.
The UMB often contains ‘Rule interpretation’ which cannot be ‘an interpretation’ of Rule text within the Rule Book because there is no text in the Rule Book that could possibly be interpreted in the way suggested .The impression is given that the Rules and especially the interpretations of Rule originate in ‘briefings’ and the FIH published Rules of Hockey are only there or to be used for the purpose of “reaching a wider audience”.
There are examples of direct conflict between the content of the UMB and the Rules of Hockey and also of the addition or extension of Explanation clauses in the UMB which are not contained in the Rule Book. The UMB is produced via the Umpiring Committee not the Rules Committee (by or from “The FIH” has often been used to ‘cover’ an absence of authority – see Notes and highlighted text on the Self pass under Clarification in this England NPUA Guidance. The content of the UMB is not Rule or interpretation, but advice provided to FIH Umpires officiating in Tournaments (and unnecessary because Tournament Regulations contain all Rule Variation applicable in International hockey). Where the UMB conflicts with or exceeds Rule or Explanation in all other hockey (what is actually given in the Rule Book) then Rule must be given preference and any conflicting advice ignored. Additional material in the UMB which is unsupported within the Rule Book should be treated as advice or encouragement – not Rule or instruction.
8. How many rules changes can be implemented at the same time?
Significant changes will only be implemented after extensive trial and a period of mandatory experiment. It works best when only one change is implemented at a time. Other amendments of a minor nature are sometimes implemented at the same time.
That statement leads me to wonder what an insignificant change might be. Is reducing the playing time from 70mins. to 60mins. insignificant? Was the deletion of Forcing as an offence or the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause (Rule 9.11) or the changing of the wording of the explanation of application of the Obstruction Rule, insignificant – there were no trials or Mandatory Experiments prior to these changes or to several others – some of them were not even announced in the Preface of the Rule Book in which they first appeared (the usual practice to bring any change made to the notice of participants).
9. Have any suggestions for a rules change ever been rejected?
Considered in the past but not leading to permanent changes (although possibly to be re-considered some time in the future):
(lettered for clarity)
a) reducing the number of players on the pitch at any one time – for example from the current eleven to nine;
b) awarding a ‘long corner’ if the ball is intentionally played over the back-line by a defender – that is , instead of a penalty corner;
c) substitution at a Penalty Corner was initially permitted but was subsequently withdrawn from the rules .
I like the addition of (although possibly to be re-considered some time in the future):because, before that phrase was added, one of my suggestions for Rule change lay among the examples of rejected ideas, as if buried in a graveyard, for several years before it was adopted. Another has been removed from the list – so there is still hope for that. My experience is that it takes about twelve years to get an idea accepted, but some take much longer than that. I have been writing about the need for better objective criterion to define a dangerously played ball since 1998, but there now seems to be much less emphasis on the safety of players than there once was – the ‘marketing’ response is that hockey is not a dangerous sport.
10. Where can I find a translation of the Rules Book?
If you are seeking the Rules in a different language, it’s best to contact your National Association.
Unless of course you are seeking a translation into Standard English. The Rules of Hockey would be far easier to translate to other languages if the interpretation of English – as the English language is currently understood by English writers – could be agreed upon, and simple existing Rules of Interpretation (from the legal system, which has had them in place for hundreds of years) adhered to. For example, not using a word – such as ‘legitimate’ – in two or more contexts where it should or must have a different meaning in each.
It is however unfortunate that umpires become involved in the interpretation of the language used in the Rules of Hockey at all. This involvement would be unnecessary if the Rules were drafted in language without conflict or ambiguity and with adequate explanation. Umpires should be able to focus entirely on the interpretation of the actions and intentions of players in relation to the Rules of Hockey. They should have no need to get involved in debate about the meaning of words used in the Rule Book (or worse, invent word meanings which are not even supported by common sense, to attempt to justify their own umpiring habits).
Umpires on Internet hockey forums when asked about the Rules of Hockey often use the acronym YHTBT “You Have To Be There”. That makes no sense : one does not “have to be there” to know what the Rule is. But one does need to be present to know if an action that requires a subjective judgement to be made about its legality or validity, is Rule compliant or a breach of Rule – and whether advantage can or should be allowed.
That umpires should become involved in debate about the meaning of words such as “legitimate” or “voluntarily” or the context in which they are used, is absurd. The Rules of Hockey should be written so that a twelve year old child of average intelligence will have no difficulty understanding exactly what the Rules Committee require of her or him when he or she is playing in a hockey match. What is just as bad as debate about word meaning, if not worse, is altering on an ad hoc basis, the interpretation of Rule according to the level of match play eg. declaring actions that obviously endanger others (put them at risk of injury) to be ‘not dangerous’ at National League level or International level because of the assumed skill of the participants. When “almost nothing” is going to be considered dangerous, umpires stop thinking about the possibility of dangerous play and looking for it – that in itself is dangerous.
11. Are developments in the Rules of Indoor Hockey important?
The Rules of Indoor Hockey are equally important, however, it may not sometimes appear that way because fewer countries take part in indoor hockey. The Rules Committee keeps the rules for each game in step one with the other.
Not quite ‘in step’;.hitting the ball is not permitted in indoor hockey nor is the raising of the ball with any stroke except when shooting at the goal. In the outdoor game players are permitted to dive or slide on the ground when tackling – an action forbidden to all but the goalkeepers in indoor hockey (that prohibition could sensibly be adopted in the outdoor game, but that might reduce the “excitement” i.e. the danger, of the outdoor game).
12. I have a question on the rules, where can I get an answer?
First seek help from your National Association. They will sometimes have an Umpiring or Technical Committee which can respond to you. You should also go through your national association to get in touch with the Rules Committee.
All of these bodies will refer you to the Rules of Hockey – as if it had not occurred to you to read them – even if you quote relevant Rules to them when putting your question – and there a great many questions to be answered.
Some Rules tend to reappear in cycles (with from fifteen to twenty years between cycles ), ‘new Rules’ are often the return of ‘old friends’ in various guises.
Controlling how or if a ball may be raised into the opponent’s circle is one of the most frequent ‘visitors’ – now overdue a return. It’s a Rule that has never been ‘got right’. As with several other Rules, it has swung from total ban to complete free-for-all on more than one occasion.
The Rules concerning the raised ball – and also the ball played into the circle – are dreadfully mixed-up at the moment. There is a height restriction on the first hit-shot made during a penalty corner and there is a prohibition on playing a free ball from within the opponent’s 23m line into their circle, these contrast with no control at all on a high first shot made with a drag-flick during a penalty corner and the ‘accidental’ raising of the ball with a hit in open play, especially into the circle (both are subject to ‘dangerous play’ but the judgement of dangerous play is so inconsistent that the, fragmented, dangerous play Rules are something of a joke).
I feel that a hit made beyond the playing reach of the hitter (i.e. a HIT intended as a pass or a cross) – or a free-ball propelled with any stroke – should not be permitted to be raised directly into the opponent’s circle (limiting the height of a ball raised into the circle with a stroke other than a hit might also be considered). Height criteria should be applied to any ball propelled at high velocity at an opponent with any stroke and from any distance. One of the principle differences between hockey and soccer – and other ‘large soft ball’ games – is that a hockey ball propelled at high velocity is capable of killing a participant, the Rules need to take that fact into account.
13. Are the rules invented and/or developed only round the table at Rules Committee meetings?
Every significant rules change or mandatory experiment is the result of discussions and trials in many countries . The Rules Committee is keen to consult with other interested groups . For example, it gets feedback from and its members arrange or attend seminars for coaches from around the world.
I wonder how often a full Rule Committee meeting is held around a table. The minutes of any such meetings would make interesting reading, but just what is and is not discussed at any Rules Committee meeting appears to be a secret. There is no way of knowing if any Rule proposal submitted to the Rules Committee is actually brought to the attention of the full Committee and discussed.
Again I am interested in the ‘insignificant changes’ to the Rules, the ones that are not discussed by the Rules Committee, because of course this should not happen. In theory a change to a Rule that has not been drafted by the Rules Committee and not then submitted by them to the FIH Executive for approval, is an impossibility, but the language used in the above paragraph suggests otherwise. Is that a mistake or the provision of a ‘loophole’ to allow change without due process?
Who decides what is insignificant? For example;
Having received the ball the receiver must move away in any direction except bodily into an opponent
which in 1994 was altered to read:-
Having received the ball the receiver may move away in any direction except bodily into an opponent
is possibly the most significant “insignificant” change made (to what at the time was called Rule Guidance) in the last twenty years. This seemingly insignificant and unannounced one word alteration, changed a directive enforced by penalty, into a player choice, and eventually fundamentally changed the way in which the game is played. The alteration was unannounced and in fact not noticed by many at first. When questions about the reason for the change of word were eventually put to the Hon.Secretary of the HRB, they were ignored.
It has to be said that at the time many umpires applied the Obstruction Rule in the same way most umpires now penalise ‘feet’. If umpires got confused about a passage of play where players were close to each other, they were likely to blow the whistle and use “Obstruction” as a ‘catch-all’ fall-back. Television commentators declared that obstruction had been penalised if they had no idea why the whistle had been blown (which was most of the time).
Good players were at the time as likely to be obstructing an opponent as a good player is now likely to intentionally kick the ball while in possession of it, i.e. very rarely, but disputing ‘obstruction’ can be quite difficult and so a call of “Obstruction” was made far more often than it should have been - the exact opposite of what is happening now. At present players are being coached to shield the ball to prevent an opponent attempting a legal tackle – what umpires are being coached about obstructive play is something of a mystery.
It makes as much sense to now ignore the Obstruction Rule (illegal ball shielding, that is ball shielding to prevent a legal tackle attempt) as it would be to completely ignore the ball-body contact Rule because poor umpires penalise all ball-body contact i.e. make no judgement at all regarding intent.
There was not much wrong with the (sic) new Obstruction Rule Interpretation of 1993, but umpires tend (as a matter of habit) to apply the Rules of Hockey as they were in the days when they themselves were playing hockey.
In 1994 many umpires had not adjusted to (or refused to accept a la ‘gains benefit’ in 2007) the fact that a player could then, following the changes to wording made in 1993, receive the ball from the direction their defence, even when closely marked, without offence. A lead run to make space and to avoid being forced into an obstructing position was no longer a necessity – but having received the ball “must move away” was a requirement of the Rule. The interpretation of obstruction was changed radically in 1993 from the way it had been applied for more than forty years previously.
However, as was pointed out in the Preface if the Rule Book (in some desperation) a few years later “There is still an Obstruction Rule” But, ‘penalise all’ or ‘completely ignore all’ are normal and usual rather than unusual attitudes – both these extremes are easier than making judgement concerning offence in every single case (thinking, particularly thinking quickly and in a rational and consistent way, is hard work and can be very difficult – especially when it has to be done over an extended period – 3 mins or more at a time) in a few years we went from one extreme to another. From a situation where trying to dribble past an opponent with the ball controlled to the left side of the body could be penalised as obstructive play, even if the ball was to the front of the dribbler’s feet, to one where players got away with holding the ball in a corner of the pitch while trying to draw a contact foul from a tackler. – but the Rule had not changed.
We, all of us, tend, to avoid the work of thinking, and therefore to swing between one extreme and the other in many areas of Rule (and of opinion in general, other people are often seen as “brilliant” or as “idiots” – instead of what they are, “normal” – depending on whether or not one agrees with their opinions. A person who is said to be mistaken about (any) one thing can easily be assumed to be foolish about everything and dismissed as ‘an idiot’.)
In hockey the raising of the ball with a hit is another example of the sort of ‘swing’ of attitude, that has occurred with obstruction. In the mid 1980′s it was for a time considered ‘spectacular hockey’ to permit the ball to be hit high into the air and travel almost the length of the pitch, with a ‘chip hit’ from the ground. That rather quickly swung to the opposite extreme, with such play being described as ‘boring’ at the higher levels and ‘lethal’ at the lower – the result was a ban on ANY intentional raising of the ball with a hit (except, illogically, where it was likely to be most dangerous, when shooting at the opponent’s goal from within their circle). Umpires then avoided applying this rather daft Rule with the UMB advice, forget lifted – think danger.
The umpiring of ‘feet’ and obstructive ball shielding are but two areas of Rule ‘swing’ or ‘seesaw’. We should, after more than 150 years of development, be able to recognize and retain the parts of a Rule which are good and useful and discard those parts which are not – instead, over and over again, we tend to embrace or reject entire Rules and all the clauses associated with them : good and bad.
Two fairly recent deletions Forcing and the ‘gains benefit’ exception clause, are clearly mistakes. Forcing a player to self-defence should obviously not be permitted and no good reason was offered for this deletion – there is in fact a (false) insistence that all Forcing offences were merely ‘transferred’ to ‘other Rules’. However, if anything, the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause was even worse – because umpires (led from the top) refused to accept it.
Some practice clearly had to be got rid off – the penalising of all ball-body contact on the pretense or assumption that a player who is hit with the ball has always disadvantaged opponents and therefore gained an unfair benefit for his or her team. – a ‘catch all’ that makes for easier umpiring – is clearly unfair and wrong.
But some aspects of the penalising of ‘gains benefit’ should have been retained. Umpires are presently persistently and consistently penalisng with a penalty stroke a player who while attempting to play the ball with his or her stick accidentally/unavoidably makes body contact with the ball and directly prevents the opposing team scoring a goal. There is now no basis in Rule for any penalty in these circumstances – never mind a penalty stroke. According to the explanation of application given with the Rule, penalty cannot be a correct decision because the player hit with the ball has committed no offence: that too is wrong. It’s not incorrect but clearly wrong for the game, it’s wrong because, if the explanation was applied as written in the Rule Book it could lead to reckless defending. This is a ‘classic’ example of deletion of an entire clause (because it was being misused) without considering why it was in the Rules in the first place and how that element of it could be retained. It’s not a difficult problem to resolve, why hasn’t it been done?
14. Do “minor” hockey countries have input on the rules or its development?
The Rules Committee aims to listen to everyone about rules because the rules apply throughout the globe. It has been some of the so called “minor” nations who have been most active in conducting trials – and their experience has influenced thinking in the Rules Committee.
I believe that the main reason the lower ranked nations have been asked to conduct trials fairly frequently is because the higher ranked nations would refuse to do so if they thought that the time taken for a national domestic trial (and away from the hockey being played by rival nations), might adversely affect their future performance in competitions and therefore on their ranking – which in turn might have an effect on their participation in the Olympic Games and/or World Cup. On the other hand a year spent practicing a change of Rule (a different penalty corner format for example) could give a significant advantage to the nation conducting the trial if the change was subsequently adopted – and that would upset the other high ranked nations not involved in the trial. There are no such concerns for nations who have little or no chance of achieving and sustaining a high ranking. Mandatory Experiments are a different matter – ‘everyone is in the same boat’.
The emergence of regular club and sponsored team Leagues, such as the European Hockey League and the Hero Hockey League in India or the Lanco 9′s in Australia, provides opportunity for trials involving players from the top ranked nations without impinging on International programs or national championships, so trials within the lower ranked countries may well decrease or cease completely. The problem with this approach is that only high level players and umpires are involved in such trials and a two or three tier game evolves (and only high level play is considered important and only the opinions of high level umpires and team coaches is taken much notice of).
15. Why do we play with the same rules for every level?
So that the game each of us plays is the game played by everyone else in the world. For example, a young player can learn from senior and experienced players . It also encourages consistent coaching and umpiring.
A ‘loaded’ question: we should but we don’t play with or to the same Rules at every level.
16. What is the influence of sponsors/television on the development of the rules?
There is no direct influence from sponsors or television. This is because their aims and needs are the same as those of the Rules Committee.
The principle aims and needs of commercial sponsors and of television companies are increasing financial profits by increasing the market share of products by increasing ‘exposure’ to potential customers. Neither trading products or selling advertising time for profit is a stated aim or a role of the FIH Rules Committee. To say that there is no direct influence avoids the question. No direct influence on the FIH Executive Board is anyway now – following the recent deal with Star television – obviously not the case. That deal will have a direct effect on the Rules of the game, the initial Rule changes to be made, to suit the television company, have already been announced via a Press Release. This appears however to be a case of the FIH Executive Board ignoring its own rules by drafting Rule detail in advance of the Rules Committee doing so.
17. Some rules are difficult to understand for spectators, television, etc. Can something be done?
One of the aims of the Rules Committee is to make the game easier to understand for spectators and television – and is constantly seeking to achieve a balance between its various aims including making the game easier to understand.
“Can something be done?” Is an utterly useless question. The answer is obviously “Yes” but the person asking the question needs to suggest what the “something” ought to be and perhaps also how it could be achieved.
It might be supposed that an Internet hockey forum would be an excellent place to make a Rule suggestion and get it widely discussed and ‘fine tuned’. Surprisingly this is not the case. One forum I was involved with actively discouraged contributors making suggestions for any ‘new Rule’ or any Rule amendment, with senior umpires insisting the forum was for discussing only the current Rules as they were sic presently given; another forum refused to allow any discussion of a particular Rule (that umpires were ignoring) declaring it to be “a dead issue” i.e. the Rule would continue to be ignored and no attempt would be made to amend it so that it was no longer ignored, because of the personal opinion of a forum moderator.
In general the umpires who run and/or moderate these forums (and it is generally umpires who control any Rule discussion on them) are happy to discuss the application of the non-contentious Rules (what few there are), but they haven’t any interest at all in changing what they are comfortable with and in the habit of doing. Umpires could not care less that, for example, the rule prohibiting the playing of a free ball, awarded in the opponent’s 23m area, directly into the circle, may be an impediment to game flow. It’s an easy Rule to apply and ease of application appears to be the main criteria, as far as they are concerned, for a ‘good Rule’. They are prepared to discuss the application of ‘interpretation’ (reinforce their own practice) but not the alteration/deletion of a Rule and the replacement of it with an alternative safety measure.
18. What is the procedure for developing a rules change?
(See above)
19. When does a rules change become effective?
Officially the 1 January date applies to all international competitions but National Associations have discretion to decide the implementation date at national level.
That of course applies only to a Rule change published in the Rules of Hockey and applicable to all hockey, but we already have examples of the immediate adoption of changes in Tournament Regulations – which are supposed to apply only to international level hockey – into domestic hockey.
This happened in the case of playing of the ball above shoulder height (August 2013), the change was at once adopted by National Associations for use in National Premier Leagues. (a significantly different version had previously been used in the European Hockey League).
The change to four quarters and timing changes announced for international hockey from September 2014 has already been announced by Hockey India as a change to all domestic Leagues from June 2014. (Four quarters and time stoppage on award of a penalty corner had already been permitted in the European Hockey League and in high level invitation Leagues in India and Australia, but the new proposals include a significant reduction in playing time and time stoppage following the award of a goal) The adoption of ‘Rule’ into domestic hockey, on the basis of an FIH media release outlining a proposed change to Tournament Regulations before the change to Tournament Regulations has been made is ‘jumping the gun’ – and breaking the rules.
20. Who is ultimately responsible for rules changes?
The Rules Committee comes to a conclusion about any changes it considers desirable and prepares a report for the Executive Board of the FIH. The Executive Board will either agree the change or refer it back for further consideration by the Rules Committee;
the Executive Board cannot directly amend a proposed change.
Thus the ultimate responsibility rests with the Executive Board.
Summary
The FIH Executive Board have the power to approve or to veto any Rule proposal submitted by the FIH Rules Committee. Only the Rules Committee have the authority to draft and submit a Rule proposal and supply interpretation for approval by the Executive Board and inclusion in the Rules of Hockey. No other FIH group or committee nor any individual FIH Official has the authority to draft a Rule or provide official interpretation (or declare any current Rule to be not a Rule)
Because the above statement is generally ignored the Rules of Hockey are in a shambles.
Not many of the stated aims of the FIH Rules Committee are achieved, largely because others within the FIH prevent them being achieved. For an example look at the events surrounding the deletion of the ‘gained benefit’ exception clause, it makes an interesting case study.
History and Documentation.
From the Preface of the Rules of Hockey 2002 and 2003
RULES INTERPRETATIONS
In the past in addition to the Rules Interpretations included in the Rules Book, briefing papers have occasionally been prepared primarily for umpires at international tournaments. However, we all play the game by the same set of Rules so interpretations in the Rules Book should be as complete as possible. Additional papers should be unnecessary.
Accordingly, Appendix B (Rules Interpretations) in this 2003 edition has been significantly revised. It now incorporates the other briefing papers referred to above. At the same time the layout and some parts of the text have been simplified. Everyone is encouraged to read the full revised text of Appendix B.
In 2004 the Rule Book was reformatted; Appendix B (Rules Interpretations – previously set out in the back of the book) was combined with Guidance for Players and Umpires, which had previously been set out on the page opposite to the relevant Rule. (The Rule was given on the left side pages and the Rule Guidance on the facing page). From 2004 onward, the combined Guidance and Interpretation was set out beneath each Rule in italic font and renamed Explanation (explanation of application). The intention, as stated in the 2003 Preface, was to have a Rule Book that was as complete as possible, with the production of additional papers being unnecessary. The publishing of the separate briefing papers used in FIH World Level Tournaments should have ceased in 2003.. Variations to the Rules of Hockey, for use in international Hockey only, should thereafter have appeared only in Tournament Regulations (and Tournament Regulations which varied the Rules of Hockey at international level could – and perhaps should – have been reproduced as an appendix in the Rule Book).
From the Introduction of the 2004 Rules of Hockey.
The Content of The Rules Book
This edition of the Rules of Hockey is presented in a new style. Our aim is to make the Rules easier to understand for everyone involved in the game so that we can play to common and enjoyable standards.
The language used has been simplified, descriptions are clearer and the layout is neater. We have made the order in which the Rules are presented more logical and incorporated any necessary explanatory notes in italics beneath the relevant Rule.
There are two main sections to the Rules: “Playing the Game” and “Umpiring”.
At the end of the Rules, there is a description of additional information available from the International Hockey Federation (FIH).
With effect from this set of Rules, the implementation date is standardised as 1 January each year. A standard implementation date will in future allow participants to plan ahead for any Rules changes which are introduced.
For international competition, the date of implementation of this set of Rules is 1 January 2004 although National Associations have discretion to decide the date of implementation at national level.
While this revised set of Rules was being drawn up, the opportunity was taken to introduce some minor Rules changes.
These “minor Rules changes” were in fact huge changes; here is an example. The deletion of the Rule A player shall not raise the ball at another player (Jan 2004) followed by this unnecessary amendment
FIH PC Circ 2004 Korean – in June 2004, which by the following year had became ‘accepted practice’ at all levels – was but one combination that had far reaching consequences.
This statement from the FIH PC Circ. 2004. “Umpires will be instructed to penalise a defender who runs at a legitimate shot at goal during a penalty corner with the clear intention of blocking the shot with their body” was very quickly interpreted to mean that an out-running defender who was hit with ANY first (drag-flick) shot at the goal (legitimate shot here means legal i.e. non-dangerous shot – but that was ignored) intended to block the shot with their body – this was said to be the “positioning with intention” already in the Rule Explanation. A clause which was probably originally intended to enable umpires to penalise field-players who went to ground directly just in front of the feet of a player in possession of the ball, to block the ball with the body in the way a goalkeeper may legitimately do.
So defending out-runners at a penalty corner, playing in a way that they had legally played for years, suddenly became regarded as ‘suicide runners’ who caused dangerous play simply because they were positioned or positioning in the only place from which they could defend the goal – between a shooting attacker and the goal. It is easy to see how, by 2008, the weird notion that an ‘on target’ shot at the goal could not be considered dangerous play had developed and further, that running from within the goal towards the ball at the top of the circle was said to be an offence. Television commentators were heard ‘spouting’ this rubbish – without having seen any evidence of Rule support for such claims – there isn’t any. But defending the goal by closing on a shooter to attempt a tackle with the stick, ‘overnight’ apparently became a dangerous play offence – talk about getting something upside -down, back-to-front and inside-out, all at the same time. Defenders had for years been endangered by recklessly made shots – and they still are being endangered in this way.
The aim of making the Rules easier to understand for everyone involved in the game was missed by a considerable margin in 2004 (and since then). Largely because, the ‘simplification’ of the Rules was achieved by stripping out much of the previous Interpretation and Guidance and even deleting some Rule clauses without giving any explanation for doing so. Given the result anyone would be forgiven for wondering what state the Rules of Hockey were in prior to 2004, as the current Rules are far from being rational and clear.
The statement made in November 2001 by the Executive Board concerning the sole authority of the HRB in the matter of Rule and Interpretation is still valid and is reinforced in regard to the present Rules Committee as can be seen by the answers given to questions 18, 19 and 20 in particular (even though the answer provided to Question 18 does not mention Interpretation – one cannot separate a Rule from its intended Interpretation. – but there are some umpires who try to do just that, particularly in regard to ball-body contact, Rule 9.11 and the Obstruction Rule)
The revisions of 2004 marked a different approach to the providing of Rule information to that which had been promised in 2003. and the Umpire Manager’s Briefings continued to be published. The UMB has gone on to ‘obliterate’ parts of the published written Rule and to dominate the thinking of umpires by means of a ‘cascaded’ coaching system, which is largely verbal and ‘unknowable’ by players and team coaches. There are many frequently asked questions not included among the twenty given above and the majority of them remain unanswered, even unacknowledged
Source:
Martin Conlon
Martin Conlon is the author of the blog website, ‘The Rules of Hockey – Observations and proposals about the rules of field hockey’
The post UMPIRES RULE: Hockey Rules: Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on GO HOCKEY.