Briefing

My clip is a small part of this FIH video issued in 2017 after the Rio Olympics.    • 2016 Rio Olympic Hockey Umpire Briefing Video   I watched the FIH video featuring the Umpire Managers prior to the Olympics and was not surprised that the umpiring in Rio, taken as a whole, was poorer than any I had seen in any FIH Tournament prior to that date. What is hoped for and intended does not automatically become tournament practice. In this short clip (below) the men's umpire manager Craig Gribble, begins by pointing out that a shot on goal that endangers players from both side is dangerous play (that has now been changed, a same team player now cannot be endangered, a Rule amendment, which Sam Ward might have a few words to say about), additionally the video adds that a shot wide of the goal that endangers defenders is also dangerous play - so far so good. He then goes on to say "Of course a defender choosing to stand on the line and occupying an area which is in fact properly the goalie domain could not expect the same degree of protection" That is a nonsense (it is in fact a doubling down on previous nonsense which appeared in 2008 during the Tokyo Olympics, to the effect that an on target shot at the goal could not be considered to be dangerous play), which he then links with a true statement to the effect that if a defender on the line is struck with the ball (and prevents a goal) then a penalty stroke could be the correct decision (unfair advantage gained). Why "Of course" No explanation is offered.Why would a defender in any position, including on the goal-line, not be as protected by Rule as any other player defending anywhere on the pitch would be? I suggest he offered no explanation because he could not do so. This kind of "Of course" thinking is so 'fuzzy' and vague, and contrary to the supposed emphasis on player safety that is obvious that this high level umpiring official does not understand what is meant by the term "a dangerously played ball". A dangerously played ball is not something that is created by the player endangered by it, but an action an endangered player responds to. Yes a defender struck with the ball who prevents a goal being scored can be penalised with a penalty stroke, provided the shot is not made in a dangerous way i.e. in a way that endangers any defender or causes him or her to take or try to take, legitimate evasive action (evasion to avoid injury) - as demonstrated in the initial part of the clip. There is no Rule declaring the goal-line to be the exclusive domain of the goalkeeper and no Rule forbidding a defender to defend the goal from a position on the goal-line. That might be the case in some circumstances if a Goal Zone was introduced but no such thing has happened. The principle of acceptance of risk is often trotted out at this juncture, but it needs to be realized that in no sport (or any other area) does this principle apply if a Rule of the game has been breached (or a Law or Regulation contravened) in the course of endangering or injuring the person who it is claimed accepted risk. Acceptance of risk is acceptance of the risk of injury or actual injury due to an accidental action or what is termed "an Act of God", something beyond human control. One player propelling the ball in a reckless and dangerous way towards another is not an accidental action or something beyond human control, so it is not an acceptable risk, it's an opposition offence, a foul. It is of course extremely worrying that this FIH Official charged with Umpire Briefing at the highest level seems to believe that defenders have no right to defend on the goal-line and little? (but anyway an undefined) degree of protection from opponents who propel the ball at them in what would in other circumstances (for example not a shot at the goal) always be considered a dangerous way. He comes close to saying that a shot at the goal against defenders on the goal-line cannot be considered to be dangerous play. If he believes that then he should not be assessing the performance of umpires during FIH Tournaments or be influencing their umpiring because those views are not Rule compliant. How on earth did he get appointed to the position of Umpire Manager? Are the views of those considered for such appointments discovered during interview? The Penalty Corner Rules 13.3. l and 13.3.m between them make clear that no shot at the goal should be made in a dangerous way. If a shot against penalty corner defenders (who are frequently positioned on the goal-line) could not be considered dangerous play, then there would be no need for Rule 13.3.m. it would comprise redundant and meaningless statements : perhaps it does.