Live Q&A #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 98

📅 Nov 16 19.00 GMT

➡️ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba1dM4s3QiY

How do we judge danger on 3D skills (and yes, that Jorrit Croon Blomendaal goal was 🔥)? We'll work on indoor questions, with using the top edge of the stick and we'll review the latest updates for the indoor rules. Also, what do we look for when the stopper on a penalty corner uses gloves? Join in live, contribute to the polls and get together with your favourite #fhu3t people!

🚨 Upgrade your accuracy today, the Mission-Critical Positioning course is live!  https://fhumpires.com/mcp

⏱ Chapter Markers:
0:00 Chair Dancing
2:27 Topics!
07:31 1. Jorrit Croon Goal
37:48 2. Indoor: Using the Edge of Stick
01:06:23 3. Indoor Rules Updates
01:33:20 4. Attackers' Gloves at the PC

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

….. …..

……..

… … … ….

…

….

Good Wednesday to you all. Happy Hockey Wednesday. I hope you're having a great one. And. . I hope that you and all of your family friends are doing well. Keely Dunn, FHumpires, this is What Up Wednesday and we have quite a tasty little fun treat today. We have all social media is a buzz with that Jorrick Croon goal, we're gonna talk about that using the edge of an indoor stick.

Some indoor rules updates that were just published by the FIH and talking about attacker's gloves at the pc. So there's a lot to get through and I'm looking forward to it. I'm a little bit distracted today. Some technical issues as seems to be the wont on a fairly regular basis. When you have the opportunity to update some technology just before you go, go live, say no, just say no. That's that's the right way to do things. Just so you know. Okay. Sorry. Just trying to centre myself. Okay. Hi. All right. 

Saying hi to everybody in the house. Godder's here. Nick Eva, good to see you. Scott Riley is here, Shayne, Simon is replay squad because England Hockey likes What up Wednesday?

So much. They're doing their own. Cat is here. And William, Kevin. Sorry. I'll flash through cuz I had that from before. Nick. Godders, you were it. It takes a lot of courage and confidence to go on Twitter and say, yeah, I caused a goal to be scored because it hit me and it went in and it shouldn't have been a goal.

That takes a lot and I think it really speaks to the level of rapport that you have with the whole community, uh, in your area that everybody's like, yeah, but it was a great game. We didn't like the result, but it was a great game, and that is everything. So I just wanna say, well done to you. I know you're, you're never gonna feel good about that kind of incident and, and having a goal score on you, but it happens.

There you go. Oh my gosh, Dennis is here. And man, his mustache is disgusting. He really looks like a cop, like, just completely like a cop. So we're gonna, we're gonna see how long that lasts and, uh, I guess the both would probably be Olivia, so good to see Olivia, you're doing well. Or maybe she's at school and maybe it's Vic.

It's, it's so hard to tell. Why would Vic wanna watch umpiring stuff? I don't think she would. Mike McCartney's here after a Clifton College U18s all weather umpiring. What is it not sunny and beautiful there? The way that you guys have been bragging about for the last little while. Hi Matt.

Good to see you. Okay. Wet Worthing. So I'm starting to get the whole rain vibe. Is that, is that the right vibe? Probably. There you go. Um, oh, and ke Kevin did the opposite. He stopped a goal for his team while playing by throwing himself into the goal just before the ball game.

Are you hoking correctly? I'm not sure if you are. Hi, Ben. Um, it, what, what's happening? What did Hamish do? He's in trouble and he might be in trouble with you as well. Boy, this sounds serious. Is this a matter for public consumption? Should you be commenting about this? Sounds really bad. Okay. Um, glad that he didn't volunteer to do that.

Very wet one. Good to see you. Uh, Mike. Hi Matt. Uh, could have been worse. ? Yes. Mr. Hugh, 10 or 20 years ago. Semifinal Cup. Yeah, we have stories. I had a story from my, when I was in, uh, Canada West. It was a playoff match and, uh, my colleague on the other end, the ball hit her and deflected into the goal. And very sadly, she left umpiring very soon after.

Which is not the story you wanna hear, right? You don't want anybody to ever take that so onto themselves that they stop umpiring. But maybe it was a straw that broke the camel's back more in that person's case. Um, but anyway, just like to, I like to pour one out for all the umpires who have been hit by a ball and it's gone in the net.

Hi Stefan. Good to see you. Oh, very rare opportunity for you. That's very nice. There you go. Okay, let's get into our first topic here. And I'm really excited about this one because yes.

The internets have been a bit a buzz. The Jorrick Croon goal for here it is.

The poll is up, feel free to put in your thoughts. I'm sure many of you have already seen it in great detail, but nothing wrong with giving it another look.

I mean, that pickup is ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

Hi, Joep. Good to see you. All right. As you're starting to get your thoughts in order and your thoughts into this. Um, I think, I think the consensus out there in the community actually hasn't been too, too, Too, too weird. As always, there's a divergence of opinion being expressed, and the, the part that I found really interesting is, um, the coaches who've commented and they've expressed this dismay and concern. Well, if this is allowed, how are our defenders ever going to be able to defend?

And the first thing I would say about that is I would love to see some defending happening in this video, but none does occur. , There is, let's get it, let's not get it twisted. There is no defending happening in here. At the time that Jorrick's able to pick up the ball, he does so picking up what could have been dangerous but was able to be played safely, it dropped right to him in this nice little pocket of space because he's facing this way.

And this is something that I'm trying to, to talk about more with the community about how playing distance isn't about a measurement of, you know that. And it's the same measurement everywhere, playing distance. Cuz otherwise you would say two meters away from the ball, five meters away from the ball.

When directionality doesn't matter, that's what you're able to do. But playing distance adds that element of where is the stick vis-a-vis the ball and the other players where, where are the players facing? Who's in front? Who's in behind? What is the actual trajectory of this ball. And here it just lands so nicely into this space and because of how it does and the fact that the defender over here in this case didn't try for that ball, it was able to be picked up really nicely and safely.

So right here, there's a great play on situation, but when I talk about there being no defending happening, this is, this is what I mean. And let's see if I can get this moving. It doesn't seem to want to move for me. Um, do, do, do, do.

And that's cuz I need to do this first. Okay. I got this. So as Croon picks up the ball and he continues to play it on his stick, the. I'll, I'll also make another segue, another comment, because I want y'all to get your, your comments and that I can go look at in a couple minutes. But when we talk about receiving aerials, for example, and that pocket in the rules, it says that the ball needs to be controlled and on the ground before a, an opponent can attempt to tackle: no. On the ground is an archaic idea of how the game is played.

It's old fashioned, it's outmoded, and the wording in that rule, that particular provision just hasn't kept up to this. This is not an aerial situation. This is just a deflection and a dangerous ball situation, but that notion that control is only expressed when the ball is down on the. Clearly isn't the case.

So anyway, at this point what we've got is:

here's the ball, and as Croon at goes towards the goal, he has an entire pocket of space available to him that no defender steps into. So as he keeps going, and this is, this is the thing I run into if I start, he likes you, okay? For a variety of reasons. This defender decides to mark his, uh, attacker. Very smart decision.

That's how I play defense, by the way. Is Mark first and let your goalkeeper take the easy shot, which you know, this, this is, this is a high percentage play for a goalkeeper. This defender here is marking his player, so he's fine. Oops. And I gotta show that over top. So there's marking, marking, but there's no movement of any player into this space, including the goalkeeper.

The goalkeeper decides to cling and, and stay steady on their post. Not a goalkeeper, I never have any input on what goalkeepers should or should not do in a particular situation. So the ball progressing into this space, there is no defender to be put into danger.

So that brings me to the comment of the coaches who say, well, how, how are we supposed to defend this, this, this tom foolery, this witchcraft, this magics? How are we supposed to defend against it? And it's pretty easy to defend. So if a defender had moved into that space and been prepared to attempt a tackle, as soon as that attacker moves towards that defender, the onus is now on them not to create danger for that defender.

So if Croon just had for whatever reason and he's a much better player than this, he wouldn't do that. But if, if that defender, instead of moving back to his attacker, if he had stepped into that space and attempted that tackle, Croon's responsibility is not to carry that ball straight into that player.

And we've, I I've shown clips where decisions have been absolutely correctly made where that 3D skill, whether it's a dribble or it's a carry, as long as it's going away from a player that attacker is behaving responsibly, vis-a-vis all, is all his teammates or all of his opponents, and so there is no problem there.

Can defenders develop a skill in order to make this tackle Well, yes. Stop trying to tackle like this in the middle of the air. If the ball's going like this, it's just like if the ball's going this way on the turf, back and forth horizontally, what have we developed as the best technique for a flatly dribbled ball?

A flat stick. So if a ball is being dribbled up in the air this way, what do you need to do? Vertical stick. Mm. It's just so easy and elegant. Let's see what's happening here in the comments. I see Stefan, I just told you. Isn't that great? The goal stands for you, Kev. You can't see any danger from either side.

Hi Mark. Good to have you. Hi Ribhu you're not sure because he is shielding the ball in the air. A defender can't tackle it because it would be dangerous to do so. Uh, I don't think so unless there's some kind of wild swing. Of course, that's dangerous. That's dangerous on the ground too. But defenders are permitted to try to tackle this ball.

They may commit a stick obstruction if they miss the ball, but a defender if a, if an attacker's carrying that ball straight at that player, that's danger on the attacker. They're the ones deciding to carry the ball in that manner.

Mike!

For Shayne, uh, clearly takes a ball without danger, and I really need to do this. I don't know why I'm giving myself eye strain. Clearly takes the ball and takes the boat, plays away from other players without creating the dangers. Yes. Stunning. Chef's kiss. I mean, imagine being the umpire in that situation. You see this goal, like, do you not just explode from joy at the hockey?

Do you not just go, what? And you, you do all, all the, you can to restrain yourself from applause. Uh, Nick. Completely goes, the ball was on the floor. No one would've said a word. True. It could have been defended. Uh, got hers is saying, um, if a defender approached from in front and then the attacker would have to do something different.

The attacker would have to move around that player. They would have to put the ball down on the ground and you know, look for other options without creating that danger. So there you go. Just stand in the way , and you know, okay, so I'm not an expert at aerial, at 3D skills, definitely not. But what I have noticed is that it's far easier to move the ball from side to side when it's on the ground than when it's up in the air.

And I know some of the best players in the world absolutely are practicing that skill. And I've seen it used a few times, probably I could count on one hand how many times I've seen it used in a game where it was successful. It's very, very tricky. So if you as a defender are taking that space, you own that space and now the attacker has to move around you.

If the ball is still in the air, they've got quite an ask, and in the meantime, they're looking for passing options. They're looking what the goalkeepers doing, and they're, they've got a lot on their plate that they're trying to figure out.

Scott, if the defender stood their ground and had have been a barrier, uh, while been ready to engage with the attacker, taking into them wouldn't make it dangerous. I agree. Scott, somewhere to you kind of only obstructing someone who is trying to play it.

Yes. So it, it's not a shield of the ball because the ball was still available. So getting back to Ribhu's question, which is a really good one, and, and absolutely we've, we've, we've talked about this sort of thing, but, but the ball was sitting on the stick and it is still tacklable. There's still lots of ball that you can do.

So if, if a defender comes in, they would get shielded if suddenly, sorry, let me see if I can do this. You know, if suddenly the attacker is able to, Put their stick here to block the ball from getting tackled by another stick. It's, you know, uh, Nick, it's unusual, but in this case, you can find any reason to rule out the goal.

Yep. The concern is people trying to imitate it. The con, I mean, sure they can try, but this guy's kind of good. He's, he's like really good. He didn't just like invent this skill and you know, in the moment, oh, I think I'm gonna try this. No, he's been training at this because he is a full-time hockey player for years and he started when he was four years old playing hockey.

I mean, the amount of skill development that it takes to get to this level is ridiculous. People can try to imitate it, but they're not gonna succeed. Ask me how I know. Uh, that's fair, says Ribhu. Uh let's contemplate

how we umpire a defender tackling a ball in the air, 3D skills. And who has the onus to not create danger or play the ball dangerously? Uh, yeah. Well, uh, I'm, I think I've touched on the various things. What I expect a defender to do in this situation. If they are attempting a tackle with a vertical block and they don't make a wild swinging motion across I am and, and I'm watching the defender's stick.

And as long as they're not moving it significantly, And the attacker comes in and the ball is being bounced up and down. For example, you know, as it usually is in this kind of situation, it's not usual that you've got a, a hurling carry or anything like that.

Any stick contact is gonna be initiated by an attacker who is moving their stick back and forth. So it's not technically a shield, it's just an obstruction by an attacker. If a defender is tackling appropriately, Uh cat, you can't rule it out, cuz generally you don't see the danger. You had a defender tried.

Yeah. You'd, you'd have a bunch of other circumstances to, to keep there. Look, we're not gonna, we're not gonna drag the keeper here. What is it like when somebody does something that you have rarely defended, if ever. It's not easy. So we're not, we're not gonna drag the guy.

Um, n two had to lose his attacker and face the carrier. Uh, I don't know. If I was a goalkeeper, I'd be pretty mad that they did so.

Defenders need to mark number two. Yes. No, he needed to mark, cuz as soon as he jumps, Croon would've started to bring the ball down, bounced the ball off the turf to the guy that had been jumped from, and then it would've been an open goal. That was a very difficult shot from a very tough angle. The goalkeeper has that shot.

He just, he just got beat by something even better. But anyway, sorry. That's, that's me pronouncing on actual hockey stuff. Playing. I should know better. Besides not being elegant, would it be okay to pick the bouncing ball off the stick of the attacker? Yeah. Yes. And I have shown examples. Um, what I'll do is I'll dive back into the What Up Wednesday replays, and I'll put a link in the description and a little card that'll show up here.

So if you're watching on the replay, or maybe you wanna make just like a little mental note of this, that you're gonna come back and you're gonna look for my jump or open up another browser window and go have a look and find 3D skill, just do a search for that on my channel and you will, you will find the instances where I've brought up a couple of clips where defenders have cleanly and skillfully been able to take the ball out of the air, often attacker who is doing a 3D dribble.

So yes, and you know, there is some stick sound and that sort of thing, but it's not produced. It's not produced because the defender has stopped the attacker from being able to access the ball with their stick. It's the other way around. Josh, you're not a massive fan personally of that approach, but you respect how it's evolving in the moment and there's no danger. So goal. 

Yeah, and I think when we as coaches, as players, as umpires, we look at this play and we start looking for reasons why it shouldn't happen. I think maybe we could get over ourselves a little bit because the game isn't about us. It's not a game. It's not about our personal paths. It's not about what skills we're able to execute.

It's not about what we can envision or what we can't. Our responsibility as members of a very large community is to just figure it out and go with this flow. As long as we, we've preserved safety and fairness. Those are the only two things, whether it's technically against this rule or, or you wanna reshape this rule so that it rules that out.

If you're not doing so from a position of making the game more safe or making it more fair, why are you doing it? You're doing it to protect yourself, not to protect the game. So I like that point. Thanks Josh. Sean. It turned out no dangers. No one engaged. Uh, that said most circumstances defenders will try to move in a danger result.

The question then is who caused it? Well, what do you think the attacker does if the attacker doesn't try to move around that defender. Because a defender is entitled to, to take their space and attempt to dispossess the ball. So if the attacker just drives straight into them, it's, it's just like an attacker who puts the ball on the ground and drives it straight at a nice solid block tackle and then flips over their back. Well, whose fault is that? It's not the defenders. They played hockey, they did the right thing, and the attacker just attempted to go straight through somebody as if they were a transparent object. And yes, Matt, bringing up the player reaction, uh, you know, there was a little bit of a, a groan here or there if you listened to the audio the first time I played it.

But honestly, they're, they're just all kind of going, oh dang. Also, how did that fall apart? Or how did that go through? They don't wanna drag their goalkeeper either, so they're not gonna turn around and go. Two. You could have done better with that one. So,

you know, there was even a possibility that, that defender on the, on the drop side, let's see if I can. Oops. Don't do that thing where you put the entire monitor to sleep. Keely,

it was sort of right about here, right about here. There is an opportunity for, for this defender to actually attempt that tackle. It is a possibility. I don't know why there's two there. So there was a chance, but he certainly wasn't in danger and it would've been a, a riskier thing and he probably smartly decided not to dive in because he's a little bit behind. It's got a high probability of resulting in a foul, therefore, should be looked at as reckless as to whether it's going to break down the play, therefore could be a higher penalty than just a penalty corner. So there you go. Yeah. 

They're all looking at each other and looking at the keeper. I'll play this just a little bit more.

I think we're almost there. There's Keely bursting every, every mere mortal player's dreams. This guy's been practicing this for years. I know how very dare I. Don't you just watch a couple TikToks and then you're able to do stuff? Isn't that how it works?

I don't think so. Do you remember that time at Band Camp where goals counted as double? Oh, the EHL. That was a fun experiment. That was awful. It should apply to that. Yeah. 

As a keeper, Cat, you have no idea what to do. You'd be like, I, I mean, I think you have the potential here as a keeper to be a bit more aggressive because again, despite the massive amount of skill that is required and these players have at this level to execute those skills, it's still, like I said, more difficult to move that ball in the air around side to side, horizontally, perpendicular to the turf.

When it's up there, it's difficult to control the ball. It's difficult for you to control your body and the ball when you don't have that extra surface that is anchoring the ball. You got gravity, gravity's moving the ball. There's nothing holding it there so that you can just maybe take your, stick off it for a second and move your body around and do something else.

Like you are, you have more variables to control. So I think is goal. Why am I saying that? Stop tempting me into saying stuff I don't know I have anything to talk about. 

Why isn't the defender right in gold side when he received the ball? Well, yeah, if, if , if he had been goal side in that moment, absolutely would've been, it would've been called a dangerous ball.

I think it deflected off a, let me go right back to this. Cause I think it deflects off a defender. And as the ball would've been falling had marking been appropriate, then the defender, then the ball would've been dangerous at the point at which it was deflected, which is outside the circle. That's why you should mark. These are all the things that we think as umpires when we're on the pitch, and we absolutely can't say, to be fair, neither the defender was neither right nor tight.

As a coach, Nick, you encouraged this skill and used to set up practice players to explore these ideas. Fantastic, right? Fun. I love it. Warning here, some of the best, uh, players are involved not likely to been safely at low levels. Well, it's not likely to be done at lower levels because you, you gotta be able to control the ball instead of deflect it off away.

You gotta be able to hold it there. You gotta be able to move so quickly with the ball perched on your stick, and you've got two defenders on your shoulder. And you're looking for a goalkeeper, you're looking for pass. Like, I mean we, we, we imagine, we imagine like the same skill being executed at lower levels, but so many pieces have to be there first, that you're not gonna see it look like this at lower levels at all because it simply isn't gonna be executed right from the start.

Um, people will try to imitate it as the game advances. Others will copy, they're 10 years old right now and there'll be lots of it. It's called the copy factor. It's called learning. And I think it's great. So we don't need to be the people going: it's not safe for other people to do. They get to explore it, they get to try it.

And the whole point, what we've been watching with the aerial ball rule for the last 20 years is a gradual understanding and increase in the full range of skills from lower levels all the way up.

And it's a, it's a matter of training. It's a matter of physical literacy and strength and development. There's so many things that go into it, but I remember when the rule was eliminated, the players could not play the ball over their shoulder unless they were saving a goal. And do you remember how every umpire was like, oh my God, it's gonna be carnage, because at my level, players are dumb.

Are they though? Do we really have to treat players and the rest of the community and coaches, like they don't know what they're doing? I mean, really, we make jokes around here, but it's possible. It is very possible, and we've seen it happen over the last 20 years, that we're now able to relax the requirements around the reception of an aerial ball because we get it.

And if you're foreign to hockey, you've never seen it and you don't understand why somebody isn't just gonna come and run in and just smack somebody's head off with the ball with, with their stick. Well that's cuz you don't, you haven't been learning for the last several years. It's, it's the spirit of the game.

It's that nebulous thing we talk about. That's, that's what it is right there in the aerial. So we don't have to freak out about this. I mean, you're welcome to, if you wanna go running around and being all freaked out because at lower levels people are gonna die. Go ahead, see if it serves you. 

You might consider an alternative where you approach this development with curiosity, with openness. With an eye of joy towards the game and see what it can do. I think it's a lot more constructive. You're not disagreeing with what anything I've said.

Yeah. Sorry, I just responded to all of that. I should have brought your comment up first, Sean. Though, seeing it now and trying it without the skills developed will be a problem. They'll be . But if you can't, if you can't pick a ball outta the air, you're not gonna be carrying it into the circle like that.

The skills have to develop. It's gonna be okay. Guys, it's gonna be okay. 20 years ago, one guy could flick the ball. 50 yards. Now every under 19 women's team has at least one player who can do it in every game. Everywhere. Yes. Yes. And that's a good thing. Oh, Kev. Dropping the hammer. Mm, drop. Thank you. Please do like the stream.

I really appreciate it. Okay. Oh wait. Votes. God, I've been ranting my face off. Uh, I don't think anyone is. Yes, exactly. You don't try this for the first time in a game, and if you do, you're gonna fail miserably and all of your teammates are gonna go, what are you doing? That's such low percentage stuff. Okay? That's what I'd be doing. 

I believe in skill acquisition and curiosity in the right settings. Just maybe not in your game. Okay, I'm gonna end the poll. I think you guys can all see what the result is here. Great. Two minute warning. Whoa. Is that loud?

Okay. And no surprise here. All you smarties. And it's okay if you felt like there was danger. This isn't about being right. This is about us exercising and being willing to go out and make a decision the way that umpires have to make a decision on the pitch, and being willing to be wrong sometimes. And I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong.

I'm talking about what our consensus is that we've developed here, talking about the principles that we've touched on, about how players with the ball and players without the ball can cause danger. And everybody has a responsibility. And in different situations, you're gonna apply those factors differently.

We're talking about, um, choices that players make in order to, uh, allow something to be safe and not to be safe. So I, I think we're okay.

I don't know why my cough suddenly come back. Thanks, covid .But there you go. Okay. Let's just, let's just move on. Like, let's, let's go for it. I think we can. Great discussion. Thank you very much for all of your input. 

Using the edge of the stick, specifically in indoors. So this was a question posed on the socials, uh, by Mr. Dharma Raj. And he's pretty frustrated that he couldn't get a consensus. He hasn't been able to find consensus in his home community, and he sure didn't find it by posting it on social media. So let us make this pledge right now. Everybody put up your right hand and say, I solemnly swear that we as a community are gonna do our best to get an answer a good, strong answer for this individual. 

This was the video that he put. There are two separate instances of this reception and what he's using is what we would call the forehand edge of the stick, if the stick were, in fact, with the flat side up in the air.

And there's lots of discussions about Argentinian forehands and back hands and things like that. And I mean, let's, let's figure this out. Let's figure this out.

Um,

before it ends, just don't forget.

You know what, I know somebody who is. I, I what, what is his title? Head of creators or something. Anyway, he's a prominent YouTube creator named Renee Richie. If you like Apple specifically, you're, you may have stumbled upon him and fantastic guy. Uh, just an absolute sweetheart. He got hired by YouTube because he's so good at outlining all the, anyway. I'm gonna ask Renee, Richie, and say, Hey, do you have a second? Settle this once and for all for me. Because I've heard contradictory information. So let's find out. 

Um, you, you don't, I I think that's the biggest foul here is playing indoor flip flops. Uh, I already say that they are a hundred percent backhand. Radoslav? Come here, come here. So, you know how, how sometimes when you get super declarative about something and you don't back it up with stuff, you get yourself into trouble.

So we're gonna go through the facts. We're gonna actually look at some rules. So let's see if I do this.

These are the rules. That we need to look at and hang on a sec. I'm getting very distracted by a bunch of notifications coming through on the Discord, which I can't turn off

just in case a moderator wants to get in touch with me. Okay. There we go. 

So, this is in the back. I, I don't need to show you the part of the indoor rule book that says that we can't use that. We have to use the, the flat side of the stick. This is in the appendix and it's two sort of different sections in part two of the appendix about equipment specifications.

And 2.6 here says the playing side of the stick, which is actually inconsistent wording to what the. Rule says it doesn't use the word playing side of the stick. I've talked about this before. We're not, we're not gonna worry ourselves about it, is the entire side shown in figures three and four and the edges of that side.

So the difficulty is in determining what is an edge of something that is a rounded surface. There is a point, and then there's a rounded surface, and then determining what part of a rounded ball actually comes into contact with that edge.

So I'll go back to this and I wanna start looking at your comments here. Slides

I'm glad you appreciated the lean in.

Only the playing side of the stick is defined too. Exactly. Um, Ben, great question. When it hits the grip, is that not permitted? So the definition of the playing side of the stick is the entire side shown the entire way up the handle. So somehow, somehow, it's hard enough to determine what the edge and what the other side of the stick are when there's actually a flat side and a rounded side.

Imagine having to do that with an actual round handle. It's ridiculous. But I received word and clarification directly from a member of the rules committee saying that yes, in fact, those imaginary lines that go up the sides of the stick do continue through the handle. Therefore, the backside. Or the other side of that, imagine those two imaginary vertical lines Cannot be, is not permitted to be used.

You stand corrected. Okay. I'm not sure. Let's see, what did you say? You think they're both backhand or backs stick

and now you stand corrected. Well, tell me, Ribhu, what, what is it that you, that made you change your mind? You can't see why a player would risk that in indoor, there's a high chance of ball balls, high chance of backstick being called or lifting the ball. Okay. 

Now this is interesting. I've, I've seen this a couple times about, well it's, it's highly risky to be called a backtick.

No, it's not a, it shouldn't be that it's highly liking, umpire's gonna get wrong. What the players should consider is, is this actually a back stick or not? An umpire should be calling it correctly. So if the question here, the issue for a player is it's highly likely an umpire's gonna misunderstand what's happening here and therefore call me on a back stick.

Now we've got problems. We've got problems and we need to straighten it out. And that's why we have this conversation, cuz at least this little corner of the internet, we're gonna get this right and then we're gonna tell our friends. Okay.

Now the other risk that Graeme mentions the risk of lifting the ball. Yes. Now, if you don't have the angle of your stick smack correct, if your edge is turned down, Even a few degrees more towards the ground, then you are going to have, so the toe of the stick starts raising the air. Instead of it being that nice and flat, you can see the, the hook of the stick is nice and flat on the ground.

And both these situations then,

you know, we're, we're, we're in business here.

So as an indoor player, I'm watching this and I'm realizing that we have a fundamental problem here with stick design and glove design and the way in which we're trying to play this game because the reason that he's trying this skill that is riskier for, uh, an incorrect play, is that if he turns. His stick.

So it's facing flat out, it's, it's his stick is actually perpendicular, perpendicular to the ground instead of parallel or flat on the ground the way it is now with his glove. This is a problem that I have when I play, so I'm speaking directly from my own experiences, that if my glove is big, the way that that glove is there, that fully protects his hands from getting broken by people who don't know how not to drill, you can more easily miss that reception and the ball goes underneath your stick because of the angle that is created.

So what he's doing is if you can turn that stick flat down, now you've de, you've made a more acute angle of this stick from the toe all the way up to where your glove is holding it. So I can see why he's thinking about this as a skill. That a method of reception that gets around this problem of the gloves being too big and the stick being, you know, the, the, the toes of the sticks being designed as they are.

Do we need to bring back the old stubbies, the, the old square toes? I think so. Uh, Lou, as long as there's no play on the backside of the stick, play on. Well, yeah, but that begs the question, is this the backside of the stick? Rado, you blow it the following way. If the stick faces up, you have the same case.

Okay? It's okay if the stick is facing up, it's facing down as in the video. backstick Same for the handle. Okay. That blows my mind. I do not understand that logic at all. You're gonna have to try that again. Why is one edge okay? And the other, other edge not, they're both edges of the stick. They're both

the entire, the edges,

the entire playing side of the stick and the edges, not the edge, the edges of that side. I might be completely misunderstanding, so please fix my brain for me, because that seems like a bunch of

who to be. I didn't know how I, I know I could stop myself there. Um, Ribhu you guess there isn't a real difference between an edge on the inside of the stick and the edge on the other side. Both seem to be included in the image. Yep. As I just said. 

If you play a tomahawk outdoors with the same edge, is it okay?

You think not? Okay, friend. That's because the rules of outdoor different than the rules of. Because you can contact the ball. You could push it. You could receive it in outdoor with either edge. But what you can't do is you can't hit so, or you can't hit hard.

Where is it?

It's 9.6.

9.6 here. Oh, stop that

as I'm drawing and you can't see it. Come on now. It might be on there. Nope. Okay. Anyway. 9.6 players must not hit the ball hard on the forehead with the edge of the stick. So that's the difference. But when you pull up the indoor rules, there's no rule against hitting the ball hard on the forehead with the edge of the stick because you can't hit the ball period.

But there's no prohibition against using the forehand edge of the stick in outdoor as long as you're not hitting with it. Does that make sense? That's the difference.

You don't have to, the head of the stick is flat to the ground. If there's a slight angle, you would be happier. Well, . But are we seriously unhappy? Are we concerned? Do we know for sure.

Hi . You have missed me going to this slide a few times, right? I guess so. Here's, here's an idea. If, if we're in the middle of a discussion, you might wanna take that play head, pull it back in YouTube, and then you put me on two times speed, okay? 1.75. And then you catch up with everything that's been said.

Here. Here with, I presented unto you the rules.

Wood sticks had, uh, a back better to find edges in a back, carbon fire sticks, or one flat face and a curve face is a smoother joint. Yeah, there's a bit of construction issue. There's all kinds of stuff. And these toes that we're using and we're u and we've got these, these extended toes because it helps us with, again, edge skills like spinning the ball, D whatever you call it, a curly Q,

I don't know what the, what the term might be in your area, but when you nestle the ball in that crook of the stick, it is absolutely being played by the edges and you can spin it around and move in all kinds of directions. Zero loss, loss of contact with the stick. That's what I'm trying to say.

No foul according to been told to change. The ball is contacting the edge, above the apex, but on the wrong side of the edge. Okay, now that is the best argument you can put for this being a foul, but is it? I'm certainly not saying that for the first example where it hits it higher up on the handle because we've got no clue where an actual edge is.

So this, this here, it's fine, especially when he's kind of moved it back. But there, that, is the ball contacting is the apex of the ball contacting away from that edge. How far away from the edge is far enough And you know what the point is, gang here. Why are we looking for reasons to blow our whistle?

Why?

If it's a highly unreliable skill such that the ball's likely going to roll over your stick because it's difficult, then that's gonna make that call very easy. I think the fact, the fact that the ball doesn't roll over the stick means that it has indeed contacted the edge for the purposes of any kind of discussion,

meaningful distinction we wanna make.

They can hit it on the backhand. Well, and indoor. You can't hit the ball period. So,

Nope. I don't know what, what I've been told to change is noping at, but that's a definitive, Nope. It's the forehand side of the body. They're not talking about the stick. It's the forehand. Yes, the, and it's outdoor. We don't care about that. We don't care about that right now. And it's only inside and in. Only inside and outdoor.

I can't. Is 9.6 do the increased ball risk of the ball going up if you hit it with that side? In outdoor, yes. It's a highly unreliable skill that results in danger to opponents. The danger in this skill isn't there. The ball is going to just, it's not gonna flip up into your opponent's face centimeters away.

It's gonna roll over your stick. So it's not the same pressing danger issue, especially with the degree of force that's being applied. 

Oh, no. Oh no. How you like that? Okay. Unless that ball lifts up and goes over the stick, you're blowing nothing at all. There's no offense, ladies and gentlemen,

if you're not gonna believe me, which has been happening a lot lately, not gonna lie. I'm really hurting my ego here. Baz has told you, Indoor World Cup final umpire, two times running and he's not blowing it. So neither are we. Oh my God, I didn't set a poll.

Um hmm. Okay. I'm not gonna set a poll now because I'm bullying you into the answer. No, I don't wanna do that, but I really. I, I just.

Rado had the best argument, which I think you refute by saying, well, if that is happening, the ball should roll over. Does that make sense? Rado? I want, tell me, does that argument make sense to you? Put your, put your ego aside. You and I, you know, we've got a relationship here. We have a rapport. We understand each other.

Okay. If this makes sense to you, please tell me, cuz if it does, you're gonna determine the course of this argument. Right now. You've always thought the allowable playing server should be clearly designated on the stick challenge for stick makers, but would make it clear. Yeah, if we, if we're looking for little technical, tick tacky things to call, but we're not.

We're not, because almost everything about when we have to draw technical distinctions is actually because it's a danger issue. I think we're okay with this.

Oh, Luke's finally here. Okay. I'll start from the beginning. From all you've seen, you don't see foul. Yeah.

Backside hits with both edges. Illegal. Yes. Thanks, Chris. You're right. And outdoor, that hit's highly unreliable, dangerous yeah. There you go. Laughing and hiding. 

The curve of the stick at underside is a maximum 25 millimeters in the ground. Okay, now we're spitting some facts. Fingers are 10 to 50 millimeters thick, glove probably 20 to 25, so with curve AP of the sticks, apex of the stick is approximately 50 40 to 50 millimeters.

This is incredible. This is, this is like what I did with drag flick. Do you remember that time where I tried to use physics and maths and stuff? It was, it was not pretty. The ball has a 70 37 millimeter radius. So unlikely that the middle of the ball is above the edge of the stick. Yeah. Unless the stick is now it's, it's, it's dead flat.

It's dead flat. And then if you tilt it a little bit, obviously, and then you're gonna miss. Rado's laughing. Okay. Your comment is next, please. The play is much easier than rotating the wrist a few more degrees than trying to block up. Yeah. But it's, it's less reliable and it, there's less control because if it goes off the edge, there's, there's more of a rebound.

It's not a brilliant way to stop the ball in indoor. If it was, you would've been seeing the Germans and the Poles and the Austrians doing this for the last 20 years. You could define this mechanically and mathematically, but Lee sums it up. Yes. Is something which, uh, the edge is the edge assuming. 

No indoor stick was such curvature around. Otherwise I would send a pic.

You still haven't told me if you're convinced yet. That is the answer I'm looking for, Rado. This is, this is you. This is all on you. Does it make sense to you that it can only contact the stick above the edge if it goes over?

I'm not looking for hijack. I'm Oh, you're not. Goddammit. Fine. Okay. Then I need a majority.

Okay, you have to vote very quickly. What time is it? Oh my God, it's already one. Okay, vote quickly everybody, and I have to give, I probably have to give this a minute.

So with the two minute warning,

I'm watching it come in, I'm watching the results come in. You're watching the results. I'm watching the results. It's very exciting.

Uh, and I'm just about to end it. So get in there. Get in there. You press the wrong one, Cat. Okay, well that means that we can infer the number. Rado, I think you're in trouble. Okay, and now this is the next part is that for all of us who are on the other side of that argument, I want you to take into consideration. You have me.

I'd like to think that my opinion matters because nobody thinks about this stuff as much as I do. You've got Lee Barron, you've got several other members of this chat, and then there's you who are now currently sitting

at, with 25 votes

of an incredibly strong majority. So Rado, what happens when you get out on the pitch? What do you call? You can have your intellectual doubts, but this is consensus. So you need to go out on the pitch in indoor and call it this way. That is my ask of you because this is how we get better as a community, is agreeing to our consensus and then moving forward with that.

And the frustration that I have with watching social media is that you have a bunch of people who say, no, I'm right and I'm gonna do it my way. Even though the experts

that the experts and the opinions given there are so clear and Rado this, this makes me so happy. You have no idea. It really does. This makes me incredibly happy that you are willing to say yes. Okay. It's hard. It's hard, but I've been wrong about things in the past, especially the first probably 10 years of my umpire career.

I was wrong. Oh God. The time. I'm a lot more right now that I don't pick up a whistle as often. 

Kev, I appreciate that you confess. You're flabbergasted. Nick, you're flabbergasted. This is haberdashery Tom foolery. This is very British of you, uh, that you can use both edges of the stick and outdoor. Nobody ever uses the back as edge of the stick, but you're listening.

It doesn't happen very often cuz it's an inconsistent skill. You don't train it very much cuz there's better alternatives available. And the only reason I can see for Mr. Raj wanting to use his stick in that manner is that it's, uh, more he can exercise that skill more proficiently than perpendicular to the ground because of the gloves cause of the problem.

If only we could just get rid of drilling entirely. You'll do it for the community, but you are, you are part of the community too. And your job is also to transfer out this amazing knowledge that you've gained today. The access to the opinions that you have. Dare I say not just opinions, but the expert analysis that you have access to.

You get to take that to your community now and help share that and spread that around. And that's how we build consensus. 

You've seen one player do it in outdoors? Well, yeah. I mean I've seen it occasionally in outdoor, it's just not super, you know, it's not very smart. The difference between social media and our community, we're willing to admit we're wrong in order to change our perspective, become better umpires and better people.

Thank you. You can't wait for the indoor season in Germany to start. Well, you know, Rado, you could have been, you could have come over to Canada, you could have come to Calgary five weeks ago and you could have started indoor cuz that's how we do things around here. Back the stick.

Restart with a, Nope. Thanks Shayne. It's always a pleasure to have you. In the house. Okay.

Indoor rules updates. Indoor rules updates. Okay, so this came out. I mean, there's no better time to publish rule changes than on Remembrance Day, Veterans Day in the us It's, is it not the same? Was it not Remembrance Days? Cuz I'm not spending much time on Facebook these days, and that's where I get all my news about UK observances and holidays.

But anyway, so last Friday, this is, this is the weird thing. Um, so in email, it linked to both the new 2022-23 Indoor Umpires Briefing, talking about trapping. And, and in this paragraph, you know, gives us a, um, a summary of what those changes were in the briefing. And I'm gonna take you through them.

Trapping, um, taking P corners rule, I'm gonna have to, I didn't notice that. And the use of the protective equipment. Those were the ones that I looked at. And then the rules of hockey. And this is interesting. So what they've done for the indoor rules, as they've added the parallel clause about removing the face masks as to what exists in outdoor, but then they say National Associations of Connell federations are advised to follow this guidance in their indoor competitions leading to the World Cup.

But no rule changes have been made. Therefore implementation dates remain unchanged.

So let me show you like this is when my, this is when my mind gets blown. And look, you can see my studio here. So, pulled up Draftable. Thank you Draftable for being awesome. And this is the rules of indoor hockey. Updated December, 2020 and the rules of indoor hockey updated November, 2022. I've realized that we don't have a 2019 Indoor Rules of Hockey anymore, or a 2020 Indoor Rules.

We just have the rules updated whenever they want. Rule cycles don't exist anymore. They just are they just, whenever, a couple times a year, maybe three, maybe seven, maybe never. They're just gonna update the rules and make changes whenever they want. And I think that kind of sucks because it makes it difficult to draw people's attention to the changes. Anyway.

So the first, and the only real major change in all of this is here with the face masks. And this is in rule 4.2, that the old rule used to require that, uh, when they were in the penalty corner, sorry, when they, they were in the circle, they were defending and during the penalty corner, they could keep their masks on, but as soon as those conditions no longer applied, they had to remove their masks.

And I gotta tell you, I, I realize this, this past weekend when I'm umpiring and I see an indoor player defending with a mask and the, and they've dribbled just outside the, the penalty corner, the balls pinged around. I've been applying the rules as they've now been rewritten anyway, because it is ridiculous that the pace that the ball moves an indoor to expect a player to be able to remove their mask safely, dispose of it, instead of throwing it at umpire.

By the way, just want y'all to know I had a chat with Cata and she's doing much better now, but it wasn't just a gash. She, you know, had some whiplash symptoms from getting hit as hard as she did. So that's why we didn't see her for a few matches. And we saw her in the video umpiree Booth, um, later on. So, you know, it was significant and she was just kind of in shock when it happened.

So best wishes, Cata, and I'm glad that you're doing better and feeling better, and we look forward to seeing you back out on the pitch asap. Asap eTown, stop. Okay, so this is what the new rule reads, which is parallel to what we have in outdoor. So that players should be removing their penalty corner equipment as soon as they're able to do so after the penalty corner is completed.

If no suitable opportunity arises, they can continue to wear it and they're defending half of the field without penalty. All players must remove all protective equipment before they leave. They're defending half of the field or when instructed by the umpire. So exactly the same as outdoor within the 23.

But now it's the central line. And this kind of goes along with my whole theory that indoor is just 2 23 meter areas stuck together and we've just removed the neutral zones all together and oh, what fun it is. But this isn't just guidance on how to interpret something. This is changing when something is a foul and when it isn't.

This is a rule change. And just because they've added it to a guidance section of the rules, which never should have been a guidance section because it dictates the actual stipulation, not how to apply something, but how that something is or is not a foul. This is a rule change and if a national association decides not to employ this because they don't want to prior to 2023 indoor World Cup, well they're playing by a different set of rules.

So just because you send an email and say, this is not a rule change, just because the rule committee wants to say that it's not a rule change doesn't mean it's not a rule change. It's a rule change, and they are changing rules as they see fit. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe we want the game to be more responsive and we want, we want to have.

misunderstandings, misconceptions, whatever addressed immediately. Maybe that's exactly what should happen. Maybe that concerns you and you think that isn't the way to do things. Okay. So that's the change in the rules. So let me go to what is the, uh, new indoor briefing? Okay. And, sorry, I need to actually bring this so I can control it.

The first, the very first slide gives you the release date of November 8th and

reinforcing that this is the, the most current version and, okay, slide 54, let's. Gotta make sure that I find that, because I made comments in here

and I don't wanna edit, slide away out.

Okay. And I wonder if that's gonna work. It's not. I gotta get this out of the way.

So this is helpful. It's nice to have this note. Um, I certainly appreciate that. So let's, let's buzz to the first change. This is actually the first change is that they pulled this presentation of our brand and put it at the, at the top and the front along with, um, this awareness, recognition and the principles, the key pillars and philosophy and all this kind of very helpful.

Stuff. Okay. So, and then when we get to the changes, they've added three slides about trapping the ball corners. And if you remember when we went through the briefing last year, this was a really confusing section because they would say, this is what happens, but they wouldn't prescribe, or this briefing would not describe when a penalty should be applied and to whom necessarily they would just say, this needs to happen.

Okay, well that's great, but do we actually call it, so here's an example of this new not trapping thing, and there it's gonna play now,

so, This is not trapping when the player is not trapped and they have the ability to make a positive play, but refuses to try anything. So it takes a very long time, but eventually the free hit is called Against that player. So we've actually incorporated now into indoor, and with the guidance from this briefing, we are instructed to penalize, I guess what you would call passive play.

Okay, here's another example. Oops.

Okay. Where a player. Doesn't have a lot of options. They're discarding their face mark very quickly, which is good. Okay, so they didn't try to go into coach, get the hell outta there. What are you doing there? Okay. And then this player does make a few attempts, but number six, that third Spanish player is blocking that.

That should be a free hit against because she is cutting off that pass. So it works out, the player does the right thing, but that's what we're seeing. The red player six interferes when the opposition tries to pass the ball to either the colleague, to either colleague who's waiting for the past. So the free, free push needs to be called.

Okay, so now we have two instances where it's very clear as to what a foul needs to be called This. This slide isn't nearly as clear for me.

Okay, so what you have is a player who goes into a corner. She's being blocked now, but are we gonna call, is she, is she backing far enough away from this to allow that pass to go? Is this active enough or is this more passive? And when you watch, I mean, when this player gets outta this situation, it's brilliant.

Just watch what she does here. She does right in front of her goal and the goalkeeper is, you know, doing their thing and then boom, creates the opening. Just a great passage of play. So when I look at the verbiage here, conversely, a defending team takes it into the corner and does not take the option. It may be pc, however, consider who took the ball into the corner.

Did the player have options? Defending team sets up a channel, timing and movement of the ball. Note the umpire signaled, but also verbally instructed the player to take the option. Okay. So should it have been a foul against the defending team or should the, the, the team in possession been awarded a free hit against?

I really, I don't know. I'm kind of confused, but to me it would've been very difficult to call a penalty corner against a player who is. Not being super passive, not being super active either, but is managing to change where the ball's being dribbled. So I mean, I think here the right remedy is play on, but this particular slide doesn't really help us figure that out.

Um, I'm gonna come into the comments here and make sure that I'm not getting there. There's your 13 slides on trapping. You better go . I love it. Uh, it's arms to stay remembered. Stay remembered. Stay all. Yeah. Veterans Day and the Love it. There you go. Um, very. Yeah. Clears mud

I'm not gonna say this out loud, I don't know. Yes, it's 2 23 stuck together. Thanks. And yes, quick recovery says Luke Tecate. I will pass that along and I'll say my community was totally behind you. . It's stuck in the atal section, but it absolutely is part of the rules. It's clarification, the guidance of the rule it's attached to, and that guidance has fundamentally changed.

Yeah, to me there's a difference between what is guidance and what is actually a penalty. The prescription of a penalty. And it can be very fuzzy, but I think in this particular case, you can't argue that's not a change in a rule, in a rule. It just doesn't make sense for the reasons I've already said.

Okay. Let me see if I can find this. 54.

Because this slipped on me entirely. Management of pc, let's discover this together. Shot A goal cannot be lifted unless it goes outta the circle first. If it does not go out. Oh.

Oh, you guys. Okay.

So there was a time at band camp where we had a discussion in the past week about whether if a ball had not gone outside the circle and outdoor, and the ball is drag flipped at goal and hits a defender high. What is your decision? And I sat and watched the discussion for several, several posts. It was a really good one, and this is one of those cases where I'm like, yeah, we're not talking about a settled fact and consensus that just some people don't disagree with.

This is a very fine nuanced point in the rules that we actually don't discuss very often. I want to see these discussions and I learned a lot from this particular one, and I waited and hung back and, but eventually, I think it was Mike Mac who made what I think is the most, is a very good point, which I am reinforced by saying, why is it that when the first hit, the first shot at goal, if a hit is too high, why do we call it immediately instead of waiting to see whether danger actually.

Because we don't think it's fair to penalize the defenders having to play with extra skill in order to bring a ball down from outta the air that they shouldn't have to deal with at that pace. Cuz danger really is you don't have enough skill to protect yourself at the speed and the manner in which the ball's traveling at you.

And that's why danger is different at a lower level of skill from a higher level of skill, right? We all agree with that. So what you're seeing in this briefing is a clarification than an indoor, and I don't see why it would be any different and outdoor that here, the actual act of lifting the ball, which you could only do as a shot on goal, this cannot be a shot at goal because it hasn't gone outside the circle.

Therefore, it needs to be called down should it hit. Oh, let's look directly at the rules out of pc. A shot at goal cannot be lifted unless it goes out of the circle first. If it does not go out as not a legitimate shot at goal, free out immediately

it, this is a big change, and again,

it's a change in the room.

So the notion of what can be a legitimate shot at goal is only one in that you can score on.

This has taken the concept that we were discussing in the outdoor discussion a step further, saying regardless of whether danger actually occurred to a defender, It has to be called out immediately. Holy crap. My mind is being blown right now by the ramifications of this.

I'm gonna look at your comments so that maybe you can stitch my, um, gray matter back together.

Um, let's see, where is my cursor? You're worried about how artificial the game could be with the inconsistencies? Yes. Because again, this is, you know, gods, you've been around and I'm sure you've heard me talk about this before, where trapping is one of those things that has nothing to do with. Other than the fact that you're not going to drill it at your opposition.

If they've cut off that space and they're stationary in their set and they've, they've got their sticks protecting their bodies not outstretched, right? So trapping is a rule not geared like every other rule. And the book is, in my opinion, cuz it's not about safety, it's about the prettiness of the game.

And we run into a very,

very difficult muddy area when we get away from what is safe and what is unsafe. Because, I mean, I don't love what I saw in that last slide on trapping, but I don't hate it either. And really does my definition as an umpire of what constitutes passive or active play. Does that, does that matter? As long as the players are safe, it doesn't matter.

So giving umpires, requiring umpires to basically make a determination of what is an attempt to continue play and what isn't. I don't want that job. That's not what I'm there for. I'm not there to evaluate skill or decision making or anything like that. I'm there to evaluate safety and fairness.

So I don't like that at all.

Yeah, thanks Chris. And I have a theory as to why that might have happened. Your reading of this indoor briefing is because it's not able to be a shot at goal. Um, it cannot be lifted, so it's a free push, but if the shot is on the ground, then it's okay.

Yeah, absolutely. That makes sense. But

say it's not a legitimate shot at goal,

takes it that step further from just what we were talking about, Mike, about it being dangerous to a player. Therefore, a penalty corner wouldn't be the right remedy if a player, an outdoor gets caught with a drag flick high because that shot can't score. So it can't be a penalty stroke. But should it actually also be danger because they shouldn't have to defend themselves from a shot that couldn't be a shot.

You know what I'm saying? Only if the first shot is lifted, but still huge because of the height restrictions in indoor, it appears now it's deemed in illegal raising the ball. Yeah,

it's very interesting, especially because their example in the slide is where a defender gets hit with the ball and it could have been analog, gets to the outdoor discussion. It could have been a penalty corner. If I just replay it back again,

bass, who's on Parring? This, I can't see.

It's too dim and I don't know he is making that decision. But do we know if that umpire made that decision? Because this is obviously slightly old footage. So did they make that decision based on the fact that the ball didn't go outside, or did they make that decision that it was a lifted ball that was going wide of the target and therefore was not a shot goal and therefore was just dangerous?

This is the problem that I have. When I use certain clips to try to illustrate certain discussions, I have to make sure that I'm not inventing a reason why a decision occurred. I better be fairly confident. And if I'm not, then I have to say that. And if you wanna say, this is an example where it needed to be called this way, regardless of whether it hit the player or not, regardless of whether it was on target or not, even if it was on target, the fact that it didn't leave the circle means that it cannot be a legitimate shot on goal and therefore has to be called I.

Is there any chance as Nick that anytime a rule has changed, an indoor outdoor that the rules committee would think, is there an equivalent rule in the other version that we should also consider? Nick, you're talking crazy talk. Absolute crazy talk. Yeah. Top marks for getting outta the way. Okay. I would love for you to come into the server and help talk me off the ledge.

Let's think about this and flush it through and maybe we'll come and revisit next week as well. And where's the others

here? So these two or three slides reiterate what rule 4.2 is, which very nice, but that's not what briefings are supposed to be. Um, but here again is the reinforcement that. Players are permitted to immediately pass the ball wearing protective equipment. However, they're not permitted to take us out. Pass, and I'm sorry, but this is just horses shit.

This, this really makes no sense at all. So now we have to go back to the old days of adjudicating whether something is too touches or not,

that a player can't take two steps with the ball and then outlet because that gives you a better angle, especially in indoor, where it's so close and congested. Two steps can make such a difference as to what angles are available. Is this really what you're gonna ask umpires to adjudicate they likes you and why?

And why? When they can continue wearing that equipment inside the attacking half, why? It, it just, this is a solution in search of a problem that makes the problem worse. Yeah.

10 points from Griffin to law. Come talk me off the ledge. Okay. So I hate this and I wouldn't be surprised if we see this change cuz it just really like how Ugh. Um, and this, this provision, this whole thing about making sure that if you give a card within the attacking half, that the team penalty upgrade is also associated with it.

Um, there are no personal interpretations you tie to do together. They just moved this, um, From a different area of the briefing that I thought was very interesting. So

yeah, so many thoughts.

Let's just get to the next, we'll get to the final topic cuz it's an interesting one. Oh, attackers calls at the pc. Did you see this?

So let's say it first. It's a description, it's not a video. So I have a an an A problem right off the start. PC awarded defenders put on masks. An attacker goes behind the goal and puts on two protective gloves. He then becomes the stopper in the PC routine and deliberately uses the gloves to stop the ball instead of the stick.

Both glove hands are on the stick. What would you do? Okay, now

here are the rules. Players must not wear anything which is dangerous to other players. They're permitted. Field players are permitted to wear hand protection, which does not increase the natural size of their hand significantly. Any hand protection used both for normal play and to defend penalty corners.

So you can say there's two categories of players. There's the normal play, which can include attackers on a penalty corner and defenders defending penalty corners. The. It must fit comfortably within that box. So assuming that the two gloves that that attacker, attacker used when executing that penalty corner fit inside that box, the wearing the gloves, not a problem.

Then we have rule nine 11 that we all know it is non defense. We'll skip the other stuff, but the, the guidance, it is non defense if the ball hits the hand holding the stick, but otherwise would've hit the stick. So we use some catchy phrases for this, like ball to hand, not hand to ball, and such like that.

This is a pretty, um, it's not a call that we see too, too often, but I have two examples in my clip library. Who got the touch? This is a pretty standard one. We have a obliges ball to hand situation. So when you watch on this replay, the ball coming in to the defender is taken down and it hits the player's hand, which is on her stick, and it goes to video referral and it's judged to be a hand that is part of the stick.

So this is a play on situation. Great. Let's,

we have to start this one at the beginning. What? The Sam Hill's going on? Absolutely. The Van's circle awarded. European semifinal, massive decision. And Vincent Beana has been saving this one up all season, watching the German penalty corner attack.

When the ball came out that the stop outside circle stopped with the hand, they claiming that it was stopped with the hand. So looking for if the ball was to stop it by hand? Yes. Okay. This is interesting. Stop it by hand. The hand is what? A picture.

And there's the ball with the hand for free out. And the best video referral ever referred right there. Suspicious on the last one. Just incredible. A great spot for to go. So when we go back to the question.

And the, yeah, the clip does illustrate that very completely. There is only one correct answer for this, which is, it depends,

this, this post presupposes the answer because it says they deliberately use the gloves to stop the ball instead of the stick. Well, how Don't ask a question that you've presuppose the answer. This answer is already a fell under nine 11, and it doesn't matter whether there's gloves there or not. So what's the relevance of the glove?

Either the player has used their hand deliberately to stop the ball and in what manner, or they haven't, but we don't know that from this description that I'm now bringing back up on to the screen. Okay. The very wording of it tells us what we should be answering with, but we don't know why. Is it that the ball is sandwiched between the two hands?

Is it that there, that the ball is being nest? along with the, the, the glove into the corner where the stick is, and they've gained an advantage from being able to, to leverage that. I don't know, could be any of these things, but we can't tell from this. So think very carefully when you see these posts on social media and about whether you want to jump into the fray and you wanna give an answer.

Because sometimes you can't, sometimes there isn't anywhere enough information for you to be able to offer. You can certainly talk about the principles like we just did, but who knows? Um, let's see. Oh, wait, wait, wait. There's nothing. Let's go back to the, the indoor thing. I wanna hear what Rado was to say.

Trapping should be solved by more simple rules. It can be measured, judged on the field by the players in the public. Uh, when the umpires advise the ball controller to play actively, they should be forced to move in the open direction, not return to the same space. Well, maybe, but, uh, let's put it to you this way.

When I'm coaching players on my ones about what they should do is, what I've told them is have the two set up blocking the, the through space, and then I want a third hanging back and you're gonna time it, you're, you're gonna hang back and make sure that that outlet is clear. But as soon as the pass goes, I want you to jump and I want you to pressure that ball carrier and pressure meaning like you're gonna be on top of them right when it happens, cuz very few umpires are gonna be able to decide whether that was cutting off the outlet and interfering with, well, how much room should you be able to have?

That has nothing to do with safety, that has nothing to do with. With anything that you can adjudicate with principles. It's so vague. It's so arbitrary, and I've instructed my players from my, with my coaches hat on saying, I want you to push it. I want you to push the line and see what the umpires do. It happens very seldomly in the levels of play that I'm, I'm, you know, occupied with.

But go nuts and see what happens. And if you get a free hit called against you, who cares? If you don't, you're probably gonna be forcing a penalty corner, a stroke or goal.

Yeah. The directions are vague because there's, there's nothing, there's no line you can draw, there's no line at all that you can draw as to what's pretty and what's not. What's active and what's not feels like a restart with a bully.

Okay, so back to the hands things. Um, uh, Mike, not even just openhanded, if the gloves stop the ball from sliding sideways, that's no Ben, no bueno. Yeah, but is that what happened here in the situation? We don't know. So there you go. Friends, uh, substantially over time. My apologies, and I appreciate every one of you for sticking around to the end so you could potentially have your brains blown by big briefing.

I don't wanna say blenders. What's a B word? That's for confusion, so

I hope that. Interesting. We need to continue this conversation. If you are at all interested in indoor and you should be interested in or because indoor does affect outdoor and outdoor does affect indoor and indoor is awesome. And if you have the opportunity to fire indoor, oh my God, get out there and do it.

Because it will give you a different emphasis of skill set than outdoor does. The rapidity of your decisions, the, the quickness of your ability to anticipate all those things because you're sticking to attacking 20 threes together and you skip all the middle part and the degree of intentionality and all those things like, oh, it's so good for all those things.

So get out there and do some indoor the season. Seek it out in your area, get involved, do some matches, watch some indoor hockey. We have the indoor world cup happening in February. I'm gonna be glued to my computer sets. Very much so bluster. Okay. That kind of works. We'll take that. Um, so yes, let's talk more about this.

You're very welcome, gods, and thank you all. Don't forget now. This is the, this is the perfect time. You watched the whole damn thing and now you're gonna press the like button. Okay. Thank you very much William, and I hope you've had a chance to look at the course that you were so anxious to dive into and let me know and hopefully, um, I'll be able to fix those two modules that weren't working properly that causing me so much problem y.

And enjoy. If you haven't, if you don't know what I'm talking about with the course, it is this mission critical positioning is now available. So go grab it. It is 28 modules and God's cast stars in it. Cause he talks sometimes and it's good. Okay, so that means I owe you a cut. Godders, I got, I gotta give you a percentage of all that.

So make sure you go sign up. Um, Yep. Good to see you and Alistair, good to have you there. And there's the link from Dina. You're very welcome. Goodnight. Goodnight. I did put some bits in the Discord. Oh, okay. Yeah, I was too busy trying to get ready for the screen this morning, being seminars behind my friend.

Not easy. You're very, very welcome. Um, you'll update the Federation website with them shortly. Excellent, excellent. And Rado, if you're not in the Discord server, why aren't you come, come join. Wait. Oh, can you see that? You probably can't because those two things are overlapping. Now just get into the Discord server and come say hi, because that's where we do all the best.

Half a percent. Okay, , cheers. Cheers. Thank you so much. And there is the link for the Discord. Okay. Enjoy the rest of your hockey weeks and we will talk to you very, very soon. Bye.

#thirdteam #fieldhockey #hockey #umpire #umpiring #FIH #FIHumpires #umpirelife #hockeyumpiretips #hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules