📅 Jun 19 19.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube
Back so soon? Indeed, as we have many Lee Valley #FIHProLeague happenings to wrap up. We have a few aerial interceptions and infringements to cover within the context of the new 2024 FIH Umpires' Briefing, which we'll also review for any notable changes. There's a GK shoot-out obstruction, a rather odd substitution/sideline play and a first-time video referral that you're going to have to see to believe.
I don't want to brag but we're out to bend some minds today. Make sure you're fully hydrated, grab the snacks, and let's get into it!
👟 The Season Training Plan is OPEN 👟
⏱ Chapter Markers:
0:00 Chair Dancing
00:07:46 Topics!
00:08:40 1a. Aerial Interceptions and Infringements: #FIHProLeague GBRvIND (M)
00:16:14 1b. Aerial Interceptions and Infringements: #FIHProLeague CHNvGBR (W)
00:25:42 1c. Aerial Interceptions and Infringements: #FIHProLeague GBRvAUS (M)
00:36:50 2. 2024 FIH Umpires' Briefing
01:05:06 3a. Shoot-out Obstructions: #FIHProLeague GERvAUS (W)
01:20:02 3b. Shoot-out Obstructions: Hockey.nl @hockey
01:28:03 4. Substitution or Sideline? #FIHProLeague GBRvAUS (M)
01:41:13 5. VR Delay on PC Injection
01:48:26 6. Handle of the Stick: #AHBA Metro Ignis Producciones IG
Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.
🟢🟡🔴 🏑
Transcript
🎶
Keely: What up Wednesday? Keely Dunn, FHumpires. You're the third team. Hello. Hi. Things might look a little bit different. And if you have an eagle eye and an eagle ear, maybe you're sort of wondering, what's she doing? Why is it never the same? Why is she always effing with things? It's because I care and I love, and I just have to keep trying.
I am trying out a new camera and a new, um, Uh, what's this called? Microphone. Yes. And a new microphone today because this is a highly portable little system and I'm considering this for live streaming on the road, which I might be doing more of. So I wanted you to have the opportunity to give me some feedback on it.
So if you have anything like that, it's great. I'm, I'm making a poll right now. I didn't notice. Um, audio good, video bad, um, and one more, um, actually two more. Audio bad, video good, a new thingy doodad. I have new thingy doodads. Um, I should have added, um, a thing for it all sucks, I detest, do not. But I forgot.
And there you go. Thank you, David, for the little shout out for the, the, the likes and all that kind of thing. Oh, no, it's where it's in here, you know, changing things up. It's. It's so that I don't get, um, stale and bored and complacent as well. That's a big part of it. So, by the way, if you were here on Sunday for the two hour escapade through FIH Pro League things and happenings, and you're wondering how is it that Keely can find yet another hour and a half, Keely hour of content from the same 10 days, well, guess what?
Don't threaten me with a good time because I have done it and we have a lot to go through. Fewer clips, but probably more substance. So there are polls. Make sure you go and you vote on the polls in the discord because that way you're exercising your decision making power. You're committing to something.
You can go back and change your answer later if you have to be like that. Like I'm not mad, but it's about going through that. Process yourself and making a declaration and then, potentially, changing your mind after we've had our thorough discussion about it. That is part of the muscle I'm also developing with people, is the ability to change their mind.
If we are those people who, in the face of evidence and arguments to the contrary, we actually get more entrenched in our first viewpoints, We're failing. We're failing as umpires. We have to be better than that. Okay? That's the challenge to you. That's what I'm saying. All right. Thanks very much for everybody stopping in and super happy to see Mr.
Hyne back. That's really, really cool. Uh, Tacos here. Great to see you, friend. I hope Alex is good too, and maybe he's around. Um, uh, Rosé for, uh, Rachel. Excellent. Jealous. Oh, whoops. And I poured this, so I better sip it or else it's gonna be And if any of you Oh, yeah, somebody's gonna screenshot that. Oops. I should know.
Hi, Matt. Very nice to see you. Yeah. Yeah, I have more GB game footage. Like, there's just no There's just no way around it. My bombilla is stuck again. It's happening. What have I done? No monte for me today. Mi bombilla no funciona. It's terrible. It's terrible. Okay. This is what we're talking about today. Nope.
I know. I know that I did this. I swear to you. I swear to you all. It's just, I, I don't even know what I, what,
baby mode topics.
Oh wait, wait, that's not what I want to do. That's busted. Let's try that again. You know what? I'm ready for this. I'm ready for this.
Hi, this is what we're going to cover tonight. Error interceptions and infringements! Yay! Oh, the 2004, the 2024 FIH umpires briefing. I fixed that too! Shootout, uh, obstructions, substitution or sideline question mark, a video referral for a delay on injection on the PC, and the handle of the stick. Yeah, that's what's happening.
Um, oh, he's got a task. Okay, totally fine. Get it? I get it. And it's pretty much a done deal. Every time tech always wins, but I'm just trying. Oh, but he's here.
Go study. Go study. Okay. And your answer. Awesome. Okay. Let's go. Arial interceptions and infringements. We're going to start off with an easier one. Okay. So go vote in the poll. Hopefully this is going to pop up. Yes, there it is.
How very dare I find a GB clip for this.
All right. Get in the poll. Let me know what you think about this. There's a correct answer. There's always a correct answer with me, but there's definitely a correct answer on this one. I wonder if I can clean this out really fast. Your girl needs some caffeine. I'm just, I'm just saying
smoking. It's not going to work friends. And Oh, and see, now I have this mic, this mic here. It follows me when I move around, which is kind of fun. That's kind of different. So one of the hot topics in all the aerials is the issue of intention or as I prefer to call it in almost all situations, reckless as a result of breaking down play.
And what we're looking for when we're looking at an aerial. situation in the D. And here we go. I've got a little bit of this, this action going on that I can draw on,
is
the notion that players are aware to different degrees as to whether they are in a potentially good intercepting position or not. And once they are not able to intercept, what are they doing here? Now, this is the issue, is that we have the initial receiver, that's working, we have the initial receiver who is, who has shifted out and away from their mark, underneath the ball, but these two players are pretty much in line with each other.
So the attempting interceptor knows that where the initial receiver is. You can see him. This is not a good situation of him being behind or anything like that. And as this continues to move along, he comes into the playing space, the playing distance of the ball, and it's dangerous. And because that's a known factor and the player should know better, they are reckless as to breaking down to the play.
And I mean, for me, this looks like a pretty clear cut penalty stroke. From the side view, you can see it a little bit differently as well, and just because his head isn't tracking there, you've got initial receiver, nice stationary planted, but you have the player leaning in with the stick. He's not vertical, he's not anywhere else, he's reaching into that receiving area, and That is an intentional infringement of the five metres because it's not a legitimate interception whatsoever.
Interception would have to be attempted outside of the Uh, outside of the playing distance and not made dangerous. Okay. Well, well, thank you, David. Good to, good to hear that you agree with the umpire in this case. I know that I'm going to try to move a little more quickly through these because, because lots of material.
So if you haven't had a chance to jump into the poll, I hope you do so quickly. Any other comments on this one? If you want to see it, I think it's You know, it's, it's not always a solid indication when the players don't go to video referral, but they certainly could have here. What are we at? We're Q2 and, um, and India does have their referral.
So, I mean, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to give it a shot, but they weren't willing to take the chance on this particular play. And I think
that's what I'm saying. Okay. Let's go check out the poll. I got my phone ready. I got my phone ready, but I did log in. It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we win or we lose. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. Am I having a Gen X flashback? Yes, friends, I am. Okay. But watch, it's going to go to the right poll.
Nailed it. Tech 2, Keely 1, boom. Okay. Life is hard. Nobody, oh, let's see. We have nine votes. Wow! Is that, is that you, Nance? What the Sam Hill is happening there? Well, let me just see if I can, if I can point this, this out, this, this beautiful, is that coming up on the screen? No, it's not. How about there? That beautiful 100 percent record.
Love it. Okay. Let's see if we can keep this going and get everybody on the same page as we move into something a little more difficult. Um, urine. Is this a new interpretation? It's, It's not. The idea of intentionally breaking down play and intentionally infringing on five metres has always been in place.
It's just, this is a new context in which aerials are coming into the D and we have, we are seeing more often players trying to break down the play. And Alex, when you say only international, that's not true. It is everywhere. in other domestic jurisdictions except yours. So very important to make that distinction for those of you who are in the Netherlands.
For some reason, domestically, you've been told that it's never going to be called an intentional foul. Oops, sorry. That would have shaken a lot. And I so patently disagree with that instruction that I can't even. I detest. Okay, there we go. Fixed it. So let's move on to the next scenario.
Oh good, this is the right one. Keely 2, tech 2. It's even.
What if I like this over here? Nope.
Charlie, Charlie and I have, have exchanged a few text messages, so I need to be nice to him now. I hate it when I make friends with commentators because then they're humans and I have to be polite and respectful and understanding of the variations. But sorry, Charlie, when you come out, you say that's wrong.
You're wrong. Okay? So let's look at exactly what we are processing here. We are looking at where we are. The player is attempting to receive the ball, the initial receiver, and how far away the defender is from this action, okay? So I'm going to this screen, I'm going to do this, okay, and I'm going to slow this down even more so that I can pause it right at the right moment.
It's going to be blurry, frame rates, that's a problem. But the Chinese player is not receiving inside of that 5 metre dotted line. She's actually receiving the ball out in front of her. So it's not where her feet necessarily are, although you can still argue her feet are pretty much on the dotted line.
But she is receiving it on the hash and there's Toleman on the circle. And then the ball is mistrapped. This is very clearly what Cookie sees, what Laureen sees, the two of them agree, and it goes up to Magalie, and Magalie agrees as well. So it's more than just, let's see if I can get to a closer angle so you can see, but she's not receiving
with facing the goal with the ball in front of her. But instead, sorry, it's, it's just, it's a little blurry because they decided that the camera should move. when and move across the action instead of being right there. But there's sort of where the ball is, okay, which is close enough and you can say, oh, it's 30 centimeters over.
Nobody cares. And when you look at the fact that the, the closeness of the defender, when the, when the, uh, receiver has no No pressure, no immediate presence of that person on her. It's up to her to receive that ball. Absolutely up to her. Oh, and I'm kind of, am I in the way or can you kind of see that?
Sorry. Let me move that out of the way.
Have you noticed I'm bad at the things? So the ball gets played towards the defender and she doesn't move any closer to it. She doesn't close whatsoever. Perfect. This is not even a five meter infringement, never mind intentional five meter infringement that should result in a penalty corner for me, for correctness.
Let's see what y'all have. Uh, it's, it's super annoying. I'm not a fan. Simon, hi, good to see you. Hope you're good. Um, yeah, and I mean, it's just so close to the five meter assignment that, you know, I agree. It's, it's there. And part of the way that we treat, um, initial receivers and whether there is one or whether it goes into a crowd is that when the player is closer to the when the initial receiver or the player who does receive the ball is has an angle where the space is here instead of a five meter disc drawn on the ground that's what we're looking at is the actual receiving area in the air the planes that are involved there instead of You know, drawing it out that way.
So there's a fundamental misinterpretation if all you're looking is, if you're only looking at the space that's, whoops, if you're only looking at the space drawn out on the pitch because the ball is moving through an X axis, not just through a Y axis. Maybe there's a Z. I don't know. And yeah, and what we're looking at on video referral, of course, is clear evidence to overrule a decision.
As you're helping as a supporting colleague, that's what you should also be looking for too, is that you clearly think that you've seen things At a different angle that's giving you a better perspective, not just a different one, but the best perspective on what the distances were, whether there was an obstruction, whether there was a foot, all that kind of thing, in order to tell your controlling colleague who has come to their own independent decision to do something different.
Uh, and Simon, um, you were disappointed the commentators still have the umpires here. Yeah. No, and, and, and I think this is what, this is why I'm trying to reach out to commentators. Not because I want them to buy me drinks whenever I see them. I think they should do that too. But I'm trying to understand, help them understand the nuances here.
And I know they do have conversations with the umpires, but somehow they miss out on that aspect when they're in the booth. And I know what it's like now, now that I have been a commentator live on a tournament, I know what it's like to see things that you think, that's just wrong. And if there's anybody in the world who has the chance at looking at a play and is commentating live, broadcast out to the world, and who's probably going to be the most accurate person to assess the accuracy of that call, it's gonna be me.
It's an NSYNC moment. It's gotta be me. So, when I refrain from doing that, occasionally I might ask a question and wonder, but I don't literally come out and say that's wrong, because I could be wrong in that moment too, because I'm looking through a different lens and a different way of examining the game.
There you go. Um, I'm not even going to put Buttmia Rose up. Pretty chill. There you go. Um. So we'll go to another poll, but things are about to get more complicated. So if you thought these two were too easy, well, you know, you're welcome, but it's not going to stay that way. Play on for a hundred percent of you.
Another one.
Is that going to work? My buttons are, are messed up. It says on when it should be off and off when it should be on. There you go. Yes. Um, so good work, everybody. I'm glad we understand that. Fabulous. Fantastic. Let's get on to our last one.
How many of you heard what Kuhn said to, I think it's Tim Brand, when he came to ask the question? Did you hear what he said? It's really important in these moments to, when we have the chance to actually listen to the thought process of the umpires on the pitch, we need to open our ears. Just like with the, the clip that we just saw, and we heard the exchange between Cookie and Marine, and they said, It was a mistrap for me.
Yeah. I agree. It was a mistrap. All right. They're able to refer it. So up we'll go. And you hear that. And that is, you know, that is so, so sort of important. Um, and Ingrid, yeah, perspectives are different, but I think what's interesting is that there's a lot of people who say, well, from one angle, it's this one from one angles with that.
So let's, you know, all perspectives are fine. I don't agree with that. whatsoever, there is the best call and the best perspective or angle and things like that. It's just, you might be at the wrong one and it might be that it's you on the, as the umpire on the pitch is at the wrong one. So I am striving to ensure that we get to the right angles and the right perspectives as much as we can.
Um, well. Uh, most, a lot of people get these calls wrong too. So whether they're commentators or they're fans just watching and listening to the commentators, yeah. And I, I mean, for me, it's easy for me to umpire a game when I'm watching a stream, because often I get to go back and forth over something. And when I'm clipping a match, I will often say, Oh, why is that all bonkers?
Sorry, let's remove that. And let's move this. Sorry, that was a teeny tiny little replay. So teeny tiny. So cute. When I get to watch it several times, that will help me, you know, it just, just like we're doing now, poll us my thoughts. And when you're making your decisions, you only get one chance. And that's why I try to get you to vote in the polls so that you get your one shot at your decision.
And then we can go through some process and principles so that we can learn how to do it better next time. So there you go. Okay. So. I'll, I'll, I'll play it again so you can listen for Kuhn. You ready?
There is no poll for two period. So if I missed one C, I don't know why I have a link, but I have no poll. That makes no sense. Tech three, Keely two, I believe is the current count. But what Kuhn says in the moment when he's talking to Brand is he says, it was furlong, number 38. He very specifically mentions the player who has committed the infringement.
So when we're watching this together, as friends,
3A1C.
So when we're looking at this play, this is the moment where the ball is starting to come down and this is furlong. This is who Kuhn is specifically singled out as the player that he's calling the infringement against. And as he misses the interception, this arguably is five meters distance, okay, or outside playing distance, not dangerous.
But, I mean, there's the stick, there's another stick, Everything looks to be okay in terms of that. It's this continuation. towards the ball that he calls. There is another play involved. Goodfield is in the mix,
but as I go to the replay of all of the things, okay, so, sorry, frame rates, blur, okay, so there's the attempted interception, and you can see how much space that there is between them. Everything is fine. There is no danger. Here comes the ball.
And as the player is receiving, when we look at Goodfield's distance,
he's at five meters at the time of the reception. First contact and then he starts to close. I have been watching all the matches for the last month, six weeks, at the top levels, and I had a conversation with a few players about it. They have noticed, players who are on the pitches for these games, and they have noticed this too, that umpires are not penalizing players who give the full five metres on the reception for the first touch, and then close.
because to stand back and wait for the ball to bounce a few times or once and to not be able to come in and close is just manifestly unfair. It makes no sense whatsoever. So the infringement that Coon is calling here is not on the second player, it's on the first, and that infringement comes first.
Let's do this. And yeah, you can, are you Alex? I don't know if you see it the same way as I do, but I see, uh, Goodfield's stick taking the ball cleanly and Brand hits Goodfield's stick. So. That's not even obstruction on the defending there. So you missed that following and you're looking at the second defender and couldn't see anything.
Yeah, well, that's, that's why there's a better angle to see these things from. And Kuhn, by being where he is on the back line, Close to his happy place. He is along the line, but offset at an angle to where the aerial is coming from, which gives him the right perspective, the best perspective to make the most accurate decision.
Okay. Um, Nick, you're not clear. Um, the Ford is disadvantaged by 38. Yes, he is. And that's why Kuhn says it was for a long number 38. He's not disadvantaged by Goodfield. Does that help?
Um, yes. Okay. I don't know if you heard when you were listening to the commentators as well as they talked about something about second phase of play. And we're about to go through this as we talk through the, uh, the, the new FIH briefing that came out May 27th. We're going to go through this and explain it because it was new language to me when I opened the briefing for the first time last week.
And I have thoughts. I have thoughts. Okay. I'm looking at, I'm looking for your other questions and things like that, and apologies again that the, the poll didn't make it there. Could you say the attacker had control right after his first touch, which would make it fine for 38 to come in as he does? No, because he's, he's tried the interception within the five meters already, and then he doesn't, he doesn't like disengage and he continues to move.
So he is disadvantaged by 38. Okay. Does that, does that set that stage? Okay? And Nick, hopefully I answered that question for you clearly as well. Okay? Everybody cool? Everybody cool? Now, what you might think about is, why is it that in this case,
Why is it in this case that Furlong doesn't get penalized with a penalty stroke in this case? Because he can very clearly see. I'm trying to draw on my actual monitor. I'm such a dork.
Great that that's coming in. Okay. So you can see head direction, all that kind of stuff. He can see what's happening and he continues to move straight at the receiver. And he knows that he's within the fog. And he's infringing on that. Could that be a penalty stroke? And the answer is, when you look at the new briefing,
maybe not. Yes. And as Rachel's saying, 38 doesn't hold back. That is the whole point. And that is what brings us to, hold the phone, we'll get to flowers later, the 2024 FIH Umpires Briefing. I'm glad I got it right in this title. Keely 3, Tech 3. Okay. So, friends. I have instances of this open. The 2024 is the lower, that's why there's a little tag there, just moving that around for you.
And the 2023, everything's all set up. I'm glad we're all cool. And what I've done is I've scrolled through to page, I don't know, we're about 44 of 77 on the briefing. Thanks And if you want to get your hands on the briefing, the link is in the description, it is publicly available, everybody in the universe can go download it, it's not a small file, and it's a powerpoint, so it opens in Keynote for me, because I'm not a monster.
So you can go grab it yourself, it's also linked through the Discord in the resources section. So, you can Go find that there. And so what I'm going to focus on is looking at this particular area in the aerial balls and then just maybe run through and see if there's anything else. But up until this point, the only difference between these two briefings is that the new elements, the new rules about player protective equipment and a bully not ending a PC and those sort of things that we've discussed ad nauseum.
on the live streams prior to this. Uh, those have been, those were removed out of the 2020 version because they're not new anymore. Amazing. Okay. Let's see. Let's see how this goes. I have, I just have no, no guarantee at all. Okay. So we're starting at the section of variables and,
and this page is exactly the same, just setting out the rules. Very effective for a briefing. And We are going to do this, please. Okay. So the next page in 2024, we start with some guidance. Okay. And this is where in the prior version, they were talking about five clear meters of space when the ball is at, but what is the space?
Is it a disc on the ground? Or is it space where the ball's actually being received where the ball's actually being received? Um, and going through the legitimate interceptions in 2024, change it up a little bit. with introducing this notion of a phase one and a phase two. So there's the reception as phase one and the player controlling the ball in phase two.
This part is the same as what it was before. Great. These buttons aren't working whatsoever. Oh, I know it's because I'm not actually presenting them. The next page in 2024 is the same as 2023. Great. Not a problem. Okay. And then. These pages are exactly the same. Fantastic. So all we have so far is this idea of phase one and phase two.
And then we get this difference in 2024,
again, stating what we had in the other slide. Look, I'm just leading you through what's on the pages. And
then we have to go through more with a few of these things. So wait, did that go to the right place? Yes, it did. Receiving the ball, controlling on the ground. Another added slide explaining when a defender goalkeeper intentionally prevents the initial receiver from receiving the ball intentionally. And then we get the prescribed colloquial known as team upgrade penalties.
You can just call it the more severe penalty if you wish to be pedantic. I'm not mad. And it is a possible card. PC in the 23, penalty stroke in the circle. Okay. So that's on the reception when there is an infringement of the five meters. Okay. And it prevents them from, from receiving the ball. And then
we have examples, intentional, reckless playing, you know, and I'm not going to show the video because I'm not sure it's one that I have rights to. So I can't do that. See you, Alex. Good to have you.
Ingrid, by the way, it's nice to see you. I think you're new to us. So thank you for joining in.
And now we've got phase two stuff coming into it. Okay. And if there's an allowance of the initial receiver to receive the ball, but breaks 910 before the ball is controlled and or on the ground. And that's interesting because controlled and or on the ground,
I think introduces an operative in a different place in that sentence than what it reads in the rule book, much more in line with the way we actually apply it. So, in that sense is, I think, correct with the spirit of hockey and how it's played, especially at the higher levels where there are a lot of these aerials happening.
But the, the rule itself says controlled and on the ground instead of the or. So if this is a change coming up in the rule book, color me happy. I would love to see that, but I'm not sure that's on the case.
But what they say is this is generally interpreted as a non intentional foul. And basically says, it's just free hits, it's penalty corners, it's no cards.
So what's generally? Like, what, what does that mean? It would be true to say that generally, it's a non intentional foul, because the player has tried to intercept it and failed, and then is struggling to do something the right way. But there are times like what we saw with
the, I have other clips where defenders have tried to intercept within five meters, have failed, and then continued in, and they've known that they're breaking the five meters and they're like, well, it's not going to get called. So, and all the teams have this briefing now. So what the fear is, what I'm hearing back from some of the umpires at this level is they're concerned that this is going to happen more frequently, where players are going to say, well I'm going to try to intercept it and if I fail I'm just going to break down the five meters and then it's better than a free shot on goal and it's better than a penalty stroke if it's in the circle.
I'm just giving up a corner. That's probably the best option. So I really don't Like this languaging, trying to insert more of a qualification on something that we should just be determining whether it is intentional or non intentional. Does that make sense to y'all?
Um, oh, thank you. You might be my favorite today. Taco, given the rules and the guidance, how would you differentiate between an interception, interception and a receipt? And would you penalize a receipt by an interceptor?
We can get ourselves in a lot of tangles about this if we start trying to overthink, but what we have is an initial receiver and we have an interceptor. And an interceptor is never going to be the first, the initial receiver, okay? They are moving across, sometimes within five meters, but outside playing distance and safely in order to intercept the ball that is falling to a player who is the initial receiver, who is in the receiving or coming into the receiving area first.
Okay? After that, do we have to accord aerial ball understanding rules to interceptors? Do they get to control the ball on the ground and all that kind of stuff? To me, I don't think so. Because now we're just subverting who the initial receiver is. And that just gets too confusing. If you're going to be the one who takes the risk of intercepting the ball, well, you're going to be competing for it after that happens, as long as it's not made dangerous by the other player.
And that's the, that's where we can always have the danger rules in place. I hope that helps and makes a little bit of sense. Okay. And then after that, we're, you know, things get a little bit hairy with different situations in 2023 and this sort of thing. So.
These, these comments here about players who intercept the ball coming in from behind. And this, this is what I've talked about on the streams. Thank you very much. I, I hope there's like a little thing like FHumpires. But I have talked very frequently about how cutting across and playing, coming from the side are less likely to cause danger.
That's where the interceptors are most likely going to be successful. and are not going to be within the playing distance and not going to be causing danger. If they come in from behind or in front, they will be because they're in the same line of the ball. So, great work on the slides, everybody. I'm very happy with this.
They're like, we don't care. Whatever you think, Keely. Um, and further about playing the ball away from the receiver. That's all good. And that's, you know, so what you're seeing, Taco, to your point is just because there's an interceptor, there is still an initial receiver of it. has to be respected in terms of danger and things like that.
So the terminology and the way that they're shaping that is still to respect that. And an interception can include playing the ball over the side or back line. Yeah, that's fine. And they must not attempt to intercept the ball within playing distance. Can be within five meters of them. Okay. What I love about this particular little section is that there's nothing about this two meter bullshit.
That I've seen creeping out from a few circles of PUA that isn't necessarily valid. If two meters or three meters was the distance at which something is within playing distance, that would have been the measurement in the rules. It's not. It could be. It might not be. It all depends on directionality. It has to do with the spaces that the ball is moving through.
I hope that helps. Let's see.
Um, taco, but that intentional, non intentional foul, but is that intentional, non intentional foul in phase two? Not very similar. Boy, there's a lot of negatives in this. I mean, I know that I'm not the, you know, dimmest lantern on the porch, but you're really pushing it. Okay. I am live and you're asking me to figure this out.
Is that intentional, non intentional foul in phase two? Not very similar. As a non intentional high hit. I'm not sure how that helps anyway. So I'll try to give that more thought, but I'm not sure. Um, Alistair, would it be okay if the briefing left out generally and added as long as the player does not interfere with play or does it need more?
Well, I mean, that's probably all right. Except that's already implicit in every single one of our rules. Cause that's what disadvantage is. So, I mean, maybe you could have that. I don't think that. Contradicts or complicates 12. 1 generally, so that might work. But yeah, the word generally just adds a layer of presupposition, prejudgment of the situation that now, if an umpire does deem that sort of breakdown after a failed interception to be intentional and awards the higher penalty, players are going to lose their shit.
They're going to be like, but it's the way the thing says, and then the umpire is going to say, well, it says generally, this isn't general, this is specific, and this is not, this is the uncommon situation. You don't want to put umpires in those situations, right? They're there for a reason. They're there because they're either able to, or they're learning how to, accurately assess what is intentional slash recklessness to the result and not.
And if it doesn't happen very often, it doesn't happen very often. Awesome. But you don't have to, that's just like saying generally fouls inside the circle are non intentional, but when they are intentional, we're going to call them penalty strokes. Well, great. Now you just say intentional and unintentional.
That's it. That's all you have to do. Okay. Right. Like it just, it just gets very, very complicated.
Aging, the redundant department of redundancy. Yeah. That, that could be part of it. Okay. Um, and then some more. As per the defender, as per the rule, the defender goalkeeper may intercept the ball safely. Unsafe interceptions are interpreted as non intentional. And so they're just saying the same thing in that last slide, just repeating it.
There's a lot of repetition in here that this is a long document already, and I don't think it needs to be repeated, but it also repeats what I think might be the wrong.
Nailed it. And then we get into all of the videos. And then the problem is, is that there isn't any examples of interceptions in the clips. I looked at them. There's no examples of the new concept that they've just introduced in here a month and a half before Paris.
Friends. Hey, not, not helpful. Okay. Managing five meters at free hits. Oh, there's something new here. Okay. Let's just cover this. This has been added. Sorry. And I can see that there's something wrong here. Let's see if I can, is there some verbiage that's been cut off and now I can't find my mouse. There it is.
That
there and there. Okay.
So let's just tie this off because this is supposed to be the whole review section. I've explained what I think about the whole Ariel thing. So let's see if there's anything else that. I'm, I have questions about and I'm confused about. Managing five meters of free hits. Here's some extra explanations.
Breaking down 23 from a restart outside.
Okay, let's just skip to this. Defending players who interfere or influence with the play inside the defending 23 meter area when play is restarted outside the 23 and therefore intentionally breach 13. 2b will be penalized with the higher penalty. So I have to fix some of my old clips now. or remove them because this is a new interpretation.
It used to be that where the ball started, where the ball started determined whether a higher penalty could apply or not. So if the free hit started outside the 23, And the player was infringing, but starting inside, but they were within 5 metres, and then they tried to do stuff, but it was inside the 23 metre area where they were infringing.
We would only be able to award a card. We wouldn't be able to award a penalty. A penalty corner and possibly a card on top of it. They have changed that. They have clarified that because the disadvantage and either way makes sense. Like I, I don't have a, I actually don't have a dog in this fight. I think that either way makes sense as long as everybody knows about it.
And that's why we have these conversations here on What If Wednesday is so that we can try to make sure as many people know it about it as possible. So all right, good. We know all those things. Okay, um, so you don't cart off a keeper, we're talking back about aerials, absolutely you would cart off a keeper, well, you would cart off a keeper if they intentionally breach, which generally doesn't happen, I guess.
Taco, calling a high hit as intentionally hit high happens less often than we should, so will be the assessment if phase two. Yes, yes, exactly. For different reasons. Yes. You know, because, because there's nothing in the intentionally raising a ball from a hit clause in the rules that says generally it's not intentional.
So luckily that's not there. Okay. Um, now you have to remember where the ball is supposed to start from. You've always had to know where the ball started.
So funny. Don't tell me this. Not interested. Okay. So that's the new edition. Um, that's fine. That's the same. So we're on PC removing equipment. Doo doo doo.
I'm, I'm really hoping this is all settled down because I'm, I'm still all disturbed. Still all disturbed. 3D skills. That looks the same. That looks the same. Penalties. No personal interpretations. If you haven't seen this in the briefing, this has been in for a long time and I I just want to draw your attention to this.
This is part of the mandate to understand that when an intentional foul has been given inside the 23, you cannot simply card it. You have to award the upgrade team penalty and consider a card in the right circumstances, repetition, danger, impact. Inside the circle, somebody, somebody somewhere on Instagram, on one of, in, on, you know, my pushing of this live stream.
said penalty stroke and, and, oh, I thought they had said a penalty corner, but they, they said a penalty stroke in a card. And it's like, well, maybe. Okay. But repetition, danger, impact are the things that you're going to look for, uh, in all that sort of thing. But I just want to draw your attention to that because that's really important.
It's always good to go through these briefings so that you understand what the Sam Hill We're going on about what I'm going on about and if we are all on the same page and we're all doing the same things It's really gonna help the players with consistency and we can apply the same interpretations at all levels we just have different facts in front of us like the skill levels of the players the um you know, what danger means to them, what advantage means to them, all those subjective things that make us awesome.
Those are the things. So good luck and enjoy. Page 72 and there's some useful links that have been removed. You're not allowed to see useful links in 2024. Okay. That is The new 2024 umpires briefing, I have a feeling we are going to see more discussions about the intentional phase two or non intentional phase two aerial infringement
declarations and what that means.
Um, doot doot doot.
Okay, this is the slide. It's generally interpreted. There you go.
It's, but in the Netherlands, even if you're intentionally infringing five meters on phase one or phase two, you can't call, you know, you, you, your briefing doesn't have any notions of these phase one, phase twos. It's just, you're never allowed to call and that's I would, I would break down five meters every fricking time with elasticity.
I would just, yep. I dare ya. You can't do anything about it except just award the base penalty. Ha ha.
And I bet people do. I bet players do. Because they're smart. Okay, now that I've got those rants out of my system, some announcements! I'd like to congratulate a couple people. Alistair, you didn't send me anything else, so this is what we got. Alistair was a brand new, really pretty blue jacket. It's really pretty.
And it says CS Plus on it. It's got a logo that says CS plus and look, I'm not, I'm not a swag, you know, I'm a minimalist. I like nice things, but I like just having enough of what I need, but man, that blue jacket looks good. So congratulations Alistair on achieving your CS plus designation. You are now free to roam about the country and accept appointments at all levels underneath national.
I think. I think that's it. Bye. Trying to get it all straight. Anyway, I'm really proud of you. Alistair, although he's not, um, you know, part of the 1313 strictly, he shows up for tons of live streams. I've had the privilege of meeting his family and just lovely person. So thank you much for being around and being there because otherwise it would be silly for you to be out here.
And then Masters World Cup. Yay. Okay. And I have some extra names to shout out here too, but these are members of the third team who have been appointed to the two Masters World Cups that are going on around the same time. So over 45s, the Dyerbergs, who I just hosted here in Calgary. Tons of fun. Um, Mike McCartney and Shane Mackney.
who are all yellow members. And then there's also, uh, Hartmoot, Phil O'Hagan, Dean Newton, Chris Niblock from the United States, and E. J. Small, all going to Cape Town. Brilliant stuff, everybody. So happy for you. I can't wait to hear how you get on and all the hijinks you get up to, um, what happens in Cape Town slash Auckland stays in my ears for gossip.
That's how that works. Okay. Um,
okay. Specificity helps when I'm jumping around with a lot of things. I appreciate that. But, um, that's good. We're all getting on the same page. So fab u lous. Okay, in addition to these folks, there are people that I worked with in Auckland who are going, um, sorry, who I worked with in Wellington at the New Zealand National Masters who I want to give a shout out to Vicki Allen, Scott Hayter, Kirsten Smith, Nathal Tinnaclough, Tuniclips, Daniel Walker, Danny Walker, uh, congratulations on going to Auckland.
There's also people like Kevin Dempster from Hong Kong, uh, Elsie B. Howard from South Africa who often shows up for the live streams, Jasbir Randhawa, who is Canadian, uh, and an umpire I've worked with here at national championships. He's going, which is super exciting. Crip Paul, my old friend from England.
I'm sure you're going to be very well behaved at the tournament. And Nick White, I'm just, hi, Nick. Good to see you. Uh, and then people who I worked with in Wellington who are going to Cape Town, Emma Brommel, Yelena Phillips, Tim Woods, and well, Frank, Frank Maciano from the U. S., congratulations. It's I'm very pleased that you've gotten on that as well.
So there you go. And yes, congratulations to you all. And Ingrid, you must be from New Zealand. So that's what I'm getting from that. Hi, Shane, popping in from Rohtanga, I understand is a set of islands up there, north and east of New Zealand. Do I have that right? I think so. So, you're on holidays, and I'm jealous.
Everybody be jealous of Shane. Okay. What do we got next? What time are we at? Do I do that every show? Yes, I do. Shootout obstructions!
What am I hearing?
Well, that's fun.
What happened there?
I don't even know what happened on that scene. It broke.
Go vote. Let me know. What you think about this one? This is unusual. I'm not saying it's unprecedented, but it's one of those decisions that we don't have to see very often because it's kind of a combination of a potential it's two forms of obstruction, in a sense, or two manifestations of it, potentially, where the ball gets caught in the kit and the ball goes behind the goalkeeper at the same time.
Pretty unusual, and often when the ball gets caught in goalkeeper kit, they've, they're not turning in motion. They're, they're, they're just, they've got the ball in their leg guards often, been caught up there, and they're trying to get it out. And we have a basic sort of, you know, thought pattern about how long did it take and was the attacker actually disadvantaged from that situation.
And, and then we have the ball being a behind and it's a similar thing. Were they unable to reach the ball because of that, that action? Do the two things add up to more? No, not necessarily. Just because there's two sort of potential forms of obstruction that it's, it just happens to be happening coincidentally all at the same time.
So interested in your thoughts there. David says retake. That's your vote. And a retake would be awarded for a non intentional foul, in this case, and an unintentional goalkeeper obstruction is one of the few ways in which I think a retake is valid. So, the ball gets caught underneath them when they're down on the ground, and they're not moving their pads, they're not trying to get over top of it, it's just been pushed at them.
But, the Strikers, unable to pull the ball out without causing danger to the goalkeeper, obviously. Then a retake is a good call in those situations. So I actually don't hate that. Did I? I hope I listed that as an option in the poll. What does everybody else think? I'm interested in your opinions. And there are 20 of you watching right now.
So I want 20 thoughts. I have one. I want 19 more. I'm just kidding. For Yaron, it's a retake for him as well. Okay.
And I think what in the moment when I saw it, I didn't think I was like, Oh, that's probably fine. Especially when you think about what attackers can do. So the idea that an attacker can turn their back and they can move the ball in progress. And this is what I want you to think about when you're watching this.
This is like a goalkeeper who is moving the ball around her back. And when you see it in slow motion, it looks more impactful, doesn't it? It looks like the attacker is closer and really trying to get to it more, but when you see it in real time, let's go back to the real time,
is there a continuing motion to interpose the goalkeeper's body between The attacker and the ball, for example, because that's the criterion we would use with attackers who are moving the ball away from the goalkeeper, facing away from them.
Heart Moot, congratulations. I hope you saw your shout out there.
Go to the resources channel on the Discord. Paul, you'll find them there. And they are regulations, they are not rules. And Ingrid wants a retake as well.
And remember when you're watching and listening, don't just tune out the commentators, okay? Not because I hate them because they are They are telling you what to think. That's their job. That's what's happening.
I don't know why, why is it going to that scene? David, I'm having e com problems. Uh, Shane, play on the ball came free from the keeper. And you didn't see a deliberate attempt to obstruct. So, and, and You know, the deliberateness is, like, this is the one time that we can look, I think, or one of the few times we can look at non intentional.
So, what we're looking for was there actual obstruction that would take us to a retake situation, an unintentional foul by the defender there. And
it goes really fast. And when you think of all the ways that attackers are able to, to be, to interpose themselves, umpires, Without being deemed to be obstructing, it seems a little rich that we're going with a retake on this. Have you thought about that? The goalkeeper's left arm is pressed to her body,
but that must mean something else, that the ball is
So the goalkeeper's armed, I mean, that's, that's where she's, that's where the ball is, is very quickly lodged, isn't it? That's where it actually happens. And, let's see. Go to this scene.
Remember how slow motion really affects the way we're seeing. So what you're saying Alistair, and I agree with you, that's, it's the ball has been trapped there. It's very momentary and then it drops out. It just happens to drop out in that direction because the goalkeeper is looking for the ball. She's trying to make sure, and I wonder if I can roll this faster.
Okay, that's a little too fast. Let's go one, one and a half. That's one and a half on this.
So if we, if we speed up the slow motion replays, okay, that's still not
at real time. I just want to see it from the other angle. This looks like real time to me. It's really quick, isn't it? It's really quick.
And Luke saying that the, um, that there's no reason, no clear reason to change the on field decision. Um, and, and again, that's, that's where they're sort of based on. So it's not, again, we're not evaluating the decision here. We're evaluating what we would try to call, as best we can, the same facts situations, really.
Um, for Rachel, you've changed your mind. Oh my God. I love hearing that. It was never lodged in the goalkeeper equipment. It just drops them behind. No different to an attacker turning the body. Okay. What's the umpire's signal for a retake? They do, they do this. Roly roly. It's kind of fun. Roly roly. I feel like I'm a little far away from the camera.
Let's try that. My framing isn't very good. Okay. There we go. Yeah. It's this, which is kind of weird, but it's not this. That's a bully. Ingrid, so if the keeper could control the ball, then becomes the player of the ball and can put it wherever they want, sort of like a turn, uh, with the ball away from a defender.
I, I wonder. I wonder, I'm not declaring it because I think there's a lot of things, a lot of nuances that you have to take into account. The fact that the goalkeeper is wearing protective equipment that increases the size of their body and it makes it more difficult to move around them to maybe tackle in between their legs and that sort of thing.
But just the general principle that momentary Interposing is not called as obstruction against field player ball carriers. So why do we apply a higher standard necessarily to goalkeepers in this moment? Okay. And the reverse angle really happens for them. And that's why there's two of them. And so the two umpires together, you can see Lorene's in the support position, Cookie in the control, and they both agree And, uh, Nicola Lorenz actually goes to Laureen because she's the one who had maybe the angle that would have shown her more of the obstruction and, and, you know, they're working together on this and the two of them from those two angles that we have the two, like, well, we have, we have sort of three camera angles on this one, but Laureen is at the, at the angle that we're seeing, not this one from behind, from the left.
And that's an interesting one. Well, and that's one of the possibilities. Yes. I'm, I'm challenging this though. A lot of people went with retake and I'm just sort of pushing a little bit to think about that. And it's okay if on this particular fact situation, you can see that there is significant disadvantage, significant that there is disadvantage.
To the attacker in this situation, they were obstructed because of the goalkeeper temporarily interposing their body because they're turning and looking for the ball, then so be it. But I want us to consider, this is a pretty novel situation, it's something that we can turn over in our mind, would we apply the same standard if they were a field player in line?
Luke, you're changing to play on. The trap is momentary and the ball passing through in that direction is not obstructing. Okay, there we go. Let's go to the poll.
Uh, two of you are looking for a retake and five of you going with play on and nobody with a penalty stroke. Okay, very reasonable. I like that, that very much. And again, this is, this is one where, I mean, I'm staying with the, the on field decision on this one. My, my own personal self. Okay. Uh, David, interesting.
Rethinking the attack to play the ball. Um, Well, I mean, she took a shot and the goalkeeper made the save and you can argue it wasn't a great shot, but it was also a good save because the goalkeeper closed the space, blah, blah, blah. I'm worried that this camera is going to shut down and then it's not charging because it says 13 percent battery life.
This will be interesting. If I run out of a camera, don't worry. I got FaceTime. I got FaceTime if this all. Goes to heck. But yeah, a lot of things to think about in that situation. Um, there you go. Um, Yarin, so the shootout process for, um, at international and probably most higher domestic levels of play is that there is a, the reserve umpire you can see right in the shot there is looking at, um, they are watching the line to help determine whether the ball has crossed in the eight seconds or not.
The umpires are not controlling time whatsoever. That's what the technical table is doing. So there is a eight second clock and the judges are starting the time with the umpire's whistle and then they blow to stop the time. There is a visual clock and all of that is accessible in situations like this to a video umpire who can then take all that information into account if the question is whether the ball is crossed before the eight seconds have elapsed.
So. I hope that helps.
Okay, um, oh yeah, 3B. It's a little loud. Oh, I'm gonna get dinged. It's supposed to be on this screen.
Man, if I get caught for a copyright infringement, that's gonna make me mad. I'm throwing this one. It's not in Pro League. It wasn't in Pro League. I'm sorry, but I wanted to throw this one in because it was on the socials and it was a shootout obstruction and I was like, this is what the subject matters, so let's go.
What are your thoughts? As you can see in the moment. The umpire simply calls, uh, end of shootout, ball has gone, out of bounds. So, the first question, I think it's good to ask ourselves, we don't want to get in the same trap that a lot of people do when they see these plays. Which is, the umpire's gotta be wrong, I'm gonna look for reasons why.
Instead, look for reasons why the umpire made the decision that they did, and then go to the contrary after that.
Oh yeah, it's telling me only 10 percent battery remaining. That is interesting, friends. Very interesting. I call this one Struffball. Struffball, because that's what a penalty corner, or penalty stroke is in Dutch.
Going to the scene, going to the screen, going to annotations. I don't like it over there. There we go.
So I can control this a little better. This is the motion that I want you to see and you want to watch in cases where you're trying to gauge obstruction. You want to see physical obstruction like this and stick obstruction. You want to watch the defender. What is the defender doing in the moment, okay?
And what I see happening in this particular moment is the player moving into a stationary goalkeeper.
What could be deceptive is that the goalkeeper does have their kicker out, but the ball is in front. The ball has not been released towards the goal yet and that goalkeeper is entitled to use their body to stop the ball, unlike a field player. So this action, I think, gets us a little bit confused and gets us thinking that, oh, that's a trip.
because if a field player did that, they're not entitled to stop the ball with their body. They can only stop it with their stick. So any movement of their body into a space should be considered as an attempt to break down the play.
Okay, so the goalkeeper is basically stationary up into the point where the attacker moves into their space. Are you seeing anything different? Let me know.
Uh, stationary goalkeeper for you? Let's go to this. Yeah, okay, Shane. Alright, I see you, I see you. Stationary goalkeeper Rachel, the player runs into him. Could call the foul or just play on. Um, Paul? Yeah, you can 9 12 it all, but basically, yes, he bodily obstructs. Um, for Nick, close one, attacker moves into the keeper while shielding the ball, but keeper has the leg outstretched.
You're saying the attacker made the foul. Yep. So you're seeing the things that are sort of interesting. There's another aspect to this that maybe we should take a look at as well.
That is that some people pointed out in the Instagrams, in the comments, don't read the comments, is the goalkeeper stick,
which they thought made contact. I, I mean, if there's any contact there, it's minimal. And the goalkeeper is entitled to play the ball off the end line, the back line intentionally anyway. I don't think, I think the attacker is moving the ball in that direction, so I don't really see anything there at all.
Okay, Stefan, you agree with the on field decision, um, but is the movement of the attacker They're illegal, I assume you're saying Yes, because he is moving into the space of the defender. So there's a difference between stopping outside of a defender's space and having the ball inter deposed and moving the ball around that is acceptable.
That is not obstruction, but moving into the defender's space and specifically, you know, in a way that actually puts them a little bit to the ground, then that is definitely shielding because there's. There's nothing a defender can do in that case. Uh, then like,
I think I understand what you're saying. Let's see what you're saying in the polls. Well, I have severed 7 percent battery life. It's going to be fun when this goes. 100 percent of you. Good work. Love it. Okay.
Uh, don't forget that before we go on to our next segment, this is happening. So ignore the waitlist part of that. Sales are open now for the running program and they are starting to sell. Remember, 20 people only can take part in our beta testing of a pre season training plan. If you are starting your season in around late September or October, or maybe even a little bit after that, then this will be the program for you starting July 1st, five workouts a week, all set up in TeamBuilder, adripped to you week by week so that adjustments can be made by Austin according to how you're doing and things like that.
And, I am really excited to watch what happens to all of you. Being intentional about your season preparation, and feeling more confident as you go out there, and making yourself more resilient towards injuries or preventing injuries. I think Like a lot of fabulous results are going to be available for all of you.
So if you haven't taken a look at this, go check out the page, come into the discord, ask me questions, ask Austin questions. Um, I would love to hear that you're interested in, if it's not the right fit for you now, don't worry because this is just the beginning. This is just the beginning of the way that we are going to make fitness training for hockey umpires accessible and achievable all out.
Not just for international umpires who have to pay for their own stuff anyway.
Okay, next up. Substitution or sideline? GB you just keep on giving. I muted the movie.
Okay, let me start this from the beginning.
Ingrid, absolutely part of my plan that we will be able to roll this out to you as it works for your area because there's all kinds of seasons around the world, right? So, but very excited. Get in the discord so we can talk about
That's a freeze frame. That's me and my special effects in Final Cut Pro.
What do y'all think? Let me know. Let me know.
Now, this would be a really difficult situation to deal with without a technical table on your own. And this is one of the vulnerabilities of MCP, mission critical positioning, because determining whether the ball has crossed the sideline entirely or not is a challenge. Mihiel doesn't do MCP, by the way, and it's still difficult for him to see.
So, it's not a guarantee that just because you use exterior positioning that you are going to be able to see sideline balls, because sometimes there's just people in the way. And yes, so the previous player who is subbing off has not exited the field of play.
The question is whether, one of the questions is whether the ball has left the pitch before the substitute who has not stepped on the field interferes with the ball. And if he's just stopping the ball to cue it up for when he or the next player can take that sideline ball, that's fine, but the ball hasn't left the pitch yet.
That's what I see. So in that case, what is the remedy that you would prescribe? And what would you do about it? I'll wait for your comments. How do they do this? How do they do this all the time? Yes, so it is in effect too many players on the pitch.
Um, I don't think you have to bully. You can, you can, well, do you have to bully?
Hmm, maybe you do.
Well, I'm aware that's the reason, but can you call a free hit here? Because the offense, the interference with the play has happened immediately. Good question. Let's go have a look.
I think you can argue that you can award a free hit in this situation
because you do have a breach of C, 2. 3 C,
that has directly disadvantaged the opposition because that ball was just going to go off the sideline.
Simon, too many players, the sideline seems a fair remedy in terms of scales of justice as the defending team were not too heavily impacted. Would the opposing team have had possession of the ball? Yes. So they would, whether it was a free hit or a sideline ball. I guess it doesn't really matter at that point, other than the fact that it didn't actually exit the field of play, but would have, but for the interference of that player.
Uh, don't use that language, Luke. 12th player works just fine.
So not just a free hit, Paul. If you've determined that disadvantage has occurred, you want to look at potentially. a team penalty that is awarded to, or sorry, a personal penalty that's awarded to the captain. And at the international level, it's very seldom that it results in anything less than a yellow card, because
Here we go.
Hi. Well, it shouldn't take the whole thing up.
Hold please.
Camera B, camera B.
Oh, I see what it's doing wrong. Just a moment.
Hi. Hi. You see, now I have to look at a different place. That's going to be tough. The sound seems to have gone too. Are
we back? The volume is way low. That's because the mic was way far away from me. Is it better now?
Good to see you, Mr. Dyerberg. Audio has dropped considerably. Okay, let's see if I can Is that better, everybody? Does that work?
How about that?
Yep. Okay. Fun times? Better yes. Okay. Paul, there is no disadvantage if a free hit is played. Ostro is momentarily slowed down and would have likely passed the ball back on the run of play. Okay.
Yeah, I can see that. I can see that argument. It's pretty close. Um, yeah, I think it's bonus points to tech as well. I think they get two for that one. How rude. How very rude that is. I'm just gonna I mean, I don't have any pride at this point, so I'm just gonna move my, move my stand. Come on. Stop fighting me.
There. Okay. Now it's a little higher, so it's a little doable. Okay. It's better, but it's still low. Why is it so low? That makes no sense.
What if I do that?
I can only, I, I'm like leaning into my chair.
Okay. Well, let's, let's just go back to the scenario here and that sort of thing. Oh, I'm going to have to do this in every bloody,
no, I'm not. No, I'm not. I know how to fix this. I know how to fix this.
I think I know how to fix this.
Okay, that'll work.
The level is very good now. Okay, great to hear. So, something to consider, something that we can sort of mull around in our little brains. I, I do want to go to the poll and see what y'all think about this one because it is unusual. Did anybody vote? What? Did nobody vote? Did the vote not go? Is everybody scared to vote?
I would be. I would be. I can see an argument for, um, I can see an argument for awarding many levels, no team penalty for this, but at this level of play that player knows exactly what he's doing. And it is, in many cases, when you see too many players on the pitch, you can't sense a direct impact on the play.
And yet, a personal penalty is still awarded to the captain in those situations. So we don't just wait for the, um, for the player to have, um, to have actually, um, Like the extra player to have impacted, that is a, that is just a really blatant sort of problem, I think. What if, what if I go back to this? No, that's not going to work.
Okay. Stop messing around. Okay. Yeah, and he's still holding his beer. So he knows what he's doing. He knows that he's played, he's played the ball and he's tried to kept it in, keep it in play. And it is an attempt to break down play.
I think.
Um, Richard, you're watching the subbing of Lee Valley and saw instances of 12 or even 13 on the pitch. Remember your daughter asking whether this was allowed. Ball was nowhere though. There are votes. Oh, now they're coming. Okay. Seven of you are saying a foul and a personal penalty to the captain. Yeah.
And then five for signing on ball. And that's okay. Taking into account the circumstances, I totally get it. I just want to push you through the thought process a little bit and see where you end up on that. But what a weird. What a weird play. What a weird ass play. Okay, speaking of weird, this happened for the first time that I've ever seen.
Ever.
Okay, so, a video referral for delaying the injection on the PC. It has been a point in the briefings, and actually, It has been a point in the briefings, and actually, I still have them up, so if you'll indulge me for just a moment,
scene.
Was there PC injection? Aerial balls, physical foul play, delivery stopped, obstruction, crowding, presentation. Okay.
Lots of, like, look at all those aerial balls. Removing PC equipment, 3D skills, 3D skills, penalties,
managing five meters. It's not even in the FIH briefing.
So it became a key point in indoor hockey. this year and part of the indoor briefing that the ball needed to be injected immediately after the play was, uh, the whistle was blown by the umpire to start the penalty corner. And the reports that I got back from European indoor action is that it immensely reduced any instances of defenders breaking early because they were no longer trying to guess.
As to when things were happening and we're looking for clean hockey. We're not looking for gotcha hockey. We're not looking for tricks and all that kind of things. And so it really assisted the, the execution of the penalty corners. And immediately in the context of indoor was confined to one second. So the German team, understandably, perhaps.
Decided that, oh, well, this probably applies to Outdoor 2. The umpires have been guided, and there have been penalties been awarded, even though it doesn't appear anywhere in the official briefing, for players taking too long to inject the ball, because what it is is an inducement. It is a feint to get the players to break early.
So, the question here is about, Whether you would overrule a goal because a team took too long on the injection and it's still a little bit up in the air and by a little bit up in the air. I think it's like a lot up in the air, but the words that I've been getting back from everybody that I've spoken to is that this would be treated the same way.
As an injector, having two feet on the pitch during the injection or some other technicality like that, that that will not be sufficient to overrule the decision of an umpire in the moment, whether it's another PC or penalty stroke or a goal in this, in these situations.
Very interesting for that. Every, everybody started to vote. That's good to know. So I'm not sure if you've had a chance to go. Scrooley,
scrooley, and one person's looking for a retake and two people are looking for a goal. And,
yeah, and I don't think that that, I don't think this is something that we have to start worrying about, that we're going to have to overrule things. It's a management issue. So when you are in the moment, and I've, we've had a lot of watch parties for matches at this level. And the key is, is that the first time, the first time you have a player injecting who takes too long to inject.
You should go and speak with them and give them a warning and say let's go get that injection as soon as I blow my whistle. And that way you're mitigating the problems just like moving players feet back and all those sort of things. You may not notice it in the moment but you're moving, you're edging them back and you're making sure that on the future instances they've got it in their head.
And you stay on top of it that way, because this is something you want to avert, not something you want to have to penalize, because it doesn't necessarily disadvantage the team.
Okay, um, Darren, you don't need a password to open the document. You only need a password to change it. So don't try to change it. You should just be able to open it. And if you're having problems with PowerPoint, well, you should use Keynote instead. Um, shirt, uh, you say that's if it's to delay the game. No, it's, it's, I mean, those are seconds that we're not talking about, you know, 10 seconds to delay the game.
That's very different. Okay. Yeah. We just need to manage it. Okay. All caps lock. Rachel, sorry for shouting. Yes. And the goal was awarded and it was upheld on the video review. Okay. So there you go. That's okay. Okay. Yeah, nobody tried to change the FH umpires briefing. I try to do it in the live streams and it doesn't, I'm past, I'm locked out of the password protection as well.
So there you go. So anyway, that was a really fascinating little issue. And here's our last one for the day. This one was sent to me by Jane Anne. Thank you, Jane Anne, for sending this along. And I don't have the sound because again, I don't want to get copyright strikes. And there isn't a poll on this one because there is only one answer and I'm not here to trick you.
So I'm just going to give you the answer in case you don't know,
but I'll let you watch it a couple of times so you can see what the, what the if, if you is.
Okay. So what we have here is a fascinating and upright stick stops. I haven't seen those since the nineties. That's amazing. On turf as well. Not, not quite sure why that's happening. So here's our upright stick stop. Everything's fine up until this point, and then the player, with the toe of her stick facing upwards, uses the handle to push the ball, which means it is the back side of the handle that is playing the ball over to her teammate.
And what we have, I have asked, Um, and gotten confirmation from the rules committee that the, the way that the, the regulations for the stick are worded, that the handle continues all the way up the stick. So here's a little diagram and the flat side of the stick continues all the way up in this theoretical plane, all the way up, and so does the round side.
So the backside of the handle that is so clearly used there. Uh, cannot be used. That is considered the back of the stick. So, unfortunately, that is not a good goal. I'm not sure what the umpire calls in the moment, because she puts one arm out, she puts her left arm out, and she has a whistle in her mouth, in her hand.
So I don't know if she's calling a free hit out. Everybody cheers, and like, I cut it, but there's no sort of calling them back and them getting mad because a goal's been cut off. Like, it's, it seems like she awards the goal, but it's hard to know. Which is another reason why put your whistle in your mouth and let go so that you can make clear signals.
And why would you even do that? Because it worked! It worked! It was a tricky play that worked. And yes, it's a backstick. Um. It's usually, it's easier to hit. I mean, hitting the ball with the, like, pushing it or slapping it with the round side of the, the, like, with a handle like that. I mean, that takes a lot of gumption and skill, but it works.
It works. And it's like a, I don't know, it's a three part penalty corner that, that works. Oh, the injection, uh, the injection is fine. Are you talking about the last play, Nick? It's supposed to go faster than that now though. Five seconds is, is a lot. It's not a ton, but it's, it's a lot. So if the stick was held like that, but up the other way, would it be okay?
Well, the toe, if, if, if she'd had the toe facing down and use the handle of the stick, wait,
she had the toe facing down, then the flat side would have been pointed that way, and then it would have been the flat side of the handle playing the ball, and that would have been okay,
but gold medal for Athens. To Australia, same play. Well, maybe that's where they got it from back in 2000s or the Olympics. You're telling me, I guess. Um, the opposition didn't see it coming. It was confused. Yeah. It's always confused that that is a very confusing play, but it's the handle. Okay. Well, friends, that was fun.
Lots of little adventures with technology. I'm going to have to figure out what I need to do with this. And I think. So you can see, um, I can, I think I can show you without destroying anything, but this is my DJI Osmo Pocket 3 that I was using to video. And I think what I needed to do was to have the extra battery pack plugged in.
I think that's where I went wrong because I did test it, but there you go. I'm going to have to think about that, but so ignore this FaceTime camera and the quality of it. And the fact that I'm having to lean to get myself close to my Shure, um, condenser microphone here, which you need to be, my usual mic address is about like this.
So you need to be close to it for it to sound good and all that kind of stuff. And yeah, I'd love to hear your feedback in teas and in the discord server as to what you thought, because this is a system that I want to start using a little bit more, but if it sucks, I'm not using it. Not enough juice, even in the microphone.
Yeah. Cause the mic is attached. The mic is actually fed through the camera. So the audio input is the camera. So there's still lots of juice in this, but because the camera shut off, that means that the mic attached to the camera shut off. Hope that makes sense. It's fun. Isn't it? Isn't it? Oh, it's fun. Okay.
Thanks for joining in. It's been a heck of a two weeks, 10 days, and pro league starts again on Saturday. So if you're in the server, and you've seen, um, all the things about all the watch parties that are coming up, third team, go have a look, uh, green and yellow are entitled to join in the watch parties, and I ruin the matches by talking over them, uh, throughout, and we talk about umpiring things the whole time, so that we can analyze matches from a holistic point of view.
And how they evolve and how umpires dip and ebb and flow and how management interventions affect things, all that kind of stuff. So if that sounds good to you, then the green membership is absolutely a great option for you. So have a look at that. If you want to ask me more questions about what the third team does, then just come into the server and find out more there, um, uh, and there's the address for the server.
Um, it's going to be. Two weeks of, to wrap up Pro League and then we've got European Under 21s and all those divisions. And then we've got J PAC, uh, Junior Pan Am Cup, and then we've got the Olympics. So it's busy stuff, but there's gonna be lots of hockey to watch and lots to learn from, so I hope you think about joining in.
And this was fun. We'll be doing it again next week, so we'll see you then. Bye.
#hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.