Can a Shot At Goal Be Dangerous? Video Umpire Updates and More | #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 155

📅 May 22 19.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube

Can a shot at goal be dangerous? Let's find out together. Also, updates to the video umpire protocols just in time for the restart of the Pro League and start of the Nations Cups, an umpire taking matters into his own…feet…, and a question on how to treat gloves after the penalty corner is over.

Get into the live chat or the replay comments and work your brains with the best team around! #FHU3T

See you there!

👟 The Season Training Plan Waitlist is OPEN!

⏱ Chapter Markers:
0:00 Chair Dancing
00:03:39 Topics!
00:06:13 1. The Lob Penalty Corner
00:47:38 2. Video Umpire Protocol Update
01:09:22 3. Intentionally Playing the Ball with the Body…By the Umpire
01:22:29 4. PC Gloves After the PC

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

🎶

01 Main Mic

Keely: Hi, mic check. Is this thing on? Is this thing on? How are we doing? How are we doing for sound? Let me know. Changed my setup again, because I like to do that. It's good to see you all. Godders is here. Mike McCartney. Um, yeah, apparently you have nothing better than to do than to show up here. So, uh, thanks for that.

I believe we call that subtle shade. That's fantastic. Jurjen's here. Thank you. Um, we're not going to talk about how old this hair is. It's just not appropriate. It's not appropriate right now. It's just been one of those weeks. But there we go. I would like to say Salud y Benevidos to all of our friends from Argentina who might be joining this because today we are talking about a hot topic from the old Instagrams.

It's this one, the Lob Penalty Corner Goal. And we are also doing a video umpire protocol update. Intentionally playing the ball with the body by the umpire, question mark? PC gloves after the PC, that's what we got. Um, hopefully it'll be one of those, uh, not so long shows. And I've started the poll, and we'll show it off later, but, okay.

All right, so if you already voted before the stream even started and I want to know just what is up with that, I would like to know. Um, AJ, good to see you as well. And yeah, Scotters, uh, hearkening back to the memorial, uh, match and day of celebration of Texelaine, who passed away recently from cancer.

Cancer, and fantastic work by everybody to be there and support. Tex was a fabulous, fabulous person who I had the privilege of working with quite a bit when I was over in England. So thoughts are there and the sound is good. Thank you. Good to know. And Richard is there. Ah, desde Argentina, Maria, bienvenidos, I am drinking, I'm taking my mate.

As I do every show because your girl needs it. Your girl needs a little buzz. Just saying. All right. Uh, Matt's here. Great to have you. Benjamin. Why can't you find it? Because the poll is going to determine whether the Jersey goes in the merch shop. I'm not here just to tell you what to buy. I'm here to create FOMO so that you want to buy things.

No, I, I don't want to do that either. I want to make sure that it's there. And, uh, Hassan is here. Uh, gracias, uh, Maria, thank you so much. Um, oh yes. And R. I. P. text as well. Okay. Let's get to our first topic. And for those of you who are here, and please don't be shy about jumping in the comments. If this is your first time on the stream, this third team is absolutely delightful.

They are all far nicer than I am, and they will make sure to look after you and make sure you feel comfortable and all that sort of thing. It's true. They really are a lot nicer than me. And, but I'll be, I'll, I'll be as nice as I can be as well. Um, and we'll get started. So we start a poll in the discord.

It will be in the chat in just a moment for the lob penalty corner. If you're not a member of the discord, you can go to discord. com forward slash forward slash DS. That seems a little hot.

Okay. So different music because I ain't going to get taken out by copyright after this one. I made that mistake last night. I was like, oh, whoa, I'm not licensed to play that music. So there it is. Uh, thank you very much, Niels. Niels, one of our intrepid moderators, making sure that, uh, y'all are looked after, you know where to go.

So yeah, it was really nice. I posted on a couple of the threads that, hey, I'm going to talk about this on Wednesday. And, uh, if I'm going to say it right, please correct me, everybody. I think it's Hege. He DM'd me to say that he would be here, so I hope he is, if he's not, cool, uh, but if he's not, well, that's fine, because Toto is here, desde Pinamar, Argentina, soy a Miguel de la Pulga.

I, I, I'm saying everything wrong, but I love trying! That's the key. And for those of you there, I'll say it in English, but the captions will be in Spanish after the show. Okay. So if you, if I talk too fast, if you don't know what I'm trying to say, neither do I, but the captions will be in Spanish afterwards.

So you'll be able to go back and rewatch and maybe watch me in 0. 75 times speed or something. Who knows? Okay. So. Let's have a think about this one. What I found really interesting about this clip itself is I noticed right away that it was being played in slow motion. It's being played at minus two times speed.

So actually, I went into Final Cut Pro and I sped it up to what I think is probably One time speed and that's like real time speed and that's what's playing right now here on the screen. So I think you have a little bit of a better appreciation of how quickly it happens because some of the comments, there were many comments on the threads, some of the comments referred to the reaction of the defender being after the fact and late.

And once you see it in real time, again, we have to understand that if our first view of something is not in the speed that it actually happens for the umpire, for everybody on the pitch at the time, we're not going to have a very accurate picture of what actually occurred when it comes to things like danger and advantage and other concepts that create all of the grayness that is so beautiful about hockey.

Okay, so, oh boy. We have lots, we have lots of folks, uh,

rg,

um, is connect

and is that, is that the player who's flicking or, I dunno, but we'll find out. Okay. So the question that's in the title of this. YouTube video and what was on all the reels and such was can a shot at goal be dangerous? And if you follow what a, what a Wednesday, if you're on FHumpires, the discord server and such, you'll know that that's somewhat rhetorical because I absolutely, absolutely And I know for a fact that shots at goal can, in fact, be dangerous.

So, if you are an, a fan, a player, or even an umpire, who is wondering about that question, and that players are allowed to just shoot at goal with impunity, with no regard to their opposition's safety,

we're gonna, we're gonna cut that off in the bud. What gets confusing is that You're not allowed to cause danger to an opponent, but at the same time, if you are the player who's putting yourself in a dangerous position, you are causing your own danger, your opponent will not be penalized with that. So The counter example to a dangerous shot on goal and the danger caused by the attacker is when a post player decides, elects, to stand inside the goal with the protective equipment on, or no protective equipment, I'm not here to tell you what to do, go live your life, and they are there to protect the goal.

And they're doing so without the privileges of being able to stop the ball with their body and without the protection that goalkeepers usually wear, which means that they are taking on a job and a role that they are not supposed to do. It is not the natural thing and they do so at their risk. They are putting themselves in danger.

Okay. When we try to say phrases like, a shot at goal cannot be dangerous, or the opposite, that defenders can't get hit with a shot without it being dangerous, those absolutes do not exist in our game. We have shades of grey, we have nuance. Okay, so now that we've addressed that, let's talk about this particular situation, and let me see if I can, if I can do this.

There is no guarantee, friends. I'm always doing this in real time. And let me see. Hang on. Hang on. I got to zoom this up. Okay. Are we ready? Annotation screen. I flew in. Excellent. So we have, first of all, the stopper. This could be Lucila. Who knows? Oh, the player involved is here. Okay. And so there were a couple of comments, questions as to what happens with the ball.

I think. With this angle, it's not very definitive, it's not super clear, but I do believe that the ball does leave the circle, so we can move on from that, not a problem at all. And I'm going to slow this down as much as possible. It's going to be glacial. These players are all way faster than this. And now we have a defender who is coming out from the goal and they are doing what defenders are designed to do, which is close space, attempt to make a tackle, attempt to make a block, intercept a pass.

That is what defenders do. So she's not protecting the goal.

And as she closes, Here comes the lob and at this point I believe that this is less than five meters of distance between the two players. She is attempting to protect and at this moment she is taking what appears to me to be legitimate evasive action from the ball. Okay, here is the ball, here is her noggin.

Is that really, really good drawing? Here is the ball, here is her noggin. Okay. Angles, of course, there is some possible ambiguity, confusion there, but that's what I see.

And then, and you can see she's continuing to move her head away from that shot. Okay, so I'm going to go back to the replay screen and I'm going to look at the comments which are humming. Fast and furious and see what y'all think before I get into sort of a final analysis thing, because we like to talk about all this.

See, okay, good, got it. Um, yes, uh, Manuela, uh, absolutely, this is a skill that, that players are trying to do and it's not, there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to lob a penalty corner shot. Absolutely fine, but it has to be done safely, just like every other shot. Okay. Thank you for the translation.

That's very good. Thank you. I could try, but I'm trying to think about hockey and thinking about translating Spanish. I, not enough up here friends. Not enough. So for Neils, the player walks into the shot without the intention to play the ball. Therefore to you, it's a goal. Hmm. I don't know what, what else she's supposed to do.

She's got her stick down. She's, I don't, I'm not sure what more intention she needs to have in order to be legitimately defending there. That's an interesting take. Simon, you were told by the UMs at year 0's, 07, your right to score is not as important as the defender's right to safety. Love that way that it was put and you use that to that date.

Yeah. And it's, and it's, and it's there and. And the defender's right to safety also means that they have a responsibility to protect themselves as well by not doing stupid things. So if a player goes diving in front of the goal, or in front of a player out in the middle of the field, and they go diving to the ground because they're going to block a ball that's being hit.

Well, we don't say that that is dangerous play caused by an attacker because the defender did something that is not in their realm. They put their body in the way of the ball to play the ball in an illegitimate way. And that's just not hockey. That's not how we play. We try to play with our sticks as much as we can.

So you wouldn't protect them in that case. Rupert, oh my god, don't, I know, isn't it great? Because the point is, as Rupert's saying, having the players and the coaches and the umpires who are there all involved in the conversation means that we can have good dialogue. We can get across the concepts, we can show each other respect, and we can do all that in a way that you can't really do on Instagram replies.

Or, even worse, Facebook discussion groups. Key point for you, Mike, the umpire's angle on this is much better than Cameron judging the legitimate evasive action. That is a very good point that, uh, the camera here is sort of side on, but we do, we do actually have a decent sort of sense of distance, I think, but, you know, regardless.

Uh, it doesn't seem that a defender would be hit even without evasive action, but you're interested in how the guidance of 9 9 applies. A flick or scoop towards an opponent within five meters is considered dangerous. Yeah. So. This is, this qualifies under 9 9. Okay, so let's, let's have a look at 9 9.

Hilarious. Let me see if I can close this. I had this, I had this shaped up for our last topic. Okay, so 9 9 starts here with players not intentionally raising the ball from a hit, unless it's a shot at goal. Okay, this isn't a hit, so that doesn't apply. So then we're looking at this. Okay, and there's nothing here that disqualifies this guidance from applying to shots a goal.

It still does apply. Players are permitted to raise the ball with a flick or scoot, provided it's not dangerous. A flick or scoot towards an opponent within five meters is considered dangerous. If an opponent is clearly running into the shot or into the attacker without attempting to play the ball with their stick, they should be penalized for dangerous play.

So they should be, the defender should be penalized for the dangerous play. So, that hearkens back to Niels point. For Niels, he didn't see the defender legitimately trying to play the ball. I disagree. I think the defender was doing everything that they were looking to do. And then, The reason why I drew the little diagram at the beginning about whether that was five meters away is that when we look at towards an opponent within five meters, what we're trying to examine is there are just because a player is standing five meters or fewer in front of the player playing the ball doesn't mean the ball is being scooped towards them.

The ball could actually be going off to one side, off to another side, or well over her head. Okay. So there's, there's other places that aren't necessarily toward, and that's something that we legitimately take a look at. Okay. See, I'm lost.

Okay. Okay. Is this nickname? Okay. Because it's very small. That's very cute. Um, and Criolla, Fue, and Gulazo. So that's something about that being a goal. Leda, please. If, Oh yes, thank you. Sorry. Ugh. Yes, I'm very down with the kids. Noggin. Head. English speakers have May 21 It was a great goal if you freeze damage.

You realize the front is 5. Okay, so for Maria, for you, you think that the defender is more than 5 meters away. And I, I can see that being possible. Okay. Lewis, the attack is pretty obvious with what they're going to do. The defender continues to close 50 50, but you'd go with the defender on balance of safety.

Hi! Usile. Gracias. Para tu Thanks for coming. Um, yes. And for you, it's not dangerous. But for the umpire, it was. Yeah. And that makes sense. Okay. Okay. So One of the things that we do when we talk about these decisions, very often, is we start with the premise that Mike McCartney, we start with the idea that Mike McCartney spoke about here, the umpire has a good angle, the umpire is on the pitch, and The umpire is seeing it in real time, okay?

So now we're, now we're in real time here. And when you watch it in real time, as opposed to the slowdown, which makes everything look less dangerous, because the ball's moving more slowly, you know, everything's happening at once, the defender doesn't have to get hit with the ball in order for it to be dangerous.

They just have to take legitimate evasive action. And the legitimate means that, you know, they're It's reasonable for them to be flinching away in reflex, not reaction, but in reflex, because they think they're, they're going to get hit. And so is that what we have here?

And let's see. I'll take a couple more comments. Um, let's see. You like to listen to the, yeah. Oh, sorry. And hey, Manuela, it's nice to know that, um, Lucila is a great person. I'm sure she is, and I thank all of you for being here, and I thank all of you for participating in the conversation. So, we start from the idea that the umpire has a very good view of it, and I don't see anything in his positioning that makes him bad.

That, like, makes me suspect, like, ooh, he didn't really see that well. It wasn't like he was chasing the play, or he was far away, or he was blocked. He saw everything the way that I would expect an umpire to see it,

okay? Um, death jester, hi, good to see you. If it was a drag flick and it had hit the defender in the same location above the knee, it would be given as a free hit defense. And that's, that's a good point to raise. that if that ball had been lower and actually hit the player, we would be going at free hit defense.

So the question is, did the ball go high enough over or was the player so far away that it wasn't dangerous, it wasn't legitimate evasive action? And again, the five meter distance is not the only The only arbiter. You can't do dangerous things where legitimate evasive action occurs just because you're more than five meters away from it, right?

So it's one of those very helpful pieces of guidance, but it's not solely determinative. Um, sufficient legitimate evasive action for Rachel, in real time, and a free hit for danger. Godders, you'd like to determine what Neil says about the intent of the defender to actually defend the playing action.

Looks like a potentially unconvincing attempt to play the ball. Okay, well, I don't know. I mean, you have, you can see the player is, Lucila is shaping up to, to do this lob, okay? Her body language is, is, Readable, you know it's coming, so I'm not sure how she's supposed to change, like is she supposed to put her stick on the ground and then miss the opportunity of taking it out of the air?

I mean, I'm a defender, and I don't see anything that's not good defending about this, either. Like, what is she supposed to do?

Well, boy, I mean, Lucila has a lot of fans here! Let's just blow an air horn for that. You think it's, it's running down the barrel.

Hmm. I don't, I don't know. I, I don't know what, what else she's supposed to do. General Peter, you had a course today. Defender within five. Pre hit to defend. Okay. I mean, that's, that makes it very, there. Florian, what do you have? You think that the camera had a better view than the umpire since you can judge the distance well, but after seeing it in real time, it looks like danger to you.

So let's go to the poll. And have a look. I think I've explained Oh, are you kidding me? Okay, let's go to the replay. And then I'll go into preview mode. And I'll go to the poll. And I'll sort this out. But hopefully I've outlined all of the pertinent points for everybody. That danger can exist, can be caused by an attacker on a shot at goal.

That we're looking for guideposts like, Uh, particularly when it comes to flicks and scoops, that if it's within five meters, it's very likely to be dangerous. We're looking for the ball being actually directed towards. the defender not to one side or the other or well above their head. And that's where the five meters comes in is because at more than five meters, the ball has more space in which to clear.

But if you've closed within five meters and the foot comes towards you, it's pretty hard to get that ball over somebody's head. That's That's why five meters is a magical distance. It's what we use for free hits. It's, it's how far out times two or how far out from the goal that the defenders will have to stand and you multiply that by two and that's where the PC injector goes and you know everything's in these five meter things because it's, it's a unit of measurement that is proportional.

It's, it's like the absolute distance of hockey. It's magic. I don't know. I can't explain it. But a lot of people would, would be able to understand that. Oh, I need to unlock the overlay

and now I can't get to the things. Oh, this is, this is troublesome. There we go. I'm coming at you. I'm coming at you. So for those of you who don't believe this is dangerous, I'd like you to, in your mind, flip it, to think of the reasons why it is. Okay. I want you to argue the opposite point. To me, why, what are the things that you can see that can possibly be the argument as to why this is dangerous?

I'm just doing that unlocking thing so that I can see the results of the poll.

Publish. Okay, here we are. Let's see what everybody's saying in the discord. And I know that's not everybody. There's probably lots of our new friends here who haven't joined the discord that's totally fine. Okay. And Nails is getting to it. Thank you very much. Um, you'd be interested in the umpire's whistle timing here if it was really quick.

Could have stopped any doubt. Maybe. Maybe. I mean, we always hope for that, but, um, I need to, I think I need to move my face. I can move my face. Come on. Come with me. There we go. And, yeah, it's, we don't know. When I look at where, it, it, when you, when you watch it again, let's just watch in, in real time.

Okay, he's got his whistle up to his mouth, but it's hard to know exactly when he blows it. And just a little tip for Here, if I'm saying it properly. One of the things that I coach umpires to do is to put their whistle in their mouth during penalty corners. Now this is going to go against the advice of many other umpire coaches.

They're wrong. The reason you do it during penalty corners is you have a high chance probability in that first moment that you're going to have something to call and no reason to talk, so it doesn't get in your way. Put your whistle in your mouth, leave your hands free, so that in that moment you can simply make your signal and blow your whistle at the same time instead of blowing and then signaling.

Blowing and especially if you hold on to your whistle, also not good blowing your whistle and and and taking it with you as you signal. Okay, but if you already have your whistle there, your whistle timing can be so much faster, which is vital in these situations. As, um, Rupert is saying, this is how we can help sell decisions and show players that we're very clear on what we've seen and why we've seen it that way.

It's incredible how a few split seconds can make the difference between a call that players are going to get very upset about. And have a lot of arguments about and a call that they just go, Oh, wow, they're really sure. Okay, there we go. Okay. So let's go back to the poll and I don't know why it's, um, taking me so far away from the, it should be opening up to the correct poll.

I don't know why it doesn't. And there we go. So seven people believe it's a goal and 15 or 68 percent of the respondents say yes. are going with a free hit for danger and that is the call that I agree with. I start with The decision of the umpire in the moment, having the real time view, having a good angle and a good appreciation for the skill levels of the players and all those sort of things and the distances and the heights and all that.

And so I start from that presumption that they have got that spot on and then I move through the principles to see if I can prove them wrong. Can I prove them wrong by going through the rule, going through the spirit of the rule, all that sort of thing? And for me it's not. Death gesture, you'd give the free hit defense and then confer with your colleague to confirm the defender was in, within five.

That's, excuse me, that's going to be a tough one for your colleague to be able to see because of the angle that your colleague's at. They're going to be in line with that play. When you're in line with it, you can't see the distance. So I understand conferring about is just, you know, like, is there anything else I missed?

Or I want to work through the problem in my head and make sure I'm taking the right steps. Okay,

the attacker did have a shot, but it could also be considered an error. No. No. It's not considered to be a pass. That's not a pass. Um, um, Manuela, for you, the umpire takes the decision because the player is, it takes is scared of the ball and doesn't see the real distance. Okay. And I, you know, that's really possible, but the legitimate evasive action is still legitimate.

And if it's legitimate, it's still danger.

Okay. Yeah, I, and I, I see that, but what else do you want? She's trying to close. So half the people here are kind of saying, or some of the people who believe it's a goal are saying that she hasn't closed within five and you're saying the defender's coming running in pell mell and how do you come running in pell mell down the barrel if you haven't even reached five meters yet?

So which one is it? Okay. At least let's get consistent with that. So, for me, she has closed within five, but she's closing in a way that you would expect a defender to close. And she's got her stick there. Her stick is there in order to try to defend. Yeah, I think DC works, but DS, DS is the better one. And yeah, this, this was an all up in the comments and I was really disappointed to see this.

Really disappointed. So if this has been part of your, you know, your thinking, we're done. Paul, and you 100 percent agree with the whistle in the mouth. Yep. Well, it's, it's just, it's everything. It's just, it's one of those subtle details that people are like, Keely, why are you so hung up on the whistle in the mouth?

Because it fricking works. It makes you so much better. And I am so interested in making umpires better. So listen to my advice. Yep. And there you go. And that's absolutely it, Florian. So Florian saying that he would, he, if there isn't a quick decision to make and that he doesn't need the, you know, the ball has fallen away and it's getting, you know, cleared out and things like that, he'll take the whistle.

Yeah. Great. That's just smart. But in those first few seconds, you're likely, very likely to have a decision to make, just like when you see two players coming together in the middle of the field, you know, ball carrier defender, you're like, Something's going down. There's going to be a foot, there's going to be a stick tackle, or there's going to be an obstruction.

Body obstruction. Great. I have three things and I'm about to get ready and you're assessing the body position of both players and their shape and the speeds that they're moving at, where are their sticks. And now you are preparing yourself for the decision you're about to make, which makes your decision come so much more quickly.

Right? Good. Umpiring. And, yeah. I know. Yep. Tim, absolutely. Whistle and mouth both hands free in any situation there's a possibility of contact. Okay? So, I will absolutely, you know, for Wasila and all of the others who were participating in the game, I, I understand that, you know, from your perceptions, that it wasn't, you dangerous, but when you take the legitimate evasive action into account, and when you look at it in real time, to me, it looks like a danger call is the correct decision.

Um, Anika is trying to get into discord. All right, there you go. Make sure the invite link is the DS. Okay. So hopefully that was, that was helpful. And look, some of these decisions are really close. But, you know, our job is to, you know, we don't take away goals lightly. But when we're talking about player safety, as someone commented earlier, we're going to defer to that.

Probably that's going to take a higher priority than just some technicality. If it's a technicality thing, like whether the ball was in or out, we're not sure, we're going to go with it. It's still a goal, right? Because that's not something that we want to get In the way of, but, um, there you go, Anique, accept all the things, just do it.

What are these things? She's like, there you go. Um, but with the video, okay. And, and for Manuel in, in, in real time, uh, the distance was more than five, but with the video is very difficult. That's totally fair. And that's part of, You know, the most important thing that I can leave everybody with is not whether the umpire was right or wrong.

That's not my job. My job is to try to lead you through the right ideas, the right principles to apply, so that in the future, you as players, we as umpires, understand the decisions better and we get, we make better decisions so that we can provide a better game for you. And I do that by applying it to something very practical right in front of us to the best that we can.

And if this video is not the best that we have, and on the pitch it looked very different, so be it. So be it. But what concerns me is when I go to Instagram, and I go to the Real Hockey page, or I go to your club page, and I see very incorrect understandings of the rule. And I want that to change. That's my job.

I'm trying to teach everybody that. Shot to goal can be dangerous. Okay. So that is one of the things that, uh, that we really have to work on. Okay. So I hope that helps. And thank you to Wasila and all of her wonderful friends who are cheering for her in here. And I hope everybody, you know, pulled something out of that conversation.

Okay. Um, Let, let me give some flowers. It's time for flowers. This is one of my favorite times. Also, did you know I have hay fever? I do. It's springtime in Calgary and I've realized I have hay fever. Okay. First up, um, friend of the show, friend of FHumpires, friend of me. I know he tries to pretend he, he kind of, he kind of ghosted me at, at, at, at, at, The English Prem Finals, but I'm going to pretend I'm not mad.

He was, he was busy. He was U whimming. So, okay. But Baz, I know this. Anyway, Baz was, uh, on a team of four gentlemen who walked coast to coast with, uh, Hadrian's Wall. Now let's see if I can pull this up appropriately. There is no guarantee, friends, that this is going to work out right. Um, to, to do, this is always scary when I do this.

Haha. Okay, so they went out and did this walk and walked and walked and walked and they did so to raise funds half and half for the campaign against living miserably. or calm, and combat stress. So really nice to see that they've raised a lot of money for these causes. They've met their goal and exceeded it by another 70%.

So congratulations, everybody. If I had known, if you had tagged me or something, I would have gotten this up and we would have gotten more money earlier. But if you are interested in supporting this great endeavor, please go to this website. It's also in the description of this video. YouTube, because they did it.

Now you know you can donate your money with full certainty that Baz actually did the thing. And they, they walked and they camped and they walked and they camped and they must have smelt disgusting by the time they were done. Like, I don't want to judge, but I'm judging. Okay. And so if you are concerned with mental health, uh, either with combat veterans or just everyone who in the, uh, mission statement of CALM, we stand together with everyone.

Sorry. I just got a notification that somebody subscribed. So thank you. Whoever you are, you are awesome. I love you. Um, sorry, back to CALM, CALM. Uh, we stand together with everyone who's struggling with life, no matter who they are, where they're from, or what they're going through, when we do it through our life, saving services, national campaigns, and by building communities.

So Baz, great work. Let's get some confetti going and go donate. Okay. There we go. I'm cutting that off early. Next up, one

long time fan of the show. Thank you. And discord server member and one of my favorites, Evison Alulu has just been promoted to FIH international panel. Okay. And, uh, he left a little note that I took the liberty. I don't usually pull things out of the server, although I did do it a couple of times just for the show, but I don't usually do that because what happens in the server stays in the server.

But I did want to acknowledge this cause it was just a really wonderful thing. And I wanted to thank Evison. publicly for this sort of thing. Um, just saying he's very happy to share. He got his promotion. It's been a journey and he really appreciates what I have learned from you, discovering your YouTube channel.

And as the journey continues, I hope to learn some more and become better. In Kenya, we say, Asante sana, wali mu.

I was practicing and I still managed to screw it up. Anyway, Avison, fantastic photo too. Like, so cool. Um, well done. Well done. We need more, uh, we need more African umpires getting up there, getting to the top, representing on the international level, because not only is it good for the hockey when you're there, what you are bringing back to your country is so vital and so good for African Hockey Federation, for Kenya, for everyone, for your local community.

Okay, so well done you. Very proud. Okay. Uh, also want to congratulate Zach, Zachy T, okay, who's been in the server for a long time and he pops in every so often and asks some questions and participates. And he's from Australia and he passed his level one course for umpiring. So congratulations. Okay. And I am like, okay, let's, let's wait.

Do I have better? Do I have more music? I mean, we celebrate it all here. Okay. Okay. Because every step along the way is something that. We, we will mark, but it's not because of the achievement. It's because we understand what goes into it. It's the journey that you've been on to get to this point. So congratulations, Ak, very proud of you.

And also,

Sjoerd,

I was also practicing that and I still think I got it wrong. Sjoerd from Holland, uh, has finished his CS plus course. Last week, and he passed his test and so he's on the way to the next level of umpiring in the Netherlands. Great work. Great work. I'm really proud. Okay. So these are folks who all are part of our discord server community.

So if you're not part of it, um, get there. And also I'll just bring up this too.

Do it, do it. If you're getting value out of it, if you're not, and you're not going to come back, please don't because I like engaged audience members. And I'm just trying to just, just here to help for the long haul. This is a long term relationship we're in. This isn't just a one, one day live stream stand, live stand.

It's not a live stand. It's a long relationship. I hope that's not creepy. I sure hope it's not. Okay. Next topic. The video umpire protocol update, what? Are we going to have fun or, oh my goodness, everybody's like, no, hey, what's that? The music didn't work. Oh, come on. Hmm. There we go. Wait. Okay. I got to go back to comments.

Um, Ian, we want you on the Glastonburyville. There you go. Hi, Ian. Um. No, Manuela, do not apologize. I am so happy you were here. I apologize. I don't know Spanish better. I should. I, I work on it and then I just drink mate and hope it comes naturally. Does it work that way? If I just drink mate?

Okay. Um, blow the whistle. I just got another sound notification. I wonder why that widget isn't working. There's supposed to be a little A little widget that's supposed to pop up over here on the screen, like here ish. But there you go. Um, Mike just saying people normally plan on doing it in five or six days and they did it in three.

Shapo! Shapo! Absolutely. Okay. Um, with regular counseling. Yeah. And I'm the counselor. Oh, okay. Oh, Anik's got discord account issues. This is not going to be fun. Okay. So anyway, let's get back to the, to the whole thing. What happened with this that I got the wrong, um,

the wrong thing. Let's try checking it again. Right marker.

Good. Okay. That works for me. Are we happy? Are we all happy? No, see, it says it's giving the wrong thing in the chat. Sorry, everybody. Don't go vote yet because you have, okay, you've already seen the clip. So you go ahead and vote if you want. Now, there we go. Everything's working. New video umpire protocols came out.

Now we know, like, let's be real here. This is not something that we need to know because it has any applicability to our everyday lives. Everson, he's going to, he's going to be dealing with that soon. And for all the other members who are FH, uh, umpires in the community who like to stay on the DL, I know you're, I know you're out there.

I know you're listening because you send me DMs and it's okay. I understand you like to hide, but what it does help us with is engaging in the conversation and debate. And it's also, um, a way that we can help educate the rest of the communities about FH. the rest of the communities, our local communities, and people who are watching top level matches and going, I don't get it.

What's going on? So we are going to be the informed people so that we can watch and we can understand and do the mental exercises and we can help elevate the game with great dialogue. Okay. So let's have a look at this. Your girl's going to get her iPad out and, and really look seriously. So. This is May 13th that these came out and they update the November 2023 things.

And what they say right here is that, uh, Oh, that's not matching up at all. Oh, annotations aren't going to work well.

Nope. Cause what you see is not what I see.

Overlay. Let's see if I can fix this. Oh, I know what's wrong.

Let's try this again.

In red. It worked! Okay, good. So, they do say, they do say that changes are going to be in red, although it doesn't actually say that in the May version, so maybe we can let them off the hook, but there's things that were changed in November remain changed? in May, and it's not super helpful as to what that means.

One of the things that they took out is the guidance about how video umpires are appointed. Duh. Nothing to worry about there. And there's no changes otherwise when we get We go through these segments. So there's lots of red text, but there's nothing that's changed. And remember, here's the interesting stuff that was added, which was the misconduct provisions.

So there are still people who are watching the top matches right now and not sure that You know, why it is that things that are happening off the ball and things that are happening between the 23s, so inside that neutral zone, can be referred, self referred by the umpire, and they were doing so in instances of serious misconduct being suspected.

So now that we know that that's the case, that's, um, You know, we're still trying to get that through to the communities. So keep that in mind and make sure to talk about this with your hockey friends as well. Okay? That this is one of the, uh, the things that they can, they can deal with is whether any serious misconduct, dangerous or reckless fouls have been committed on or off the ball anywhere on the pitch.

Okay? And from what I've seen so far, that There's been more, I don't want to say successful because that isn't great, but there've been more referrals that are, have caught things that needed to be caught than have been sort of false alarms. But even in the case of the false alarms, that's still important to clarify and to know that nothing bad happened there because then you're able to present that to the players and say, we looked, nothing untoward happened, nothing dangerous happened.

We're looking after you and we take, we take your safety seriously. We're willing to check. So I think that is very, very powerful. So one of the areas that they did make some changes, I believe is when we get to around here is the languaging that they're using about what they're able to say in response to things.

And it's, it's mostly just clearing up the language. Ideally, between 60 to 90 seconds, they're going to come back with their recommendation. They're going to, but they added this little section. It's if it's possible for the video umpire to provide advice, okay, which is this sort of thing. If it's impossible for the video umpire to provide advice, sorry, I'm, I'm not very good with the pencil.

Uh, then they should use the phrase, I have advice for you when communicating to the field umpire. So, I have advice for you is the phrase du jour now for video umpire recommendations followed by the appropriate phrase from the list below. Okay. So they're trying to make it very clear what the video umpires are going to say.

Okay. And. They've cleaned up the language about the serious misconduct here. So serious misconduct, the video umpire may include whether advice, whether a temporary permanent suspension should be awarded. Okay. So they may give that advice, uh, about that, or they may also say no serious misconduct. Okay. Or if it's not possible to give advice, they should simply use the phrase, no advice possible on its own when communicating with the on field umpire.

So they should not state, it's very, it's very detailed. I should not, they, they should not say, I have advice for you. There's no advice possible. Uh huh. Okay. I don't know. I'm trying to make my best of this so that we all know what's happening. Okay. Team referrals. Um, just reinforcing, and this was in the last version, team referrals.

Uh, are not available outside the 23 meter area, okay, even in cases of serious misconduct. That has to be a self referral by the umpire, okay? And that's, that's a tough one for the umpires because sometimes it's because they hear the hullabaloo, they hear the players mad and then they look and somebody's on the ground And so there's this sort of implicit pressure on the umpire to do something that they're not just like, oh, I've seen something, but I'm not sure.

They may not have seen anything at all. So the line between what is a self referral and whether there is an appeal from a team to look for serious misconduct is a little fuzzier in these situations. But I think, I think as we see this go along, that we're going to find that it's still not something that is going to get abused too often by players.

At least I hope not. Okay, so the same sort of cleaning up of the wording happens in here, that when it's possible for the video umpire to provide advice, they should say, I have advice for you, and then use the list, okay? And in the team referral process, they may, the serious misconduct. So the video umpires explicitly.

Allowed here to say, I, I saw something as well. This isn't what the team referred, but this is, I saw this as well. And here's some advice as to how you, I think you should deal with it. So that's been added, which is important. And then I think, and then there's the clarity on just say no advice possible. I don't know.

Okay. And then basically this is like just a few, you can see from the little, the things that are highlighted, those are the elements that have been updated. Okay. And it's not. Not re Dunn, but so, so this happened this morning in the India Argentina men's game and Toby Valter was one of the color commentators and he doesn't know about this.

He doesn't know about the Pibworth rule because he says, I don't understand if somebody referred for a penalty corner and there was actually no decision at all or a free hit was called by the umpire. Team referred, uh, attacking team requesting a penalty corner. It turns out there was no foul at all. So a free hit, a defense shouldn't have been given.

So the advice from the umpire, video umpire has to be, there was no foul. The play was stopped for no reason. Therefore the penalty corner has to be retaken. There are no bullies from penalty corners. And Toby didn't know this. I'm going to talk about that next week, maybe, unless I've already talked about it.

Who knows. So, I'm just sort of trying to skim through and make sure I don't miss anything. Either against Wait, can we stop before we're completed? Yeah.

Okay. And that's all basically, basically the same, except this section has been deleted. If during a shootout, before the eight seconds has, uh, sorry, I have to, I have to look on different screens because I can't see well now. If they are then advised by their on field colleague or video umpire there's no valid reason for the shootout to be stopped, then the shootout will be retaken.

So that's been removed. Okay, let's see if it comes into play somewhere else. I don't know if it will. Okay, then we go through a lot where nothing has changed, nothing has changed, nothing has changed, and

we have this definition that's been Cleared up, okay. In this appendix, serious misconduct refers to Any conduct which is a level two or level three offense, but then it's been expanded to also include any serious or physical offense as referred to in the rules of hockey because the code of conduct deals with things like, uh, I don't know, like spitting or, um, other acts of, well, misconduct that aren't, explicitly in the rules and they're like, Oh, actually we still want to get the stuff that's within the rules.

So they've added that and whether a player intentionally misbehaves in a serious manner is referred to in the rules of hockey. Um, I think that's sort of the thing. And for the avoidance of doubt, A, B and C above can be read jointly or separately. That is a very legal phrase. That is legal interpretation at its best.

So not a ton that has been Changed here, but let me just see if there's anything, uh, in the comments that I can help with as I look, do, to do comments.

Um, yeah, the protocol hopefully cut off some of the off the ball stuff knowing what we looked at. I think the players are kind of getting onto it now and we're just in that little phase where the players are starting to ask for things. They're like, Hey, that thing happened. I want you to look at it. I remember, um, uh, at EHL that happened where one of the more veteran.

English cub players was at the umpire to have something have a looked at and there was nothing wrong with it and maybe, um, maybe an honest mistake, but I think we're going to be in that phase where players are going to try to push that a little bit further because they are so much more aware of these provisions.

So the awareness goes both ways, you know, and we have to think about whether, uh, that's going to be, uh, Uh, an issue there.

Okay. And Florian, uh, the I have advice and then no advice possible is always very confusing. I don't remember that being a thing. Like maybe that's just me. I don't know. That's okay. Seems like the sentence above the deleted shoot, shoot out sentence has also been changed. All right. I'll be your Huckleberry.

Let's, let's have a look at this, this bad boy, if I can navigate back to it. Cause I sentenced, sentenced.

Okay. Sentence about the deleted shootout sentence also changed.

So this is the, however, if the referral decision was not in their favor, then a free hit to the defense will be awarded. The attacking team will lose their referral. I mean, it's a clarifying point, but it's something that we know anyway.

So that got tacked on to, um, if the team referral was made by the attacking team and the referral decision in their favor, then the match will restart with the penalty corner and the attacking team will retain their referral. And then they do it the other way. Because more words are better than fewer

added, but did anything get actually added? Not sure. Okay. So not the most exciting update ever. My ABD is going to like plummet during that section. Sorry, but it's still useful to know because these little details and being aware that things have been updated and changed is important. And you, when you hear a commentator on a pro league match, Top player who's just retired from Did he retire from Germany?

Or did he retire from his club? I don't remember. And you realize that, you know, there's a change that's now three years old that they haven't kept up with. Like it's, it just, this is why we have so many problems in our game. Is that the people who are presenting the game to all the folks at home on such a large scale don't necessarily know what the rules are.

And His co commentator, his play by play commentator, didn't know the rule either. Okay, so let's do our bit, let's do our part, and let's see if we can fix that a lot. Okay, um, Anique, but field umpires can say look at the whole situation, they can do that, is that only with their own referral? Uh, no, and it's, it's a little fuzzy, it's a little fuzzy, but good video umpires will be watching the play anyway.

And they will be forming their own sort of like, Ooh, I wonder if that's going to end up being, that I'm going to have to take a look at, I wonder about that thing that just happened two seconds prior. And they will know that they want to see a little bit more, that they want to take that into consideration before they give their advice, because it's their job just to get the decision right.

And that's why they've removed the. the aspect where a team had to refer a particular question and get their question right. Instead, they have to get the result right. So as long as they get a penalty corner, they're cool. Now, if they, let's say a penalty corner is awarded, but on referral, it ends up being a free hit defense.

Wait,

let me see if I get this right. Yes. And it's a free hit defense, but the thing that they thought that the penalty corner was for actually happened, but something happened before that. They won't lose their referral. They just won't get the result. That makes sense. Okay. So no, if a, if a penalty corner wasn't given and a team appeals for it, and yes, it did go off a defender's foot, but a second prior to that there was actually a stick block by the attacker.

Well, it's going to end up being a free hit for the defense, so they won't get their result, but they won't lose their referral in that case. Okay. Um, which I think you probably had well under control, but yes, my understanding of, of how that all works is that video umpires aren't going to go, okay, I've been asked to look at whether there's a stick block and that's the only thing I'm going to look at.

That it's their job, no matter what. It's just, if the pitch umpire says something like, can you please look at the whole situation? That happens more often when it's a self referral because they have their own doubt. But they're not sure why. They're like, something happened. I don't know what it is, but it happened over there.

I, it could have been a stick or maybe it was just outside the circle or inside. I'm not sure. Can you just look at all the things instead of trying to outline all the things that they might've missed? It's hard to know what you missed, right? How do you know what you don't know? So that was fun.

Perfect time to go to back to announcements. Just a reminder, friends, just a reminder that let me go here. I'm going to take that off. Last week on the show, we announced, we announced Austin and I, this fabulous human being over here on, on the thumbnail. Um, we're joining forces running, running ref, running ref.

Can't, can't put the G in there. The running ref and I, uh, we are launching a training program, a fitness program specifically for hockey umpires. And don't get on him cause he says field hockey. Okay. Just accept that. They do things a little differently in North America and it's okay, but we all know what we mean.

So we're starting with a beta of a pre season program. So if you want to get on the wait list for that, because we want to make sure that this is something that we're going to be able to meet your needs with. It's going to be a 12 week program that starts July 1st. And if you want to be a part of that, we're going to open the sales to the wait list first.

Because we want to get a small group of people in. We don't want to open this up to everybody because we need to be able to monitor the programming. We need to get lots of feedback from the participants and we need to make sure it's working. Okay. So this is a very intentional process. I haven't done something like this.

I've wanted to do something like this for years for umpires, but I don't have the expertise. Hey, dude with the beard over there, he's got the expertise. So, I'm really excited about this QR code there, um, URL there, there, there.

I give up. I give up. FHumpires. com forward slash STP for a season training plan. Get on the wait list. Okay. Cause I want you to be part of it. All right. Um, that's that. That's that. Let's go to our third topic.

Oh boy. Intentionally playing the ball with the body by the umpire. Oh, see, and now it's,

I don't know, there is no sound with this, but suffice it to say it's chaos.

That's the one we want. Okay. I fixed it. Oh, whoops.

Let's go back to this.

And we're just going to look at this a few times.

So you can see it in all its gory. I really, this is hard. I, I know I need to address it because it's making the rounds on all the socials, but one of my core values is that we do not drag, right? I don't accept or want to be in a position of saying something that gives us nothing we can learn from. We're constructive.

We practice radical candor. Those are the habits that we use to create our do not drag. Value. And it's on the about page, by the way, on the website, you can go, go have a look at it if you care. But this is something that we, you know, when we look at something like this as umpires, looking at it constructively, what can we learn from this situation?

And let's see, do I have, I do have,

okay. What I see here is a positioning choice on penalty corners that is starting to become more and more prevalent. It was really interesting because I was doing a debrief with Ben a couple days ago, and we discussed this notion of moving up from the end line into the pitch more on penalty corners because, and I asked him, so how are you finding that?

What is it that you're trying to achieve? And his reply was, well, it gives me. A better view of this moment here. So with this angle, the umpire can see better what's happening with the runner and that sort of thing. Plus any sort of third party things that are happening throughout the angle, but the danger is in this moment.

Okay, where the ball, he can see everything, but he's in a, what we call the flashed up position, basically, but he's, he's very much in line with a likely clearance opportunity.

Um, Simon's advocating a yellow card for the umpire for intentionally playing with his foot, which is, is a thing, which can be a thing.

Okay. And so what I'm trying to do is just find A solution, and I just want to offer this for consideration, is that the reason that we don't always, we, we hesitate to take this position this far, because often with drag flick, high pace, unlikely to have things here, but a lot likely to have things here, sort of penalty corner situation, is that we're much more likely to be penalized.

Positioned here, one meter in and one meter off the post rather than, I mean, this is probably five meters, I'm thinking, five meters from the end line, okay, is for this very reason. Is this, this traffic area here is, is important. And can you see what you need to see from here if you're standing here instead of standing up there?

And we talk about areas of responsibility or, or, or aspects of responsibility for controlling and supporting penalty corners. And who is looking for whether the ball hits the Defensive runner or not, and how high you need good support. You need a good supporting umpire, and you should not as a controlling umpire, expect yourself to make all the decisions here, all of these 30 part third party decisions here, as well as make vital decisions around here about stick obstructions, ball hitting the feet, goalkeeper back stick, all that kind of stuff, right?

There's just too much. So where do you need to be to see this most clearly? Maybe you don't need to be that high. That's an idea. I'd like to hear your feedback on that. And it's interesting because over the years I've had friends, if they're listening, they know who they are. If they're advocate this sort of vigilante justice.

I've done something wrong. I want to try to reset the, reset the scales here. Defender has done what they should do. I'm about to make it easier for this attacker to potentially pick up this ball. Otherwise, it would have gone off the sideline. Okay. So I'm going to help it out and I'm going to kick it off the sideline.

And then it will be, it won't be defender ball, it should be attacker ball. But what happens is when he kicks the ball, it goes off this attacker stick before it goes off the sideline. So it ends up being defender ball instead of attacker ball. And now he's really upped it up. Like it's just, you know, there you go.

So absolutely. And I think everybody here. Now that we're not in the comments on social media, you know, we're looking at things like, you know, we understand that he was, he was just trying to, to, to reset the scales and all that kind of stuff. Let me get rid of this so I can move the comment because it's bugging me and I can't move the comment because the world hates me right now.

Um, why can't I? And the positioning, yeah, rely on your fellow umpire. That's absolutely right, Ernst. I'm, I'm trying here. I'm trying here. I'm just going to put it down here. Okay.

Yeah. And that, that cooperation is, is really important. Ernst, for a non umpire, you sure make a good umpiring point. And you know, he just, it's a panic. It's an absolute panic situation. And Anik is understanding what he wants to do and make it all, make a, um, well, he's trying to make it a sideline ball instead of the possibility of the goal.

He's, you know, he wants to kick it away off there and then ends up, You know, making it worse. Did he restart with a bully? Uh, running man, I know what you're doing and it's cute. I detest it. He signals, you know, he, he signals the, um, the sideline ball for the defenders. I don't know if you can sort of see it right at the end.

Let's see if I can just stop it right here. Okay. So you can see his arm up. I think Unless that is, that could be the tail end of his 23 meter restart signal because it actually went off him and then it went off him and then it went off over there. It's hard to see. We can't tell. Either way, he's, he's trying not to, you know, for, for things to, to result in a goal or a penalty corner signal.

And, and I, this is, this is one of the things that I really. Wish that we could be a little bit kinder on social media about these kinds of moments, because haven't we all done something like this? Haven't we all panicked and done absolutely the wrong thing in the moment because we've made a mistake and then we just end up compounding it with something more?

And we know that feeling and it's really easy to be harsh and judgmental about it, but it's just not helpful. Andrew looks a little bit of running rough training and he would have. Yeah, absolutely, Andrew. You've got a great point there. Austin would have made sure that he got there. His technique would have been fabulous and he would have been balanced.

Strong. Paul, you heard in a game, sent off, uh, a player behind the net, stopped a ball from going in after the goalie was eliminated on a breakaway. Ump picked up the ball and threw it into the goal and blew a goal. Yeah, well, first of all, players getting sent off should never be put behind the goal. End of story.

I don't know where that bullshit happened, but. No, send them to the sideline at the center where they belong. And if you don't have suspension chairs, they stand okay, but they stand at the center. They don't get to go sit on their bench. They stand at the center and they serve their suspension there so you can keep an eye on them and you know, when you call them back on, you can see them and see them coming back on.

You never put them behind the goal. Oh my God. So I mean, that's your own fault. Your own fault. Um,

and then I,

so again, doing something vigilante to, to, to create the mistake. I mean, to me that a suspended player who enters the pitch and stops the ball from going into the goal, that's a red card because they're already suspended and they're entering the pitch without permission. They're having a massive high impact.

Foul. And it's cheating.

Even 20 years ago, nobody should have ever been sent behind the goal. Okay. That's just poor practice that happened because we didn't know. And Tim, you're absolutely right. But I think running man was just trying to just, he was just fishing. He was just fishing for me. Uh, change the rules to restart with the PC if it hits the umpire before the PC has ended.

I don't hate that. I don't hate that alternative. Might actually work.

Even then.

Hmm. Yeah, this doesn't make me mad. Let's talk about this more in the server. Okay. Um, let's see what the poll says, because this is going to be fun. Let's see. Gotta leave it. 13 of you said that. And then there were some other, as you know, if you've been around here for a while, you can add your own options to the poll sometimes.

I don't always let you do that, but I certainly did in this case. And we have sending the umpire of the pitch, uh, at the disco. End, um, restart with a bully. Yeah, you can't, can't restart with a bully. Penalty corners cannot end with a bully. So many lessons there, but let's keep it positive. Let's keep it constructive.

What can we learn from the situation? Not how can we drag? That's not our jam. Mike likes it too. Look at that. Okay. Last topic. Last topic. Last topic. Uh, I don't know why. I just can't remember that that's not the button. PC gloves after the PC. Please go to the right scene. It went to the right scene. Okay.

This question came to me by DM and I know I did it again, but it was so awesome. I've decided to make my own trophy. Most professional person around internet trophy. I love that so much. Thomas Holick, one of our FIH friends, uh, sent me this question and I think it's a really good one, a really good one.

And my answer at the time was, look, the rules are very ambiguous. They're almost ambivalently ambiguous. They, they can go both ways, diametrically opposite, all that kind of thing. But what I said was the con, the convention, the convention that we understand is penalty corner protective gear. includes all the things that you've put on specifically for the penalty corner.

So if you haven't worn those big gloves for the rest of the game, and why would you? Because they're terrible and they would get in the way of your skill. But if you haven't been wearing them and you put them on for the penalty corner, then they must be removed with everything. But it's a really tough one because the rules don't support that.

They don't. I can't read them and support that. Interpretation. Okay. This is why.

Okay. Annotations are ready. Let's see how we do. So,

Oh, you're not going to do that. Yes, you are.

Got it. Okay. So this is the start of 4. 2. Whoops. Oh, I can change the pages that way. Great. Okay. So we haven't even gotten into any penalty corner thing too, but they are permitted to wear hand protection, which does not increase the natural size of hand significantly. Any hand protection used both for normal play and to defend penalty corners must fit comfortably into this box here.

Congratulations. We know that's the case. And then this is the section where we look at what the penalty corner protection may be. So they're permitted to wear bigger gloves, both for normal play and for things. So they're allowed that. And then they're permitted to wear any form of body protection, including lug protection, knee pads, when defending the penalty corner.

Now this, the, the little, the little brackets. make everything confusing. This is very, very poor drafting because if this had been a comma and it had just said including leg protection or knee pads and you remove that comma, you scratch that out, including leg protection or knee pads when defending a penalty corner underneath play, underneath normal playing clothing, period.

Knee pads used for this purpose may be worn outside the socks provided their color is exactly the same as the socks. Okay, so now we have a very clear, this is protective equipment that is worn during penalty corners. Okay, and then we have goggles. They're permitted to wear throughout the match. Okay, there's that.

And then, and then we have the face mask provision. allowed to wear the mask when defending a penalty corner penalty stroke. They must remove their penalty corner equipment, but this penalty corner equipment, this, this provision is talking about the mask. What's penalty corner equipment? It's not defined.

We don't know whether it includes all the little leg protection, the knee pads, um, as they're called.

Okay. And the rest of the provision, again, continues with, they have to remove it if they're play outside the 23 meter area, blah, blah, blah, or when instructed by the umpire. The primary objective of wearing a face mask is to defend that. So to me, this entire provision says face mask. The face mask must be removed.

But actually, we don't know about the knee stuff, but we know that the knee stuff can only be worn during penalty corners. So you could include the knee stuff. So it could be face mask plus knee.

Okay, but you can explicitly wear big gloves throughout the rest of the game if you want. So

why would players have to remove their gloves before they play outside the 23?

I can't reconcile this now that I've had this conversation with Thomas. Thomas, I hope you're, you've tuned in. I don't, I don't know if you knew that I was going to talk about it, but I think I said I might talk about it on 1UP Wednesday. I don't, I don't get it. It is so Freaking unclear. All we can go on is that the convention is everybody takes everything off.

That's what the players accept. So that's what we do. But when we have to start handing out penalties, like free hits against, or cards for repetition, because we think it's breaking down play somehow. Oh, what? Why? Because the whole thing is the primary objective. of a face mask is safety and we don't want people wearing face masks and conduct themselves in a manner which is dangerous to other players.

It's all about not creating danger to other people. In particular, wearing gloves outside of a penalty corner situation is not advantageous. It's disadvantageous because your skills suck. I haven't even tried it. I'm a Canadian. I won't even try it. So,

so I'm curious. We're going to go to the poll cause I want to see what. Y'all say, and I'm also going to look at your comments, um, you'd have players, ooh, Tim's talking about Goddard's suggestion that if the ball hits the umpire, it's another penalty corner. You'd have players attempting to deliberately hit the umpire if they didn't have a clean opportunity shot at goal.

I don't think so, because That's a card. And that's a red card. Like, that's, that's violence to an umpire. So I think that if there's any clue that that was an attempt,

I don't think it's worth it to try to earn another penalty corner. So I see what you're saying, Tim, but I don't think that's a concern that we really,

and here we go. No forend time. I'm not sure what that means, please explain. Tim, the rule does say all protective equipment. Absolutely. So does that mean, it says all protective, okay, they should, well, it doesn't say all, it says their penalty corner equipment. Okay. It says their penalty corner equipment as soon as they're able to do so.

But what's penalty corner equipment? So one of the things that I said to Thomas in our discussion is I said, If a player puts on the gloves before the penalty corner, puts on the big mitts that still comply with fitting in the box without being compressed, that we can deem that to be penalty corner equipment, but we don't have a definition for that.

And that directly, directly contravenes this any hand protection used both for normal play and to play, uh, and to defend penalty corners.

So they're allowed to wear it in normal play. So do we enforce them, like, if they wear it during normal play, they're never allowed to take it off? That if they put them on at some point, then they're required to take them off? Like, that's not what the rule is supposed to get at either. So that's not a good result.

Yeah, and, and gloves, gloves are, gloves that the players are wearing during normal play are getting bigger because of the risks involved. Further down, it says all protective equipment. I'll be your huckleberry. Let's have a look at this. They must move all protective equipment. So yes, so that's not even penalty corner protective equipment.

So are they supposed to remove their mouth guards and their shin guards? That's protective equipment. Protective equipment isn't defined. Penalty corner equipment isn't defined. They use two different phrases, two different, um, terms in the same freaking section. What? Like it's not clear. Very unclear. And the general spirit of all this is that if it's not specifically against the rules, it should be okay.

We stay out of the player's way. That's, that's our general interpretive guiding principle. It's not, as long as it doesn't create a safety, it's not a safety issue because we have a, we have a wide Gambit. We have a wide range of like, we're just here to protect lawyer safety. Job number one. So if something novel happens that isn't explicitly against the rules, but it puts somebody else in danger, we're going to be like, ah, no, thank you.

Not today, Satan. Not today. Shoes are protective equipment. Absolutely. And yep. Yeah. That's not in the rules either carrying the protected, carrying the face mask. Okay. But in the face mask, um, you know, we have, we kind of have this, the, Implicit acknowledgement that face mask wearing is dangerous to other players.

We know this. That's what they mean. And so wearing it provides danger. So you can carry that into their carrying a face mask outside the 23, which can also present a danger to other players. Is that the answer I gave you last year? I sure hope so. Cause that sounds smart. Oh my God. Yes.

I really like your, that everybody's taking the absurdism point, but it actually isn't absurd. Because it's very much, you know, all the things, like if we look at what goalkeepers are supposed to wear,

look at that goalkeepers must wear protective equipment.

It's a shit show. You guys, it's a shit show. It's not okay. It's not okay. So in conclusion, wait, is there a poll? Let's see what the poll says. What does everybody else think? Ugh.

Let's see. Defenders don't need to remove gloves put on for the PC. One person went with that. Okay. And a set of you said, W2F rules. Thank you. And I think what I really like about, I mean, I wasn't going to put that answer in at first and then I was like, but seriously, that's how I feel. Acknowledging the ambiguity.

And understanding that we are going to, for now, just go with common practice because consensus is the most important thing. If everybody is doing it wrong but the same way, everybody, then let's sort it out later but let's go with it because at least it's fair for the players. We're just trying to be fair to them.

If we are in, say, the minority, and we believe that all shots at goal, uh, that hit a defender should be deemed dangerous because defenders are allowed to protect the goal with their body and all that kind of thing. And then you're in the minority that believes that. You don't get to call it that way. You have to go with the consensus.

Sorry, not sorry. Okay. So consistency and fairness in that sense prevails, but this isn't okay. This is not okay. Uh, Tom, Yes. And on that bombshell, yeah, Frenchie will sort it out. Yeah. Speaking of whom, I'm going to send him an email shortly. So let's see what happens. Um, that's, you know, good point.

Goalkeepers can't take part in the match outside of the 23 meter area, so it should be fine, but they have to remove their protractive equipment as soon as reasonably possible as well. Not just because they've left the 23. So a defender can't keep their Knee pads and their face mask on, staying inside the 23 for the next five minutes, because they've just defended a penalty corner, right?

Because there's probably going to be a moment in that five minutes where it's reasonable that they should remove it. And if they can't identify it, the umpire will help them and say, you need to take that off. So that's not a good enough answer. I like it though. I really enjoy this rhetorical exercise.

We are, we are practicing our critical thinking skills. I was going to use a fancier word, but There you go. Tom, you once had a small discussion with David Hart about a goalie goalkeeper needing gloves to play the ball. Otherwise you get a penalty stroke. But I said, nah, only the parts that are in rules.

Fun times at hockey camps. You were right. Good work, Tom. And these are great discussions to have with friends. Okay. Um, yeah. Click the likes, click this thing, and I'm going to close out the poll. How do I close out the poll? Live streaming. Close out the poll. End poll. Okay. because this is, let's see if you can see all the, all the little touches.

Okay. 13, ironic Canadian flag. Sorry. Can you still hear me? I hope you can. Can you see this? Can you see this over here?

And it says FHumpires 13. And Oh, check this, check this little detail. Can you see it? Scan it. Scan the QR code.

It goes to the link, hates.

What does the poll say? 28 votes, foul or play on. This is, this is our version of shit or hit the ironic ice hockey jersey. I'll take three, say 53 percent of you break down foul, personal penalty, 46 percent of you. It's a majority. It's going in the shop and it will be in the shop very, very shortly during all this.

Thanks. Um, that's just amazing. Thank you for your participation. You're only buying a nice hockey shirt if it comes with a matching bucket hat. Uh, we have those. We have matching bucket hats. Um, here we have matching bucket hats. Wait, where's everything else? Oh, there it is. It just took a moment.

We noticed you're visiting from Canada. Did you notice that? Oh my God. But there you go. Look at this. It's disgusting.

I'll do a package deal if you buy both. If you're fully committed to both. Yeah. Package deal. Oh my God. What have I done?

Um, oh wait. And then we get ice hockey. Yeah. Wait. Defenders wear armor. Nothing can be dangerous. There you go. Let defenders wear a suit of armor to defend. A lot of shots. No danger. Ah, y'all are so sassy. You're bringing the sass. I love it. I know we're late for the watch party. Sorry everybody, but this is too much fun.

Field players are permitted to wear any form of body protection when defending a PC and they must remove, um, is that your suggestion, Paul? Doesn't work unless we define those terms. Terms must be defined. Um, it is awesome. Currently there's no prescribed penalty for continuing to wear gloves or knee protectors, right?

Only if they keep wearing the mask after the PC is over. Well,

that's the thing. That's the thing. Like, we don't know.

And I'm just saying, All the things, I'm just saying. Thank you very much for joining in. Thank you for voting in all the polls. Thank you for participating. Especially our, um, Amigos nuevos de, uh, de Argentina. De Argentina. That water has been sitting in that mate for an hour and it is bitter like my soul.

I gotta wash that down. Tart. Tart.

That needs defining with dragging action. Yes, the definition of a hit needs to need some help. So many things. I kind of like this. It's really light too. It's like, um, um, not a porous material, but like a meshy sort of thing. I'm, I'm quite, and don't, yeah, don't look at this arm because I messed it up and I've fixed the design, but I, I like this.

I like this sort of touch. You're very welcome. Thank you very much. Um, and let's keep doing awesome things out there. I know it's off season for a lot of you, but that means it's season prep time. Go sign up for the running room, running room. That's a story here in Calgary, the running rough season training plan, wait list that we've got going.

What do you have to lose? It's, it's going to be, it's going to be very reasonably priced. I promise you that. And fun evening, Alan, you didn't comment at all. You need to, I need more fire from you. I need more, but thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it. We'll see you soon. Thanks, Annique.

#hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules