📅 Dec 7 19.00 GMT
Throw all your cards on the table as we discuss two dangerous plays from the FIH Hockey Nations Cup in Potchefstroom, why penalty corner injections need to be taken immediately, and how to differentiate between fakes and intimidation.
The live chat is the place to be so mark your calendars, pre-plan your meal and pour an appropriate beverage at the top of the hour because I'd love to see you there!
🚨 Upgrade your accuracy today; the Mission-Critical Positioning course is live! https://fhumpires.com/mcp
⏱ Chapter Markers:
Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.
What Up Wednesday. Keely Dunn, FH Umpires. You're the third team and we have a show for you. I am taking feedback from. Peri, I believe was their name, who wrote on YouTube. I love the content. Get to it faster. The person has spoken. This person listens. So everybody, let's get down to it. We are gonna talk about two dangerous play in plays in Potch, an indoor PC injection update, faking versus intimidation, playing advantage off a defender's body, and potentially a bonus if we get to it.
I am going to say hello to everybody as we get into the material and all that sort of thing. I'm just gonna fix this camera because I am not happy. There we go. Excellent start. Okay, before we get underway today, this whole jam is being brought to you by the new launch for the level one indoor Comprehensive.
So I am doing a comprehensive course for the umpires here in the Calgary Ladies Field Hockey Association. It is because there is no national equivalency. Uh, we are doing our own, basically. And so this is what would be a certification for, uh, for local people. If you are a person who wants to get your basics completely ironed out, this is the equivalent of what would be a level one certification in your area.
But of course, I'm not telling you it's a level one certification cuz I can't certify people in other areas. But maybe one day, maybe one day, associations will say, you know what? This is too much work. We don't need to do that. Let's just use. FH umpires, comprehensives as the learning foundation for our umpires too.
Maybe someday you'll never know. Uh, don't forget, we still have the mission critical positioning, uh, course ongoing. Go ahead and go sign up. $37 us. And I get so much great feedback about it. I'm really proud of it. And for me, it's, it's kind of like one of those, this is like your continuing education module.
At any point in your online career, you could come in and benefit from taking a really hard comprehensive look at your, um, at your positioning, your movement, get up to date, refresh the things that you are doing, whatever the case might be. So have a look at those things. Um, this is going to launch, I sh I should put it right in that level of the certification.
So we're in presale right now. It will launch. January 11th. So it's the second Wednesday in January. It's going to be available if that's too late for you. I'm sorry, but the I, there's only one of me. It's just one of me. Okay, let's get into the content, shall we? We have ourselves double dangerous plays in Potch.
Saying hi to y'all here, Shayne.
I am really sad to hear this, Steven, that you're not feeling well and you're missing your Christmas party. And remember you telling me last week that you were really looking forward to it, so get better fast. That's terrible. Hello to all of you. I like going through all your names cuz I like knowing that you're here and I really appreciate you coming by.
Okay, so this one is interesting. It was hard to parse out exactly what happened on the pitch. I did have to trim out some portions cuz I don't want to abuse the privileges that I've negotiated with the fih to be able to use this kind of, uh, coverage. But, and also it actually didn't really help initially what I think happened is the umpire here, as you can see in the replay, decided to show a yellow card to the player who hit the ball into his opposition's face.
Okay. This clip was initially brought to me by somebody in the server who, on their first viewing of it, thought that the stick was being played, that the stick was being brought over the head of the player, and then, uh, went into their face. I. Uh, and that, as you can see, isn't in the case, isn't the case.
You can imagine that, first of all, we know what being in that position on the pitch is like for our friend Peter here, he's behind and the bodies are in the way. The defender has gone down to ground, and very likely he didn't have good eyes on this. It would've been very difficult. To see this is one of those instances, you know how we occasionally talk about video referral rules and how, you know, maybe there's some room for change.
This is one of those possibilities. This is one of those areas that I think if an umpire is considering a personal penalty, but can't reach a conclusion themselves, they should be able to self-refer this. And even though they had awarded just the, um, just the penalty for the, the, um,
I mean this, this is a bit scrambly. I'm trying to think about how to explain this without, um, getting the context all, all worked out. But if they don't have the ability to self-refer for the goal in the penalty stroke and also take a look at the personal penalty, I think they should still be able to do this.
Cuz I think it's still important. I think it's, there's a lot of value in that, so that's something to consider there. What ended up happening is that, that after the yellow card was proclaimed, Was shown mines were changed. It wasn't clear to me on watching the full footage as to how that happened, but the umpire decided to go with just a penalty corner for the player, for the defender, playing the ball with his body and no card.
So you can surmise potentially that Ben on the other side, Benjamin Peters, uh, had a different view and thought that perhaps, you know, he saw correctly that the stick didn't hit the face, but felt that the danger was caused by the defender in the stick Going into. Uh, the, sorry, it wasn't the stake, it was just the ball hitting the player in the face, and that was essentially caused by the defender going down to ground.
They did want to review, but unfortunately because it was an injury situation and the first job that any umpire has is to attend to the player who's down on the ground. They stop time, they go look at that, they're not gonna deal with a referral right at that moment. The injury has to come first, but what that meant was the replay was shown on the, on the big screen and poach, which means that the players have access to that.
That is unfair, and players are not permitted to ask for a referral after that. It's a lot of really hard situations all. Because the players don't know they have something to refer until they find out that the decision that is being arrived at is not the one that they want. So in this instance, I don't know if only changing the directorial approach to this situation is the way to do it.
That you can't put that, that potential referral up, that replay up until all these other things have happened. It would, you'd have to have a really smart staff. And let's face it, that's not something that we always see. Uh, the staff don't always understand all the things that are going into this. So that makes that really, really difficult.
And then we have the, the, the complication that the, the, that the decision was changed. The initial decision was changed, so, It's a bit, it's a bit unfair in this situation, not because of, because the umpires are following exactly the protocol that they've been briefed to do. So this isn't, I'm not saying this is all about the umpires, but because of how these instances have been briefed or how the regulations prohibit the, the request for the referral to come too late, you know, we didn't get a chance to fully see this situation.
So what I'm interested in right now, apparently I have a poor connection and I don't understand what is happening here, but I'm going to start a poll, uh, because Kat is on her way. She's just not quite here right now. So, Uh, what's your call? I'm gonna ask, is this agreeing card on the attacker pre hit defense?
No. Card attacker. Pre hit defense. And I'm putting options in here. The full range
and there. Okay. Because this was actually presented to me by the person who, who saw this and said, Hey, you should have a look at this. I think this is worthy of a red card. So I've listed that option and I'd like you guys to give me your thoughts. So let's go into the. I see Don's here. Yay. Good to see you.
Hi. So hello, this is Steven Denman. Yes. Your Bucks game was canceled due to weather. Gee, really? Mid-December and you have a Bucks Game canceled. I'm so shocked. I say she thought the umpire said the yellow was for the stick, hitting the guy in the face. That's what, that's what the umpire said in the moment.
And then I believe he may have heard over the radio help from Ben, and you can see the motion that Peter's making when he's initially talking to the captain, who also happens to be the player he needs to card saying, you know, it's the stick in the face. And that's completely understandable from the position that Peter would've been in.
And that's given the motion and the way the ball moved and all that stuff. And you know, It's very reasonable to have made that, I don't wanna say assumption, I wanna say you would've perceived that to have been the case cuz we're always guessing on certain elements of things. It's just how much are we inferring because we don't actually see it, but we don't see a hundred percent of every picture.
We might see 99, we might see 90, we might see 50, we might see 40 or 45% as I think Peter would've had in this situation and makes a quick judgment. So there you go. Training was off too. Uh, bit freezer. Yeah. Uh, Mike McCartney, this is where if play players wanna protect the integrity of the game, a player from each team tells the empire confirms what actually happened in the absence of the view.
So the right decision has arrived at. And dot, dot, dot and his conclusion, obviously this is a free hit, defense for Dangerous Up by the attacker, the defender, but angles are horrendous for the primary empire and no card for you. Accidental.
Okay. Um, let's see. Attempting to review. Yes, that's absolutely right. Let's see. Rachel's agreeing with Mike so far. Rato, how is the CEO for the attacker at a pc at the same time? I think the P this is what I'm trying to piece together. Rato, I don't believe that it was going to be a PC at first, and I think Peter changed his decision and unfortunately I think he had it right in the first.
But you know, that's, that's me starting to express my opinion. Before you guys have even voted on the poll, make sure you vote on the poll. So even though it was the Ireland player asking for the referral to you, um, Because it was played a second time into the player's face. That's still his fault. Whose fault?
When you say his fault? Hi Don. Um, that was the one. You're back. Thank you Kat. See, I just got the poll started. Everybody's chill, everybody's cool. And there you go. Uh, Mike, the green player was stationary in front of white onus on white to play the ball safely, especially that high off the ground yellow card in a free hit defense.
That's what your M one s would get says. Mike. Vince, thank you for that. Appreciate it. Adam. Learning question, could a PC be given with a card for the attacker? That's, that's a really great question and I love that one because it is possible, but the card has to be for something that isn't connected or the same as the Team penalty award.
So you could say, For example, that, um, let's say that ball doesn't get flicked up into the defender's nose, but actually gets played downwards onto his ankle. And then that player, the attacker goes over the head with a stick clips the defender in the face. That could still be team penalty. The disadvantage is the foot that happened first.
But we have dangerous play by an attacker that has to be addressed. That's a form of misconduct. And off they go. That's a little tougher because danger still is a foul, but another one would definitely be dissent. Okay, so the penalty corner is given and an attacker turns around and starts. Yelling at the umpire because they want a stroke or they wanted the whistle faster, or they wanted advantage.
That's when you as an umpire could then give the card to an attacker, but you keep the team penalty because that's where the scales of justice are. These are really difficult. Sort of situations how much separation there is between the hockey plays and, and, and it, and it gets, you know, you, you, you want to address what happens, what actually impacts the play.
What is the first foul? But it doesn't mean you can't address the next incident. So I hope that helps Adam. And if anybody has any follow ups on that, I'm here for this conversation. Hi, Jamal Defender does not play it. Um, it's just three D's skills into the circle. I mean the first, the first little tip up might have been off defender stick there.
The attacker defender stick came in pretty simultaneously really. And it just started going, but definitely the attacker played it that second time. So there you go. Um, hi. Phil. Can, yes. So same question. Excellent. Eg. Before you get the chance to blow the whistle. Yes, I believe so. the work off the account.
That's okay. See, look at me being all clever. I remember. You're Phil. So there you go. Good to. Shayne, it's a hard decision to make for the controlling umpire. Conversation with co, co umpire would be a good idea to confirm actions. And like I said, it wasn't clear with the scenes that we were showing. It could have been at one point because I did chop a couple little sections out where there wasn't any information being given, but they were just replaying the same thing over and over again.
Or they were just showing yeas with the blood, even more blood pouring out of his nose, um, that sort of thing. Um, they're very well could have been something coming over the radio and actually these nation's cup matches. I'm gonna be bringing these out for watch parties, so not live, but we're gonna watch these matches together.
I think this is gonna be an excellent one to cover potentially for reasons that will become obvious when I do part B of this same first topic. Um, you can hear the umpires quite clearly over the audio. They are on always on. And it's really nice. Like you can actually, it's not that they're super loud, but there's just a clarity in the sound design that like, good job producers.
I just wanna tell you, I dump on, dump on production all the time. But that one, that is excellent. So there you go. Um, for Rachel, you don't agree with Mike that it's accidental. The second touch is reckless and dangerous. Carter attacker plus PC doesn't feel like the right combo here for what actually happened.
Well, it's, it doesn't ever feel right cuz it's difficult and I think what, what you have to distinguish, I went on a hypothetical where the ball was played safely. Do I think that the defender put themselves in a dangerous position here? And therefore it should be a penalty corner against them.
Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I believe that this is just dangerous play and now I'm giving away my position. Uh, Luke, you think the attacker knew what they were doing and hit the ball upwards towards the defender's head area? No. End danger involved. Yellow card free. Hit defense for you? Um, I think if you take a look at the re the sight on replay, it's very clear that the ball glances off the top edge of the attacker stick.
I don't think he was trying to play it at that height. I think he was trying to play it around him that said, this is still extremely dangerous for me. So it was a dangerous attempt at something that was likely gonna fail. Voling the ball outta mid-air and thinking you're gonna have fine control in order not to smoke somebody in the face that's not.
An acceptable risk that is reckless. So for me, something that needs to be penalized, um, you see PCs overturned to a free hit defense for dissent from an attacker. It's a very delicate balance. That's an incorrect call in my view. That's just an incorrect call. I think that's poor umpiring practice because the disadvantage that was presented by that initial foul is still the thing that needs to be reset between the teams.
The dissent is something between you and the player and the way that they're presenting the game to you.
So for example, if I felt that an attacker was committing a dive in order to illustrate a foul inside the circle, and they were embellishing that, and yet there still was a foul. That caused a disadvantage to that team, I would've no problem with awarding the PC or the felony stroke and the card for the misconduct to the attacker for diving.
No problem at all. That's cuz I, I have a very empty bucket of,
to give. It's very, very empty. There are no Fs to give in that bucket, and I know that that's the right thing to do in resetting the scales of justice. Okay, so I know it's quite common at lower levels of play because umpires don't wanna give cards. Don't start me now. My rant comes at the end of this segment, not in the middle.
Okay. Umpires don't wanna give cards, so it's a lot easier for them just to pull a free hit defense and then they think they've taken care of the problem. Spoiler alert they haven't. Okay. Is that lifted off the defender's stick? Potentially, yes, but the attacker is clearly able to play it. They are not endangered by any lift that may or may not have come off the defender's stick initially cuz they're able to make contact with the ball and try to do something constructive with it and fail Stijn.
You agree with the free hit defense and yellow card. Now, if the defender would've made a stick tackle prior to the attacker playing it dangerously in the defender's face, PC and yellow Card two attack would be possible in your opinion? Yes, and I agree with that. I think that's. Well stated, Rachel, you agree with Lu.
It was a deliberate touch. You can only have been hoping that it looped over the defender's head and shoulder or maybe around dangerous play yellow card free hit defense. So there you go. Um, green card, yellow card for danger by the attacker, which would depend on game context. Yep. You can easily see why the attacker actually be considered reckless and therefore card worthy.
But does that stack up with the sort of skills we promote in the D at this level? Yeah, it does because we have to not see thi this is what we get into when we talk about this at lower levels and everybody says, oh my God, like it's gonna be chaos at lower levels. Because they fail at executing that skill.
There has to be a cost to do to failing to do something safely. The cost is that guy's nose is broken. Somebody could lose their teeth, somebody could lose their eyesight, somebody could have a concussion that ends their career. Those are costs. So you better be damn sure in that second as a player that this is a risk that you believe is worth taking because you think you can execute this properly.
There has to be a tempering of the, uh, just the full out. Let's try to do everything and see if it works out and there's no problem. Um, I talked to, or I didn't talk to, but I listened to Terry Walsh speaking on a podcast several months ago now on the reverse stick, and he said, we have a distinct problem with people who take, who lift the ball dangerously off free hits when they do so.
And they misplay the ball at levels where they should be able to execute that skill. But they're, you know, if they do something that is that dangerous and the cost is the other player loses their ability to continue in the game, they have to go off their bleeding, their, you know, whatever the case might be.
Why is there not a personal penalty? Why is there not a, a cost, a deterrent to every player on the pitch? You know what? You can do that if it's safe, but if it ain't safe, you better be able to execute it safely. And that is how we, on our pitches, manage players' experimentations with skills. As we say, you better be very confident and you better do your damn best.
Because it's not fair that they get to just run away with this and just go, okay, I'm gonna go ahead. That is very reckless. End of story. The skill of planting a ball into stationers, playing his face. Yeah, you're you're funny, Steven Jamal. Absolutely. Playing a dangerous ball and making it worse is worth a personal penalty.
I agree. Jamal Ian, first time live. Oh, nope. It's the welcome DJ Airhorn. Hi Ian. Very glad you made it. And it's a yellow card in a free hit defense for you. Yeah. Um, you've done that, so if you've done that yourself, but you would've learned to it and would just apply a personal penalty. Okay. The, the, maybe the reversal it looks you like, it's a defender's stick that raises the ball into the dangerous foyer in front of his face.
Mike, I'm just gonna let you keep watching.
Oops. What happened there? Gee, Kayley. Lock your scenes. Walk overly. Oh goodness.
Carding a play for Diving Eve. Listen to the Lipstick Together podcast. I, okay. Can we pin this? Let's pin this. I'm gonna star this and pin this cuz I finally caught up to the, um, caught up on the last two episodes. So there you go. I have, I have that plaque. My girlfriend's, uh, one Christmas we were having a secret Santa, and then one of them just said, this is no secret.
This is just for you. And it was a plaque that has that quote on it, and it sits in my bathroom so that every day when I get ready for a live stream, I remember that. I have nothing to worry about because. My field is Baron. Thanks Hedrick. Irma just said yes. That's nis. What the f was the attacker thinking.
Irma, you're all right with me. You're all right. The attacker didn't control the bra, Paul, properly. You feel for the umpire? Yep. Given the decision that they're make. Uh, Stephan very well pointed out there, you think? Yep. And being ill is making you laugh in a silly way. I'm just gonna let you keep watching
Yeah. That was a little awkward, wasn't it? Sorry, Mike, can you can, I hope you can see that now.
I just, I am really struggling to. Give this idea that the defender should be penalized for making that dangerous.
I'm struggling so hard, I just don't have words. You know? I love you, Mike. Okay, I'm gonna end the, I'm gonna end the poll. I hope everybody's voted.
Wait, I'm not even in the right place. What's two minute warning? This ish. Let's end this poll.
Now let's get this on the screen. Not that one friends. Not that one. This one. Okay. So we went 58%, uh, chose the side of good, uh, penalty corner 22%. So believing that the defender used. Their body put themselves in danger. Whate, however you wanna say it. Sorry, I just realized I was off center. Um, green card for the attacker.
Free hit defense and red card for the attacker. Nobody. Okay, so, so for my friend who sent this to me by dm, you are alone in the red card. The red card area. Sorry. That's just, that's just the way it goes sometimes. Right. And sorry, I'm just turning on some more lights
so that my face can be seen. Um, let's see. , I wanna the rest of these comments for the last minute. Okay. You can understand the, the decision breach cuz the disengaged, the disengaged part is really gonna struggle to see it. And yeah, Steven, it's, it's the logical place sort of to go, Luke, it's your fault.
You head run the ball and now to spend the weekend in hospital. Yeah. It doesn't wash for you there. And the struggle is real. Yes. All these things. No, it's okay. You, you're doing just. And you think you got my next poll? Excellent. Okay. So for me, this is a yellow card. I, and I think a yellow card, five minutes is appropriate in this when you are as a player.
And this is, this is the standard that I've definitely seen throughout the f i h. You're responsible for your stick when it's around people's faces and heads and, and playing the ball into somebody's face or head just is not, not C. Cool. Cool. Very, not C. Cool. Cool, cool. Cool, cool, cool. Okay.
This is the same game
10 minutes later.
Bye Steffan. We wish her wish her the best for me. I hope her assembly's awesome. Of course she's doing well. She watches F H U.
Okay, so you know that time at Band camp when I said that
if you don't handle incidents, As they should be handled, it's gonna come back and bite you in the ass. So this was not the scenario that was brought to my attention. I actually just happened to see as I was quickly scrolling through the match to find the footage that had been brought to my attention and I saw another Mela blood, you know, like just the freeze frames, right?
Every sort of 20, 30 seconds. And I was able to see this and then I realized that math, maths,
I don't, I don't think I really need to be right all the time, but tell me, I'm not, tell me I'm not wrong.
Okay. So hopefully cats started the new, um, pole. Excellent. You're on a cat. Well done. Please get your opinions in there. Let me find out what you are thinking. Okay. Sh loved the ums handling of the initial incident. Uh, Ben does a very good job in staying calm and dealing with the emotions and, and that sort of thing.
I also like that we don't see Peter running into there, into the middle of it and trying to sort stuff out. Peter is hopefully. He might be off camera and be right close by, but hopefully he's a little bit of a distance away, taking notes, watching for somebody to take a swing at somebody else because that's when it happens.
Uh, Perth luxury is thinking red potentially.
And Mike, um, this is worse than the first cliff, comfortably. Yeah, it is. And why did it happen?
Because of the first cliff,
worse than the other one. A 10 minute yell card for you? Yep. Um, penalty corner. Did it happen inside the 23? Lemme see the replay again.
I mean, I'm not even too bothered. It's an attacker, so it's not a pc. And Perth is, is looking for that red card now. Uh, of course. Tricky. Uh, what do you mean? Have you missed anything Spicy? I'm spicy right off the get-go. Um, red carpet. It's not hockey. No, not for me. He's been fouled pretty hard by the defender.
He's trying to get out of it, but he's absolutely reckless and dangerous as to how he's trying to get outta that situation. But he didn't turn around and punch this guy or hit this guy with a stick after the incident had had occurred. This is in the incident. These for me are not red cards and they will never, I guarantee you will not see these given at red cards at international level.
Ever. Ever. This was a green. Ben, I love you. You know this y I have a ton of support for you, but it's not a green. Absolutely not a green.
White pushes green, and then green tries to get the stick pass player in a hockey action. Green to white, yellow to green , and that's, oh, you'd give a green to the white player. Well, I mean, there's absolutely a breakdown play there, you know, so, oh wait, Stijn, I did you a disservice. Now I understand what you're saying because you're talking about the initial foul was a breakdown by white, therefore should be a pounded corner.
So this is one of those situations and see how, I didn't even like initially because I needed more words to understand exactly what you meant, Stijn. But you're absolutely right. This could be the penalty corner card, the attacker for being unsafe. What's amazing about this, I trimmed a lot of it out, was the arguments from the captain that there should be no card whatsoever for this, because he's arguing that a green card is too much.
And it's like, like Ben has to keep saying, but his tr he tried to stay, take a stick over his head. It's over his head. It's dangerous. It's over his head. Over his head. He says it over and over again because Kasim just, it, it's not, or, um, sorry, I, I think I've confused who the captain is in this situation, but, but the, the, the player, the captain in question just isn't getting the message at all.
Um, Hilo, this could be Eloise under a different account. Uh, you feel like it's the previous clip, reckless and dangerous on behalf of the attacker five yellow card. Um, yeah, I These plays like this where you hit players in the head with sticks. I mean, I've seen 10 minute yo cards been given at international level for a player who runs past a player who's down on the ground and tries to get the ball and misses and hits the player in the face.
That kind of level of,
you know, that that level of, of recklessness is lower than what you can see here. Cuz there's actually a rule against putting your stick over the heads of players, which at this level, the umpires. Try to let it go because it often is done safely. Clearly not done safely here. And again, that's the risk you run.
If you decide that you're gonna try this on, and he pulls, there's a little pull of it. He knows his, he knows it's there. You're torn on a 10 minute el card versus red. The player's looking away when he lifts a stick into the face means he's incredibly reckless or he knows exactly what he is doing. Did he strike him twice?
I don't think so. Um, , well, no. See, now I'm giving you the benefit because there is, there is a potential there for you. Yep. Hendrick, do we have a word with the Irish player to add insult to injury about intentional files like that? That's the difficult part. If you, if you were about to call the penalty corner for the intentional breakdown by number eight, the Irish defender here.
And then you have to give a card to the player for sticks in the face and all that. It's, it's difficult to do, but high performing umpires can do it, and you take your time, you bring the two captains in, you explain, this is what happened first. That penalty is a penalty corner and a green card, a yellow card to number eight from Ireland for the breakdown tackle.
Then there was danger immediately after, and that is a 10 minute yellow card for the attacking player. Those are two separate things. Go. Okay, so if you can explain that clearly, that's the approach you could take in this if you believe it was a breakdown tackle. Um, and I think in this game probably was, you think both captains in both situations talked to the umpires, um, into giving a lesser personal penalty?
There was a lot of crowding discussions and situations. There was, there was a lot, if you remember back from the first clip, Peter was had. Okay. And, and maybe this is part of what I was, what I edited out of that clip, Peter had to repeatedly, repeatedly go away, go away, go away. And they weren't on camera, but you could tell that there was a bunch of players and they're talking and it's distracting.
And this is the thing about crowding. A, it's physically threatening. That's one problem. B, it stops you from being able to see everything else that's happening behind the players who are crowding you because they're blocking your view. That's A, B. C is when you have to listen to more than one player talk to you at once.
It's kind of hard, and I think it, and I believe players know at this level particularly, but at many levels, players understand. They know how difficult it is and they take their chances. Oh, I'm gonna, yeah, I'm gonna join in this conversation
and I'm gonna, I'm gonna get a word and edgewise and I'm gonna put doubt in their mind. They're not gonna know quite who it came from, why, why they heard it, why they're listening. Yep. Confusion is to our benefit. It's a risk worth taking. Five minute yell cart to white, 10 minute yell cart to green for you, says Ian.
there was a green card given Perth luxury, a green card was given for this, a green, uh, and and so no card was given in the first scenario. I don't know if you were, you were here in time to see that, but if you weren't, at some point you can rewind and then catch back up again. Did you know you can do that in live streams?
You can. You're the boss of your own playback. You can skip back 5, 10 50, like in increments of five seconds. You can pull the little cursor back and then you can skip ahead and you can even change your listening or your viewing settings to 1.5 times speed, for example. If you think I talk solely enough for that, and then you catch up to the live,
I'm an expert. You do need to address the breakdown by white. Yes, Marcus. This is a good point and I I appreciate that, um, that you guys all. Are picking up on that. And I'm glad you brought that my to my attention cuz I was really focused on the attacker's actions. Why not a pc, the defender, um, hands on the forward to deny play.
Yep. So PC Forward trying to get free connects with Stick as defender turns away from forward trying to get about PC Yellow card dangerous afters should have kept his stick out. Absolutely. And this, this is, so this is interesting Chad, you're an essay and Kat is native essay. Why do top level players hear seem to be so oblivious?
Like there's not even a sheepishness there's not even a, like, to argue that that's not even a green card is absolutely shocking to me. Like, what, how you, you can't have any credibility as a player. Coming up to me if, if those are the arguments that you're making throughout a game, the next time you come up to me and you actually have a good point, I'm like, you are a wolf crier.
You get out. I am not bothering with this nonsense. Ain't nobody got time for all this kind of bullshit, you know? Ugh. I don't have a button handy. Anyway. Okay, so Luke's leaning heavily there, um, seems like he was annoyed, had been held back and so this is the cumulative effects. This is what I'm talking about, that a player who doesn't receive the card earlier for something that's dangerous.
That wasn't one thing. I mean, I haven't watched this entire game and I know that we are gonna watch this together in a watch party probably in about two weeks, and we're gonna be going and somewhere in the first quarter, I'm gonna say. That was the first one and it didn't get dealt with.
It is not to your benefit to not deal with the opportunities that are presented to you to state your message, to tell the players with consequences what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
Okay. Um, hope everybody's got your votes in. You've seen these given as reds since top, top state league in Australia. That's interesting because those umpires, if they were on the international stage, would not be giving reds there. Guaranteed. Guaranteed. And if you can blow early. Yeah. I mean this happened a lot more quickly I think, than.
Like this would, was not a whistle preventable situation, but I absolutely agree with the, the principle that you can stop a lot of things from happening, a lot of angry sentiments and afters if you have quicker whistle timing. And Hold that thought. Make sure I come back to that mic starring that one. Um, there's two impacts for Yeah.
It's a nasty injury and for Nick. Yep. Afters. I mean, there was a lot of conversation happening. Yeah. How should the game be restarted? Because at first a free hit to the attacker was given. Should that be reversed because of the reckless play? Well, that's the debate we're having, right? Always Is that. Or I'm, I'm assuming your name could be anything.
I should say that, uh, 3 8 3 8 6 3. I can't read.
I don't believe that. I'm not a big fan of reckless, um, I, I'm not a big fan of reverse and calls because of what happens after that is kind of like, it's just revenge calls. That attacker gets broken down in this situation, okay? The play gets broken down
and the next thing that happens, Is separate and is a reaction to getting broken down. So yeah, I, I think you stay with the initial disadvantage, team disadvantage. And then you use cards, just like I talked about with the first scenario. Yes, you can put it on double speed, 1.5, 1.75, whatever you think. Um, you think it's passion in an essay.
I don't buy this excuse cuz that makes it sound like, I don't know. A German team isn't passionate. They're body passionate. They're extremely passionate. Don't tell me that the American team isn't passionate when they're playing, but in a Latin American country, a team, you know, oh, the Argentinians, oh, they're so passionate and, and they, they just play that way because they're passionate.
I don't buy that nonsense at all. It's a cultural reinforcement that happens at the community level in the sport, end of story. Every single human being can behave differently. Every single human being can learn, teams can learn, communities can learn. It's the little myths that we tell ourselves about who we are and that we're powerless to change creates those kind of stereotypes.
And if you don't believe in stereotypes that target disadvantaged segments of the population that denigrate them and, and put them in a, in a spot that you know that they shouldn't be in, you can't then turn around and say, ah, well, we're just passionate. It's the same shit.
Um, could you restart with a bully?
You can only restart with a bully if you really can't find a foul in there. There's a foul in there.
There's three fouls in there, but which is the first one.
Hockey empire is the gentle parenting of sports officiating. Unlike sports ball, we don't have a reverse call. Um, we don't reverse a call for the other like this. Okay. It's a free hit. Free. Sure. You can rattle. I just explained why don't, don't just say, No, I can't. You have to explain. If there's a weakness in my argument, you have to pull it out.
You have to sh you have to shine a light on it. You have to show me why that's incorrect. Otherwise, no cards for everyone. says, and that's a very small thing to say. , I love it. Let's hallmark. This dangerous, reckless behavior is dealt with inconsistently. Yes, Chad, thank you very much. It's dealt with inconsistently in league and international tournaments.
Players feel it's unfair and it's against them, and they need to plead their case in influence actions. I am gonna put a star on this one too, cuz we're gonna come back to it in a second when I do my round of the week. And you agree with the two offense approach. Shayne PC for breakdown by white and timate yell card.
Yep. Okay. See you Hendrick. Thanks for stopping in. And you're with there. Thank you for correcting the spelling. I have to correct the transcripts so you have to correct live. Um, yeah, we're not, yeah, maybe he was just kidding. I shouldn't do that. And I'm not saying that this is a problem with SA hockey, um, because everywhere I turn I hear reasons why we justify ourselves in dealing with things inconsistently.
And I'm here to. I don't accept it anymore. Oh my God. I wanna ran to the week so bad. But I just wanna wrap this up. Social identity theory, how groups learn to behave is dependent on leadership values.
Rob, this. Okay, um, let's end this poll. Let's two minute warning
and let's bring this onto the stage. So we have 70% going with a 10 minute, five minute yellow card. Yep. And 13% of you wanted the red card and 2% went with the green. Ben is that you voting for yourself. I'm just kidding. It's so hard to do these things in the heat of the moment. I understand that. Um, but I think it's important that we practice this in our minds.
We are doing this not because we are casting blame, we are watching these and trying out different alternatives and a, and options so that our brain gets rewarded or discouraged from making a certain choice in the future. And I want you to be hardly discouraged from giving anything but a 10 minute EL card for this particular play, how you deal with the penalty corner, or if you decide that there wasn't a penalty corner, it just should have been a free hit and that you'd reverse reversing a penalty corner for this.
And giving a free hit for the defense is just absolutely not. It's just not okay because it's not the same thing. It's not the same event, it's not the same action, not for me.
And being able to tease that out for players allocates responsibility and accountability where it needs to go because there has to be accountability for breaking down play and there has to be accountability for doing something dangerous like that. That's truly, truly how I feel. So there you go. Um, see, now I'm finished and there's still 10 seconds.
I'll just sit here. Awkwardly two, one. Ah, I'm so bad at this,
but. But I'm not done. I'm not done on this topic because for the last couple weeks I've been noticing even more than usual it coming up in conversation about cards. And for example, I had a comment come up on. Um, one of my recent live streams, I can't remember which one it is, um, by this particular individual, uh, named Richard Smith, and they commented on some Facebook groups to similar effect.
And his statement was going further than your comment that nearly every red card could be prevented. I think barring the deliberate breakdowns of play cards on CounterTack, et cetera, most cards could be avoided with proactive early intervention by umpires and talking to players rather than letting it get too far.
So you can, you know, read what I said there in the moment and, and my first reaction to this was inaccurate cuz I didn't read Richard's comment carefully enough. And for that I apologize. Richard, I should have taken more time to make sure I fully understood what you were saying, but I'm still disturbed, I still disagree strongly with this.
I would be very, very worried if you were giving, or in a situation if any umpire at any level is carding more for dissent or having incidents of dissent or times that they need to intervene because of dissent than then they have moments of dealing with breakdown play or forms of misconduct, which breakdown play, like hitting the ball away, taking from the wrong spot intentionally, um, interfering with five meters, those sort of things.
If those aren't making up like 90 to 95% of your cards at any level, we have a problem on our hands, and it's a problem that I wanna help you with because I am not a fan of cards for dissent. In order to make that a viable choice, an option in our world, we need to, to to, to give it some teeth, we've had to award a team disadvantage for it.
So there is this two minute suspension, or if we have to go up the louder because the dissent, the abuse is even worse than that than we, we go up the scale and the team suffers for that, but we're not carding for something that had that impact on the game. That the, the level of hockey directly on the pitch, the thing that happened, something good was gonna happen, and it got stopped.
A quick free hit got stopped, an attacking play got stopped. A show of skill, a faster player got stopped. Okay? So I, I hate cards for dissent because I'm, I believe my job on the pitch is to make the game. But as I was talking to Roger last week, and I think I brought it up on the last live stream, now that I think about it, we deal with dissent and appealing because it makes the whole tenor of the game poor.
It reduces the, the, the spirit, the sports personship, that everything, the reason that we're there is to watch great hockey and have a good time to engage in great hockey and have a good time to be able to cheer for great hockey. And when players are standing around yelling at umpires, no, great hockey is happening and everybody's mad and nobody's having fun.
So that's why we stop it like at the most basic level, that's why we don't like it. So I do agree with Richard to a certain extent that cards for dissent and appealing can be prevented, and this is how they can be prevented. By quick whistles when you can blow your whistle close to when the offense actually occurs, because you're reading head on the plate, you're pre-planning, uh, their body shape doesn't look too great.
I think they're gonna take this one off the foot rather than with their stick. I'm gonna be ready for that. It's there. And if you're blowing your whistle, blowing your whistle, right when that happens, everybody knows why you're giving that foul. The discussion continued in, uh, a pace on social media where people say, well, I, I explain all my decisions because it's good and I'm developing a report.
What? You have to explain all your decisions. What, why 80% of them should be deadly obvious to everybody if you're blowing your whistle at the right time. Because those two events are tied together when you wait because you want to see what's gonna happen and see if advantage develops. That's not advantage.
Developing Advantage exists or it doesn't exist, and the quick whistle if it does not exist, is the better option a lot of the time. Okay? So if you're blowing your whistle more quickly, you're gonna have less need to try to prevent dissent by having to explain all your decisions. It gives secondary signals and verbalize and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I know when uncles ha umpires are struggling with their whistle timing because they're talking too much with players. Because they have to justify what they're doing, and that in turn makes the whistle time even worse because instead of looking ahead, reading ahead, planning what's gonna happen, getting ready for the next foul that's gonna occur.
They're in the past, they're thinking about what just happened, rehearsing in their mind, how am I gonna phrase this to the player? Am I gonna react to this? What am I gonna do? Their mind is in the past they can't umpire. Well, and that again is another reason why we deal with dissent because it doesn't just make all the players mad, it disappoints the fans because it's like not fun to watch people yelling instead of playing hockey.
It impacts negatively on the umpire's performance, not just because it hurts our feelings, but because it has us living in the past. Okay, let me go back to the favorite comments, because this is gonna get me back on, cuz my rant is wide ranging every. Okay, not that one. Um, so yes, that, that takes me back to what Mike was saying, that I completely agree with that.
Early whistles getting in there quickly can prevent things from happening. Not just cuz the players understand why you're blowing the whistle, but they also respect that you are protecting them from the ball getting, you know, hit into their foot again from them standing up and then a late shot being taken and all those sort of things.
And it gets back to this that Chad mentioned earlier, that when dangerous reckless breakdown, cheater pants behavior is not dealt with consistently. You get the dissent and the appealing. Because the players have not seen, have not been educated as to really what they can and cannot do. We have failed as umpires to teach them how to play hockey well.
We have that job. It is part of our responsibility that is our service to the game, is to help educate the players as to what is hockey and what is not hockey, what is against the rules. That's our job. So I don't like hearing umpires say, oh, I don't, I don't, you know, giving a card fast, throwing cards like confetti, all those euphemisms or colorful phrases that people use to describe giving cards in negative ways, shut your mouths.
That is not the point. That is not helpful to the game. You give the cards when they're needed correctly, early, and then you don't have incidences happening. And the other side to this, I was talking to Mike McDowell and he received some feedback. It was a question from an umpire coach or assessor who said, could those cards late in the game have been avoided?
And that to me kind of encapsulates the problem because we're saying that late cards are a problem, actually. Late breakdown behavior. Because players don't understand the rules. They don't know where the line is. That's the problem. If you have bad hockey happening late in the game, either the players just.
Have to do it, and it's a better consequence. I'd rather take that five minute yellow card or that 10 minute yellow card at the end of the game and stop the play, because I don't want them going one-on-one with my goalkeeper and I'm just, I'm gonna throw my stick in here. That's the, that's the measured decision I've taken, and I am going to take my yellow card.
Thank you very much. I understand umpire. I'm gonna go sit down right away. That's the appropriate penalty for that kind of thing. But if a player doesn't understand, if they're competing in a state of uncertainty, of lack of knowledge as to what's gonna happen to them, that's on you. That's on you and your colleague.
That's on all, all of your colleagues at your level for not taking a uniform approach, by not taking your responsibility seriously to give these cards. Wow, that was a very long speech.
Where we at
Um, there's no ignorant breaking down like the last week with another one's plunge stick contact goal, opportunity. Um, they're near the line. RSA is changing directions and hit the defender, not a PC for you. If that's not a breakdown play for you. That's okay, Rado. I I get that. I get that. But don't, but if it was, you don't overturn it.
So that's, that's what I had interpreted from your comment. And I, I miss extrapolated and you know, that's totally fine. But you need to start considering more about what breakdown play means as well. Okay. Wait, just, just have a think about that. Have a look at it. Just because it's far up to the line doesn't mean it doesn't have a big impact on play.
Far out to the line. Just because it's close to the sideline doesn't mean it has a, it doesn't have a significant impact on play. Doesn't mean the action wasn't reckless as to whether a foul would occur and require a whistle to be belonged.
Um, do we not noted
nothing do that? Do do this thing. ASMR moment. Do, do forget to hit the Luke
Uh, Dale. The difference in umpiring standards not only happens at different levels, it happens between associations. The nearest association to me is an hour way, and they have different interpretations. Yeah. Is doesn't that suck? Doesn't that suck so hard? And that's why I'm here. I am not saying I'm wearing a cape, I'm just saying it is that important to me because I know what it's like to be that umpire who is in one place and then moves up to the next level, and all of a sudden it's like, oh, oh, I sh I should be carting for that.
Oh shit, I, I wish I'd been doing that like for the last two years while I was at this other level. Cuz I can see why that helps the game. That makes sense. Oh, okay, I got that. Alright. Or you moved to another country and you start on pieing there and you're like, oh, oh, that's what it means to get the first time.
That's what I learned when I went to England, what it meant to set the standards with the first intervention and my international career never would've progressed past the promising list level if I hadn't have learned that in another association where people did it better. So, really good point Dale, and I'm, I'm glad you brought that up.
And this is why I work so hard.
Rock. Did I say that properly? I love your name. Let me know if I have to change that. I'm gonna say rock, burger. Um, can you ask, in that same game, Caine from RSA accidentally pulled a stick out entanglement on the other side was penalized with a green. Should it consistent with a co-op, should, should it be consistent with a co umpire and give a yellow card, so that's great color.
Rock. I really appreciate it. And what you're illustrating right now is that my point, that none of these things happen in a bubble. We look at them in a bubble because we look at what is take, what action is taken in the moment. But the reason that I do watch parties, fhu3t yellow, uh, okay, I, I'll do later.
The reason that we do watch parties is cuz we watch the game from start to finish and we analyze it on a holistic basis and I pick out the first thing that I think I see that isn't dealt with the way that I think it needs to be. And then we see what ensues. And trust me, when we've see, when we've watched games that have been managed well, you have a couple of early greens maybe.
And then the rest of the game is beautiful, not easy. There's still a lot of work to be done. It's not like you can sit down after that secondary and go, whoa, yeah, I'm done for the day. No, but players will play and will strive to stay within the limits that you've expressed for them. So that context, again, things I and and I could have said, yeah, I bet some of the same players were involved.
Do you think that there's a stick to the face injury that draws blood? From, you know, the teams switched around the other way eight minutes after the last one happened. You don't see a connection there, it's just a complete fluke.
I'm not saying it was an intentional action by that second player, I'm saying that they didn't feel like they needed to play safely. They'd received the message earlier when a card wasn't even given to the Irish attacker. That's fine. We're not gonna, we're not here to protect you. Okay? So that's when we have to be better.
And, um, generally between dangerous play and body checking, our associated fields, when we play at rep level, getting muscled off the ball as our umpires won't allow that level of contact. Um, for example, Yes, and I mean, let's face it, the other side of that coin is there's a reason why the top umpires are umpiring.
Top level hockey and umpires who haven't progressed that far are umpire in lower levels of hockey. But that's why I'm passionate about improving everybody because it gives us a chance to get more of these things right, to lift all of our standards so that the players are playing at a better standard and they get to experience better hockey at every level that they're playing at because I think they deserve it.
I think we as umpires deserve to give ourselves the tools that we need to get better at what we do so that we can enjoy it more. We can enjoy that pursuit. We can feel that accomplishment, the reinforcement that we're human beings who can change and improve and grow and journey. And these skills we can apply outside the pitch.
Are all this is amazing shit. It's the stuff that gets me outta bed in the morning. I love it. And I think we all get to benefit from this in hockey.
If only we had some sort of natural national umpire Association
if only the these wistful thoughts like Ron with a South African G Oh. So I'm not exactly good at those South. I can't roll ours and, okay. Wrong. Is it wrong? Wrong? Okay. You just gotta come in the server and talk to me after the show. Hi, the boss. Hey. You from Ireland? Wait, what's happening? There's a little spin there like that.
Uh, I just said it. Okay. Wrong.
I, I feel like I'm doing it poorly, so I don't feel good about this. Okay. Where are we at? Whoa. What if Perry were here? They'd be telling me, girl, okay, indoor PC injection guidance. This won't take too long. She says, smirking. I wanted to bring this up because I've attended a couple of indoor briefing meetings with different national associations lately, and this point has come up and is being discussed, and I had an interesting thought about it.
Do you remember that time at Band Camp AK? Last week, when was it last week or the week before where we showed the delay on the penalty stroke. The Korean stroke taker waited too long before he stepped up and took the ball. What was interesting about that is that we covered the rules and we said, well, look at it this way.
Rule 13.3, 13.7 G in outdoor under the penalty stroke rules. And if I do this and nope, that's indoor. This is outdoor here. So this is 13.7 G where it says the P the player taking the stroke must not take until the whistle's been blown. The player taking the stroke or the player defending it must not delay in the taking of a stroke.
So there's a, a specific penalty there. And then when you go further into rule 13, if that kind of rule has been breached, the penalty is a free hit. Okay? So absolutely correct decision made in that moment. Now, let's go back to this for a second. In the penalty corners, the point that is being made in this briefing.
As the slide is not advancing. Okay. As you watch this being taken, is that they're saying here that on a PC the insertion must be immediate because otherwise it induces a faint, okay? Which is what happens in this case right here, this case right here, okay? Very long delay, and it makes it much more difficult for the defenders and the goalkeeper to stay poised and all that kind of stuff, okay?
And I thought, okay, yeah, I buy that. So what I did was, as I want to do, is I went back to the rules
and I went back to the indoor rules to find the parallel clause to. The injector must not delay the taking of the penalty corner. So there he was going through 13.3. Time and place stopped the ball's placed on the back line. The attacker must have a foot outside. The attackers must be on the pitch outside the circle.
No attacker other than the push taker and give me within three meters defending goalkeeper could be there. The five defenders over there, now we're onto G. Any defender must be beyond and be at the top of the opposing circle until the ball's been played. No attacker other than the one taking the push in the back lines permitted.
End of the circle bubble one. No early breaks. After playing the ball, the attacker taking the push. Can't play the ball again. The goal can't be, there's no parallel clause. There's nothing in here that says that the pound a corner injector or the attacker playing the ball. Must take that ball immediately.
That's because in outdoor, we don't have an agreed upon procedure that is used throughout the world. To even start a penalty corner, you might rock up in your jurisdiction to a penalty corner, and you might do what I call giving up all your power and responsibility. You may just let the players get ready and inject when they feel like it.
Or you have your hand up in the air, which I bloody hate. You've got your hand up in the air, like you're stopping anything from happening, and then when you put your hand down, you expect an injector. Who's got their back to you to be able to see that and know that they may proceed. But the whole point is they may proceed, but do they have to proceed?
So we're kind of skating on thin ice here and it's an easy fix. There's an easy insertion of the clause and we have to show and, and because the penalty stroke says it starts on the whistle as well. Now that I'm putting my argument together, the player taking the stroke must not take it until the whistle's been blown.
So we have, this is how a penalty stroke starts. The whistle blows. We need that clause in outdoors well or in indoor as well. We need the umpire, starts the penalty corner with their whistle and no team can delay in the taking of the penalty corner. And now we have the basis on which we can award free hits or free pushes and indoor against attacking.
Teams and players who delay in taking the penalty, stroke or the corner.
I hope this makes sense with how I'm breaking this down because it's one thing to say that there's a faint and then that player gets penalized by having to go to the opposing 9.1 meter line and then that player can be replaced. Okay. That's more of a penalty than what we have in um, in outdoor when you think about it.
Cuz now you only have four outfield players. Court players on court. Players on field.
Interesting. I'm trying to think of the, of, of a good terminology to use, but you only have four attacking players now involved in the penalty corner and that can be a disadvantage for sure. And outdoor doesn't matter cuz you have so many. But I would take a fate any day as an attacking team over losing the penalty corner to a free push entirely.
That's a big penalty. Just like I was saying before in the last two sections, overturning what was a disadvantage in situation for those attacking players because they do something wrong. It's a big decision. So I think that this is something that needs to be addressed and isn't very clear. Let's see what y'all are saying.
Um, should everybody just watch fhm? Yes, it was last week's show. Thank you Rachel. It was last week. There is European indoor champs right now. Next, uh, week. All indoor cases here. That's exactly what's happening. Rado, . Good call. That's exactly what I'm doing. I've bought the pass and I'm going to, uh, start watching the games and get all the scenarios.
So next week is all indoor all the time. And don't forget, like I, I don't know if you guys are putting all this together or not, but when I'm offering a comprehensive level one course, the could be or is being used in my area as a certification, as proof of classroom work, as it, as it were, piece of feedback, then that.
I mean, I'm, I'm seriously looking at trying to help with all these sort of things. There's gonna be a lot of people who don't like this. I'm gonna make many people very angry. But have we talked about my bucket of Fs?
We gotta do better. We have to do better. Okay. So there will be that level one intense, comprehensive, that's what I called it. Sorry. Comprehensive. Um, okay, a few more comments. Stains going to drive a taxi. Have fun, enjoy. Um, this probably was a really cool emoji or a sticker and I can't bring it up. There you go.
And yes, that's the link there. You used to use the words when you're ready. And now you use play. Yeah. Yeah. When you're ready that your choice. . It's mine and I have a Um huh. That'll be another intensive. That'll be another continuing education course. Maybe it should be the next one instead of the control elevator.
Okay. Okay. You guys get to vote. I'm gonna set the vote up in the server. Do you want the control elevator asynchronous course or do you want boss your PCs? You tell me which one's next. Control elevator. I'm worried about being in an asynchronous course cuz I think you have to talk through a lot of things in a situation, whereas the boss U PCs is a really like, let me tell you all the reasons why you need to do it this way.
Trust me, it's really good. Let me tell you all the reasons. So let's see. Okay.
Just imagine if I hadn't started out quickly faking versus intimidation. This came up to me, um, a little while back
and this, this might be our friend Steven. Uh, uh, did I get that right, Steven? Were you the one And it was, it's more of a, Hey, let's, let's think about this concept and, and work it out in our mind as well. At what point does something like this change from being a fake. To being intimidation. So in this situation, this is the next poll, um, would you call this a, if you saw this on the pitch, do you believe that this should be a play on situation, a free hit for the defense, maybe a free hit for the defense with a card to the attacker or not?
Let me know what you think.
It's one of those things that's even harder than, than, um, danger, although it is related because we are looking for a form of. Almost like we're, we're seeing evasive action here as that that is often a, Hey, this is going to be sort of dangerous. But actually I wonder if we could deal with it this way.
That the evasive action here, uh, or the legitimate evasive action is not evading danger, but evading the ball, hitting their feet, which yes, can be dangerous, but is not dangerous in the sense that they wouldn't be penalized for that. They would be. She's actually, in this case as a defender, she's not shying away from the ball.
She's simply trying to move her feet away from committing a foul. She's got a stick on the floor, you know, she's looking to make a block with it and doesn't. So, and yes, Marco, she gains an advantage, but is it an advantage due to breaching the rules of hockey? That's the question. Exactly. Thank you, Steven.
She does gain advantage, but is it because she is fouled? And I mean, I can bring up the rule book here as I want to do, and sorry, I'm gonna have to go back to this and make sure these are the outdoor rules that are up right now and let me page back to the rule.
Okay? Nine, four players must not intimidate or impede another player. That's all we got. And it's definitely not defined in the terms, so, oops. You can tell I'm, I'm in the wrong set here. There we go.
So if she turned away away, then maybe because she is keeping away from the ball, then No,
not even then, because that's not legitimate evasive action from what's happening. Intimidation to me has always meant something that isn't about hockey. It's about it. It's, it's just something more than just faking that I'm gonna hit a ball in a safe manner. And that's why the words legitimate are always attached to the evasive action.
When it's to be considered dangerous play. Now am I saying that intimidation has to be dangerous? Like Yeah, I think it does, and it's one of those rules that has been sitting there high up in section nine that people just never pay attention to. It's been in the rule book forever. I don't know why the impeding that's obstruction, you know, that's easy.
We just call it as obstruction. So what the hell is that rule even for, because to me, there's nothing wrong with faking. That's just part of the game. If I have to follow through on that hit, if I, if I go for a backswing,
I'd be pretty mad as a player. I can't change my mind. I can't decide, oh, actually I shouldn't hit that ball because the person I thought was open isn't open in the circle. So I'm actually gonna put my stick down and I'm gonna pull around. Like, does that mean every time I dribble off to the right, I have to continue dribbling off to the right?
I'm not allowed to move to the left. I can't show that I'm going to the right. I can't fake like that anymore because it creates an advantage for me. So you see, we can take this to Aries of ridiculousness. If she wins, if she swings past the ball, csra, um, it's dangerous play for you with all of the consequences.
I mean, I don't. We don't know whether that would've been a dangerous play or not, but do you really call every time a, a player hits a ball close to another one? Do you call that as dangerous play every time? I bet you don't. That's a bit of a big talk, not real situation. Impeding could also be from slowing down, slowing someone down because you, they're worried that you're gonna hit them.
Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure. To me that that gets into what we consider maybe, you know, other sort of potentially violent conduct. Or at least recklessly dangerous conduct that we deal with in other ways. And we just say, that's just dangerous. I just don't think there's any extra purpose that's served by this rule whatsoever.
So that's all. Um, I mean, my, my feeling is for this, let's see what the poll says, right? There's a, there's a, there's a reason I end these polls.
Oh, the comments moved right as I was trying to take the screenshot. Oh, would you stop? You guys stop. Ugh, stop commenting so fast. Stop it. No more comments. Hold. Hold. Got it. Okay. Holy smokes.
You know, I'm, I'm doing this as a bootstrap.
I don't even know how else I could present this information. So for 86% you're gonna play on 13%. You're gonna free hit defense and nobody's gonna give a card for that. And 23 votes, that's really, really tough. That's really tough. And I think you're gonna be giving a lot, you're gonna be turning over the ball a lot in situations.
The players are gonna be starting to look at you and saying exactly what is happening here. Cuz this doesn't feel like the hockey we know.
Um, Luke intimidation for you has always been about using your body vocally, physically to impose yourself on an opponent. Usually it's been someone bellowing as a come in for a tackle. That's, that's not bad. I don't, I don't mind that. Um, my friend David Hunt. Good to see you friend says, play on. And then in capitals, in title caps.
That's my call. That's gonna be like hashtag that. Hashtag that's my call. Um, and if you ask about vocal intimidation, um, do I with a big odd, deep voice calling as a goalie count or being twice the size of some of the players on the pitch. Yeah. And so we're starting to like, press the boundaries of what we actually think is annoying.
I, I mean, I'm five four and chubby on the pitch, but I scare a lot of people. I am very intimidating on the pitch. Does that mean I should get a foul called against me every time that I give somebody the look?
So. Intimidation has always been about using your body, um, to impose yourself on opponent. Somebody belling when they come from a tackle and then not committing to it, but have intimidated the player enough into making a mistake or for another player to pick up the ball as the original possessor left the ball to avoid being hurt.
Oh, hi. I'm too busy thinking. I don't know. I don't know.
I think we need to talk about this more and I am willing to talk about this more with you. Okay. That was all of the show. Actually, I had a bonus, but we're over time so I get to push the bonus to yet another week. It's. Super important, but there you go. Um, don't forget about f h e three T the third team, this thing and this, this yellow membership.
This yellow membership right here is the one that you're gonna wanna think about. If you like Amsterdam, if you like the European Hockey League finals. And if you like hanging out with your friends, cuz we are having a yellow development group slash getaway weekend slash oh my god, what are all these fines gonna be?
Next April. So get in the Discord server so that you can find out more about what all that means. fhumpires.com/ds Come into the server. There's lots of great people there. I am. So I get to talk about community a lot these days with my secondary kind of offshoot business of discord for creators. And David Hunt will tell you that I say I gush.
It's disgusting how much I love talking about you guys and about our server and all the fun we have. And all the hygienes. So get in the server and find out why I am such a suck about all that pre-sales starting right now. Save $5 and sign up if you want to get a big solid base that you feel you know all the ins and outs of indoor from the perspective of somebody who has taught this course with the F IH Academy.
By the way, I mean I'm doing my own new version for this cuz I'm not taking materials that I've given to them, but I have taught this course for the F I H Academy. So we are doing this, this is the course. Go sign up. Uh, the.com/l one I, that's what that is. L one I level one indoor. I got a whole system for it.
It's coming up. And then the mission critical positioning is available as well. I don't know where the sting went for it, but it's fhm par.com/my favorite course, and I am scheduling the first sort of follow up discussion with the people who have been taking this course recently or took the online workshop version with me in the past.
We're gonna follow up and see how everybody's doing because Yeah. Good discussions to be had. So, whoops, whoops. Wrong button.
Um, let's see where we're at. Play on. That's my call. New song from Keely Dunn and the umpires available from all good record stores. Hey, number one with a bullet you. She's about to hit the ball and chooses not to showing that she's in complete control of the stick. It's not dangerous. A reckless plan.
That's a good argument. Eloy 8 63. I love it. Underscore 8 63. Definitely love it. Yes and no. People can have all shapes and sizes, but using those in a manner to scare an opponent into making mistake is not okay. Interesting. Cuz I scare my opponents into making mistakes all the time and I'm gonna keep doing it cuz I'm not threatening to hurt them.
I'm just scaring them. See, David knows I gush. Fantastic stuff to ponder. Yes, you have a game on Saturday, Rachel. Now the, of course weather dependent, but indoors on Sunday. Let's go Indoor. Let's go indoors. Let's go indoors. Let's go. Indeed says Steven. And if you're against lanky, 17 year old, they've got a 30, 35 year old, six foot on par, charging down and calling them for the ball.
Um, it's intimidating, but you can't help that. Can't help that. There you go. Yes, Jamal. Get my slide into my dms, baby. Let's have that. You're doing a hockey thing. Doing the hockey. That's gonna be the discussion point. Are we doing the hockey? There you go. Scaring equals intimidation. Does it though? That's the question for you.
Thank you so much for joining in great conversations this week. I really enjoyed it, as I always do. I can't wait to see you inside the server and keep being awesome out there. Hope you stay warm this weekend if you're out on the frozen tundras, artificial tundras of the Europe's and the UKs. And if you're in Australia, New Zealand, just don't talk to me.
I don't wanna hear it. And if you're um, umpiring in the shed up the shed, let's go. Next week, we'll be alt indoor. Have a great one. Bye.
#thirdteam #fieldhockey #hockey #umpire #umpiring #FIH #FIHumpires #umpirelife #hockeyumpiretips #hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules