Live Q&A #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 72

📅 Apr 20 18.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube

Six days of Easter stroopwafel-infused carnage monopolized the attention of hockey fans worldwide and we have “a few clips” to work through. We'll take bets at the beginning as to how many we're getting through in only a #KeelyHour including:

• how to play a long advantage before stopping for a green card
• playing a free hit straight into the circle after the defender infringes the 5m
• an aerial interception within 5m of the initial receiver

Do you have a question about anything you saw at the EHL, or anywhere else on a hockey pitch for that matter? Join the #fhu3t in our Discord server and get expert views, not social media muddle. Your question might make it into a future #WhatUpWednesday!

⏱ Chapter Markers:
0:00 Chair Dancing
2:27 Let's Do This
07:56 Video referral: incident outside the 23m area (#EHL ROTvSUR)
24:23 Video referral: whistle timing on a third-party obstruction disallowing a goal
32:49 Video referral for free hit self-pass not traveling 5m before entering the circle
38:39 Aerial interceptions: two examples
44:20 Aerial interception attempt and 5m infringement
50:23 Rant of the Week
55:50 Playing a long 30s advantage before awarding a card
1:05:03 Management without cards: using the captain
1:11:40 Dragging on the PS: push vs. drag
1:16:00 Is this intentionally off the end line?

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

What up Wednesday? How are you friends? It's good to be here. Good to see you. You know, metaphorically, not figuratively. I can't, or not literally, I can't actually see you, but I did say all, I saw the hellos. I'm so glad you're all here. And just like Henrik mentioned, we are officially in Easter weekend withdrawals. Yes.

The EHL competition and the attendant Euro Hockey club championships were all being held. And if you didn't know that this was all going down, what is up with you? Because that's what we're going to be rounding up today. It is going to be a full slate. I have so many clips and this is probably, I don't know about a 10th of all of the things I thought might be useful to talk about today, but we can't look.

We just can't. Okay. Don't even ask. Don't ask. Don't beg. This is what we're doing today. Friends. We have a, whoa, this is last week's. What the heck is going on here? Yeah, I didn't check that scene, obviously. Okay. 

We're going to talk about video referrals. We're going to talk about aerial interceptions. We've got carding issues. We have how to manage without cards. We're going to talk about dragging on the penalty stroke. Cause you guys know, I love to talk about it. I'm literally going to wrap that one up with a bow. You're going to be so excited. Just go, boom. Nailed it. I'm just going to wait this one… man. That's hard to time. There you go. Um, and if we can get to it intentionally off the on line. 

Now, if you were here or the sole reason you came, for some reason, you didn't just want to see me and hang out with all the incredibly ridiculously good looking third team people that you see in the chat, and you just wanted to hear about why a double yellow card equals a red from the Surbiton Gantoise pool match early in the, uh, EHL women's side of the competition, we're going to talk about it next week. Because I have very many feelings to express to you. Not about the decision because it was entirely correct, but there've been so many questions that have come up on the Discord server. And if you don't know what I'm talking about with the Discord server, this is what I'm talking about.

Come here. fhumpires.com/Discord, and you need to be a part of these discussions. This is not your garden variety, social media melee. No, this is a carefully curated, honed, and guided discussion with some of the best in the world. And I don't mean because they've achieved great things, but because we are learning together as a community, how to properly think of, and most constructively think of how to interpret rules.

So we've been talking about double yellow cards pretty much nonstop for about a week. And so there are many thoughts, many feelings. That is going to be a big chunk of next week's show. So I'm – I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you're, you're like really mad. Well, then it's an error. It's a shutdown and we'll see you next week, but I'd rather you stayed because we're going to have fun today.

Um, let's see, just saying just quick hellos to everybody. It's good to see you, Dennis is there and, um, yes, every six weeks, every six weeks this happens and it was supposed to be and it didn't quite turn out, but that's okay. We're experimenting. Why not? Dammit. Why not? Um, heavy weekend for a lot of people.

So it was okay. Everywhere in the world. If you weren't watching the HL, you had your own competitions. There was U14s going on with the EHL. There was the Euro Hockey ranking cup, Euro Club Trophy, Euro Club Trophy Is. It was just, yeah, it was everywhere. There was so much hockey to watch.

And I think for all of you who, um, maybe miss some of this stuff, just peg this weekend, if you don't have other more important things to do peg this weekend and know that Euro Hockey, uh, EuroHockeytv.org is going to have amazing coverage out there. They charged some money for the actual EHL side of the competition.

And I think it was like €9.99 or something like that for 26 matches.

That's that? That's the, that's the expression I'm giving you. Yeah, just pay the money and get the great hockey and support our sport. Okay. Let's see. 

Seven topics today in a Keely hour. Actually. I think it's six, unless I don't know how to count. I hope it's there, but there you go. There's the link. Make sure you hit it, Kate. Hello.

I've decided you're new. Even if you're not, welcome. I'm glad you're here. I just get very excited. Eline's here. Fantastic Blake. Good to see all of you and let's go. Okay. I got this part, right. We're going to go through a few video referral scenario because there were a couple. 

Of, yes, it was a making life hard from Soviet Louis.

FHumpires playing a voltage for movement. If it's going to spin right. The goal, but whatever the moment it's turning to, to go. Now, this is going to be this must confirm. Think

I had this conversation with Alison earlier on today, who thinks that this is a rule revising. Sometimes goals are creative.

23. And so it's not a goal. According to him. Can you please I'll check

I was awake. Finished question really is where the first bounce she's going to make it spin why to the page, but you think is going for pressure. There's always going to finish your decision. They lose the referrals outside of 20, correct? Ts

gold standard.

it's like the 23, therefore it's therefore it's non-refundable and you lose the referral. So I've asked, we both didn't see the fall,

but it's not inside the 23 and we can only take inside the 23. That's my point. Perfectly taught.

Hi, I muted myself because I was coughing. Thank you everybody. So to go back to this, thanks for your patience. Uh, an umpire can't choose to refuse a referral. If the question comes up, if the question is asked and a team says referral, and then they ask for something they're not allowed to refer, the umpire has to accept that referral, send it upstairs. And then the video umpire will say, that's an improper referral and you lose it. You lose it. 

Thanks very much for the audio referrals. Uh, there you go. 

So I know that this can feel like it's unfair, but this very much keeps in precedent with how these things are being handled. Keep in mind that the teams have the umpire briefing, the, the video umpire briefing.

They have the opportunity to get clarification on all of these issues from the FIH, from the umpire managers at their tournaments. There is no doubt about this issue. So when this happened back at Pro League and Hannah Harrison was down here with GB and Spain, a defender in the circle turned to the umpire, clearly made a signal, here's the T, and they asked for a free hit for the defence, a free hit out.

So this call be ever failed.

I hadn't given a PC, so you can't refer anything. So both fair and you've lost your federal. Okay. All right. And you've got goods. You have to stop the game. He asked me for a referral. No, no stops, not asking for a public comment.

So in that situation, the play was ongoing and one team stopped the play to say, Hey, we want to ask a question, a question that they're not entitled to ask.

There needs to be some punishment associated with improperly asking for a referral. Now you might remember a time at band camp at the Tokyo Olympics when Argentina broke down in Australian counter attack because they missed their penalty corner reception. That ball was going flying up the field and the, uh, and Argentina turned and requested a referral for something to just, you know, there was no chance of them succeeding, but it was properly asked.

Now, within those parameters, the umpire can't not take the referral. They have to take every referral. But the, the costs, the attendant cost is that the team loses their opportunity. So you can understand somehow that there's, there's some, uh, that there could be some empathy there. 

But we're not talking about you know, amateur players. Well, okay. Maybe they're kind of amateur, but these people were playing for the national teams in the top 10, top 12, maybe top 16 in the world at the outside and they should know better. So yes, it was a bad referral for sure. And let's see. 

Yeah, Tom Thomas. You're absolutely right. So in the scenario where we had, um, Sebastian talking here to the players, it was very difficult because first of all, Sebastian's talking to several players and not just one. He's got, he's got players from the other teams. A few Surbiton and players around him. So he hasn't been able to fully control or he hasn't fully controlled the situation to make sure that he can speak clearly and calmly to the one person who is responsible.

And then there's also Laurine on the other end, and she's having conversations with players as well. And this is why, with all this extra audio coming in and coming over the radio, it's just imagine what it's like to hear other conversations. Okay. So that was, the wording. Isn't great. But it's correct. An incident outside the 23 metre area is non-referrable.

It's not something you can refer, just as you can't refer, refer a lack of a free hit given to the defense inside the circle. It's not one of the grounds that you're allowed to even ask. So if you stop and you ask for it, you lose that referral just end of story. Okay. It's not a room for debate. Unfortunately, it's just a sheer lack of understanding by the Surbiton players. And the, the follow up that you had Tomas there, is it something unique for England/GB to refer so poorly?

I mean, keep in mind that I just happen to remember things sometimes, and that is one incident that I remembered for an improper referral. And it happened again with players from the same country. But two incidences don't make a dataset. So I don't think we need to generalize that what's surprising to me is that for the international setup at least, and I, I'm not judging as to, you know, which players were involved in the questions here in which weren't, or who weren't, but it's, for an international side to not understand that rule when they have all the access to the top people that they need, they have all the funding, they have all the experience, all that sort of thing. And I don't talk about individual experience. I mean, organizational experience, like they have the history of people in their program that know better. There's no excuse, and there's just no excuse, but I haven't seen too many of these things happen because teams, generally, they start looking around at each other and they get a pretty quick answer from a smarter person on the team.

But this is what happens when the wrong players are allowed to refer. Uh, you think the umpire would have made a much easier if he didn't comment on the foul and just said. Yeah, he slipped. He had a slip of the tongue. There was a, there were several things in this actual play that I think went poorly for the umpires.

And the first one that I would say, um, this control probably isn't going to work in this situation, but I'm not super happy with the positioning of, um, you know, the, the off-ball umpire. Yes. This is a turnover at this moment, but look at how relatively high up the field and how wide the umpire is. And this is why I keep pounding on about mission critical positioning.

So if Sebastian had been inside the field and closer to his circle, okay. At this moment, he still only even, potentially, and he's 40 metres away from the play. That is a tough call. Likewise, Laurine is behind the bodies of these players. And unfortunately over the radio, she starts saying, she says nothing there, no foul.

I don't even know what they're asking about. She says, and we as umpires have to understand that we don't know what we don't know. But we can certainly imagine. It's like, well, I didn't see anything, but that's different than saying nothing there. Nothing there is the word that we use when we have fully seen the situation and we have declared that whatever happened either didn't, wasn't a foul at all, or didn't cause any disadvantage.

So that is, you know, there were, there was messiness in the words and you can understand on one hand how the people at the top want us to simplify our language. 

And this is how we can keep ourselves out of trouble at home simplify our language. Stop giving long explanation. Some of us are very verbally acute. Some of us are not, especially under pressure. You say one wrong word and those Surbiton players were jumping on it. Oh, so you're admitting it hit his chest and you just didn't call it. Wow. You know, that's a mighty big accusation. And clearly if Sebastian had seen it, he would have called it. So that's not very cool behavior by that, but these are the things that we can keep in mind.

How do we, how do we handle this better? Okay. Better positioning that would really, really help. Understand what you're blocked from seeing as a supporting umpire, or is it controlling umpire. And you might say, can't see, can't see that. I can't see that, over the radios, if you can. That can be really helpful.

Uh, yes,

Because they've because they've asked for it, they have given the signal, they have to, it has to be taken because if they don't do it in this situation, and play is allowed to be like, yes. This is a dead ball situation. She might say, well, you know, what's the big harm. If they go like this and they ask for the team referral, this is the signal.

It is not for the umpire to guide them and say, you know what, you're going to lose that one. I don't think you should. And would they have bloody well taken the advice anyway? But the big problem is it has to be consistent that if a team is going to interrupt the game to ask for something, if they were wrong in asking for it, either because it didn't occur or because it was something they couldn't even ask about, they have to be punished.

That is not unfair. That is completely fair. As far as I'm concerned. That's my rant

Eline thinks it's unfair as well. Nope. There needs to be some kind of consequence. Exactly. The team could refer before they scored to prevent a goal. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

That's. I mean, if it starts to becoming a problem, maybe, maybe we should add this, but right now it doesn't happen very often. It's very seldom. And unless it becomes a massive issue that you need more deterrence for, then fine. But to me, if your captain takes a five minute yellow card, and you keep the referral. No, no, no. Sorry, not taking it. And then no. 

No Mark. That's the other, that's the other point. Two fouls don't make a play on. Okay. So if Ruhr had been able to play the ball that had been raised at him dangerously, legally, and taken it down and continued. Yes. Play advantage from that.

But the foul by Surbiton caused the foul caused a second foul playing the ball with the body in a way that was clearly advantageous. The first foul has to be called. It cannot play on. Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never. For never. Okay. Uh, Dennis, does the raised hand by the umpire before the goal?

Yeah, he does look like he's signaling an advantage and I'm not sure where there would have been a foul for which he would have been playing advantage. So there's a lot of, you know, I, I, I don't want to be too, um, uh, too tough on the umpires in this situation because it's, it's one discrete situation and we can all, um, we can all identify particular things that may have been done that may have been done better.

And it may be that Sebastian is reacting to this as being an obstruction, and he plays advantage from that obstruction, but it's kind of late because he's processing, he's thinking: what didn't I see? Why are the players mad? Like what's kind of happening. And this happens to us. So our, because our brains are moving our decisions don't come in time.

Yeah. Interesting, he… keeper ready player ready? Oh, I'll I'll pick that one. We'll come back to it. Oh, and you retracted, sorry. I'm on a delay here. Okay. I get what I get. Okay, fantastic. Let's move on to the next one. How are we doing .

Nice to goals out to the top clean take step to cross for the slip, but there's an obstruction immediately blown immediately blown.

I've given up high tier four a

can you just check and check? cool because it's gone in the goal of the slit. It's a umpire referral to Sarah. Wilson's called this a sell. So she's going to look at the obstruction on the top of the circle, but the ball's then gone in. So if there is no bass obstruction, if there wasn't an instruction, however, would you have to give the goal,

Sarah, no clear reason to change your decision. So very good question. So I'm in that, thankfully we're on the, no, thanks to the excellent on par and your sitter Wilson. She's just saved us that awkward conversation. 

Okay. So I actually slowed it down, but, um, yeah. Does this sound familiar? Does this sound a lot, like what kind of happened different causation, but the same principle of does the whistle timing there then cause a problem for awarding or not awarding a different decision if that's the advice that comes back on video referral. What is fascinating about this one is that, I think, and if you didn't hear Sarah say it audibly over the radios up to Ivona in the, in the booth, she did say, and can you check my whistle timing? So she knew that she had been blowing the whistle as the ball was going into the goal.

And, but not quite sure whether she had started her sound before or after, or does that matter. Who knows? So. I've mentioned it before. And I actually had an FIH UM contact me and say, no Keely. They don't do that. They don't think about changing the timing of their decisions, just because video referrals available.

And first of all, that FIH umpire manager was wrong because umpires have told me that they do, and that they're aware of it, and they know that it's an issue because they want to get this right. If, if Sarah had blown far too early in this situation, if that hadn't of been a third party, that, and, and she had stopped the play so soon that you'd say, well, that's why the ball went into the net, or it's even closer than, you know, or not as close as what we had last week. What we've got this week, you've got them. It's it wouldn't be good. It wouldn't be good.

So think about the times in your games where- if you're totally sure you're sure make your decisions. But if you're not sure, and the results can be a dead ball situation, a penalty corner that you call a penalty stroke, you call or a goal.

You have the opportunity to review that with your colleague and maybe get their instruction. So think just, just keep that in mind. That's the, that's how that refers to us or pertains to us, not in very many other ways, because we aren't going to have that video referral to fall back on. Think about it.

Um, let's see. Mike, he'd also have been more stationary rather than moving at the, at the point of the offense. Yup. That's the other good point about that. Very sure. 

Uh, A.J. asked if it was an umpire referral instead of a team referral. Is it also restricted to just the 23 metre area self-referrals are restricted to penalty, strokes and goals and yes, it has. It has to be an incident that happens inside the 23 metre area.

Okay. And if you think that I, I saw on social media, a bunch of people saying we should be able to review things that are outside of the 23. Oh my goodness. Really? Do you know how many referrals that would be and how much more complication does that lead to? And we're going to get to a complicated situation in just a second, because more than one thing happens in a passage of play.

Sometimes they happen really close together. Sometimes there's more of a gap, but they all impact each other. And we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere that isn't that far. Otherwise we're going to be in video referrals all day, every day. 

Sarah absolutely did have a phenomenal tournament. I was just delighted.

I texted her when the appointments came out for the final, and if you'd been a part of any of the watch parties, you would have heard me say things like, I think the two best umpires of this tournament are Sarah and Martin, and I hope they get the men's final. And I hope the next two, you know, excellent umpires get the women's final or they mix those up however they choose. But the top four umpires and Martin and Sarah were definitely in those top, uh, those top umpires and I wanted to see a woman on the men's final. 

And yes, I was very good. She very much commands respect. Absolutely. 

So I, it's just amazing how we have that goal in that penalty shootout goal, that Deepak is about to call a stroke on, and then he, he turns into a goal. His whistle is, is sounding as the ball was crossing over the line after the last touch of the ball and anything had happened. I argued softly with a lot of reservations that that was the right result, just for the common sense. And I think let's say there hadn't been a third party…

Yeah, there hadn't been a third party at the top of the circle in this situation. Common sense would dictate that even though the whistle is sounding as the ball was passing… Literally, it starts sounding right as the ball passes by this, uh, last, the postie defender. That's when that first sound comes out, as near, as I can tell from the really crappy 720p footage that I've got showing for you. So 25 frames for second as well. 

So it would that, in fairness ended up being a goal. I would with a lot of reservations argue. Yes. Because nothing was going to change the bow. And that's, that's where I've driven, drawn a circle on the ball where the first sound occurs and it's literally passing by that foot. So that's where I'd go with that. 

Oh, Dumbledore zone decision before the whistle or whistle first. Well, okay. You're there. Um, yeah. And, and a lot of the top umpires are happy to do the self-referral. Laurine is also excellent at that. She is willing to go upstairs and just double check if she has any reservations. 

And yes, that I was looking for this play and I, I couldn't find it. I couldn't find it. It was Matla's.

Yeah. And arguably, I think on that one, I can't remember if it was that one or if it was, um, so it's starting to feel fuzzy to me, but Celine was in the booth. I remember that much. And she didn't have access to the sound. Oh no, that can't be right. Because if that was Tokyo, Celine wasn't there. Now see my memories are all. 

Did that obstruction PC get stopped on the circle line anyway. Oh, are you saying, did the ball actually exit the circle. I, I don't know, like I said, he's just bad. Okay. Last one on video referrals.

solutely stitched

okay.

problem. The first thing is that it feels like Florian foods has absolutely sold a brilliant day. That's listened to I'm looking for

it's not about five metres. That decision beforehand was for the defendant not being five metres. Watch the dummy. As far as our foods comes in. There's no Tashi. Now he's touched there's the defenders in the ways encroached. It's not about going into the circle. It's about the defender being within that distance for deluxe.

Surely how can it be anything, but it's a dummy from Fukes that draws in mark solace. Do we have one line is done the gaze of alpha in the circle? I don't think that's the question pertaining to fairing with play, but if she's looking for a third, then Lorinda, foreshadowing, she'll find a foot, but it's within five metres before the bulls played.

I believe Sarah. Well, let's see what she comes up with. She's one of the world's best. Yes. I have a decision freed out and Domesa keep their soul traffic.

I, I agree with that completely. I have no issue with it. 

I'm going to skip through that. So video umpires can look at the entire passage of play and they can decide as to whether fouls have created a disadvantage or not leading up to another foul. And there's a chain reaction. Okay. So they will not just simply disregard what happens just beforehand. They will take into account.

But what you have here is a situation where yes, there was absolutely a jump into the five metre space. And then that defender did everything he could to get out of the way and did not disadvantage that attacker who then dribbled straight into the circle.

So that's where that decision came from. And you can even see that, that, um, I think it's Oliva, you know, he's jumped. He's like, whoops, I'm getting out of the way. And then Fuchs, literally dribbles, like into him, he moves off to the side instead of straight at the… even closer, straight into the, uh, circle there. Okay. So that's where that decision came from.

Uh, defended. Yeah. You don't think he impacted the play? Yeah. There was zero impact there. Yep, absolutely. And Fuchs tried. Yeah. Fuchs did his… he's he's very clever, and this is, this is the thing, is that some players know the rules really, really well. And this is definitely something, you know, we saw the Europeans, uh, not the last set, but the set before, when, Wegnez, oh, yes. When Wegnez,, it was the semifinal, Germany versus Belgium.

And, uh, Wegnez did, did a fake at the 23 and then the player jumped and then that player had to stay out of the way and not interfere and not disadvantage the attacker or else he knew he was going to give up a penalty corner and understanding those fine elements is exactly what these players are paid to do.

You're not mad at all. Uh, yeah. Ah.

Yes. And, and, and then. This is something that I, I think that on the whole, in this tournament, there were probably too many instances where players were allowed to get not quite to swarm the umpire, but too many voices in the umpire's ears, too much extra conversation happening with the other umpire over the audio. And the briefings for these tournaments are very clear. The teams are told very specifically, only one person asks a question. Once the question's been sent upstairs, there are no more conversations and the umpires are advised, no more conversations. You don't continue because you can get yourself in some trouble. Plead the fifth at that point. It's out of your hands.

So if you can at all avoid it, there's nothing more. And when there's players from both teams coming in, that is a very, very volatile situation. And I think they needed to, in many situations, be a little more strict on that.

Okay. I don't know who that is. I have a feeling he's a New Zealand, All Black. Retired. Probably. That's what I'm guessing, but who knows? 

Okay. Those were the video referral situations I wanted to bring to your special attention. Oh yeah, we got this. You guys, you got this, not a problem. 

Topic, aerial interceptions. Hopefully this is things are going to go a lot faster now. 

Actually the distraction run so would make van. And if you went to the right class, it'd be something brilliant type down. Well, within the rules, DRAM Bush allowed to step into that five metre area to intercept as long as it's not perceived to be dangerous and a wonderful example of why the rule has been or the interpretation.

Yeah. Has been adapted, watching the distraction run so of it, if you went to the, 

So this is, as they mentioned, as the, as Todd and Simon say, this is a perfect example of what the new rule that all of you in the UK are going to be doing in September. And the rest of the world are already doing. When, uh, the initial receiver can be in danger of being intercepted like this, I think we need to, we need to start putting together the patterns because of all of the successful aerial interceptions I've seen, we've seen very much. Where the receiver can get a little stationary and then an interceptor can cut across that line. So they're, they're cutting from here. They're not with that receiver. They're not even just stepping in front of that receiver. They are cutting across the line outside of the sphere of what is playable distance. Okay. Because we are looking for receptions that are, that can be inside the five metres, but outside playable distance and that are done so safely. And that is really a terrific example.

Now this happened later on, in the same game. And I don't know if Mike McCartney is here. If you are, this is for you, friend. Another interception, very similar. 

That's right. Running. Take a love the new rule here. That's a player landing on another player. That's unfortunate.

Okay. One, the receiver getting stationary. And then the interception coming across. It does come a little from behind, which I think, people can look at that and get a little concerned about whether that is within playing distance. Okay. 

Playing distance, can't be five metres. They've specified something else. It is a, it is a distinctive criteria that is even smaller and playable distance indicate something more than just what you can measure with a tape. There is whether a player is actually trying to play as well. That's kind of part of it. And here, what you see is the stick goes up and then the player's not moving towards the ball and making an attempt there. 

For me, this is still outside playable. And it is still safe and it's a fantastic interception.

Mike, you knew where I was going. Um, do we define playable distance as the distance that the players are attempting to play the ball within? Yes. And it's, and it's not flat along the pitch. It can be up in the air. So because the trajectory of the aerial is what's important here. That dictates where the danger is going to be. And these, these words of five metres, these words of playable distance are all ways to try to codify danger. But danger can't exist without the ball. Danger can't exist outside of the trajectory and space through which that the ball is moving. And so that playable distance, isn't this way, it's actually up on the same angle as that ball is landing.

And to me, it's a great pick.

Absolutely because danger is different at every level. And you have to be aware. Now I have been trying to assert that I only, I mean, it's amazing. I saw two in one game at the EHL. I, having watched most of the games. There's three that I haven't been able to get my eyes on, uh, thoroughly just yet, but I picked out four interceptions that were good.

And we're going to look at one more as well. And then one that I didn't even bother clipping in a tournament of this caliber at that level. That's that's how many were attempted. It's not again, a super frequent area and you only see it with the top players because you have aerials that are going far enough.

Those aerials are in the air for longer. So players have a chance to react and do something different. Shorter areas, there's no time. There's no time. Okay. The trajectory of the aerial of the aerial helps. And the fact that the aerials are being thrown on angles. If they're just going up and down the field north -south, which is the safest aerial to throw, it is really difficult to get these interceptions

in. But if the ball was moving at an angle, then you have more of an opportunity for players to cut across as they're doing here.

So yes. 

This was the last, uh, or another aerial interception that did not…didn't work. 

Was it, as I mentioned before, Ariel the ball into the circle, the defendant and the defendant has to give them five. In that case, she didn't, it's an easy corner. Uh, such a student of the game.

you're not going to get there as much. I'm afraid when she's got the whistle.

So what you see is an attempt at an interception by a defender here. And the problem that I have with how this call played out is that when I paused and I have the circle around for me, that is the moment of control. Did the player have ample opportunity to control that ball at that level of skill. 

Patient is trying to pick the perfect parts and that wasn't too bad. Was it? 

Let's get back to this.

Oh, and I need to click in the correct area

And I'll scroll all the way to the end. So the interception attempt here is safe. Playable distance is fine. The attacker is a no danger whatsoever. And then the natural momentum of that player takes her towards… This here is the moment of control. I know it's still in the air and I know that she doesn't put it down on the ground, stand still and then move off with the ball as we would see players often do at lower levels of play. She's able to tip it on for herself, exactly where she wants it to go, inside the circle. And then the defender closes the space. 

This is really challenging to call because you're going to have to be relative, just like with advantage, just like with, you know, everything. What constitutes control.

And I know the rule says controlled and on the ground that just doesn't apply here. Just doesn't apply because a player could receive it and just continue to air dribble.

So if the attempt is safe, just cause she fails to get it, does that mean that she can't attempt it?

I'm not sure Henry. Either way, if this was a upgrade for outside the circle. I don't think so. Because again, outside the circle, everything is okay. If you can say that there's any infringement or disadvantage again, she's behind the player. That's the other thing. She's not in front. She's not cutting off space. She's not even outside the circle. She wasn't in a position to make an attempt for the ball. She was like, she was just distantly too far away. So I don't think so.

Uh, neither do I, sir.

Well, that was the other thing. I mean, A.J., what you're saying in different words is that she had advantage. This didn't stop her, that. Like the whistle stopped this play, but she was ready to go. Now I would be okay if an umpire decided in this moment that the defender's stick wrapping around the attacker's body was disadvantageous and they couldn't get the, the, the, the shot away.

In that case, it's a stroke. It's an intentional foul inside the circle. It's a stroke. But Laurine's language is, was very clear in this situation that she was calling it for the five metre infringement. She said, you have to give her the chance to control the ball.

Nope, it's not. She's. I know we're on an angle. This camera's in an angle to those two players. There's tons of distance between them, and there's enough. It doesn't have to be five metres. It can be less than five millimetre. If it's done safely. And there was nothing that endangered that attacker from receiving that ball, that attacker is not in danger.

So, no, there's not an offense there just because she misses it doesn't mean it's an offense.

Blake, do we err on the side of caution, the scenario, if you attempt to just set the ball within five above head height, you better be damn sure you get it. Well, but if the attempt is safe, what are we stopping them from trying? Do we be preventative in stopping them from trying? I don't think we do. Um, yes.

Yeah. So there you go. 

Nope, you're talking baloney. It's okay. Thomas. No. How would I say that? No, mostly because I'd never used the word baloney. Um, what I've, what I noticed was that when there were interceptions of aerial balls and, and five metres was being infringed on in the men's game, we're leaning in here folks.

Cause I have something to say, wait, is it? It's a Rant of the Week.

I picked up many instances where a player was receiving an aerial a defender was encroaching within the five metres from a technical perspective, but no disadvantage was occurring and the umpires properly allowed play on in the men's side of the game. Too many times I saw it called much more strictly in the women's side of the game.

To me, that is an incorrect perception of the relative skill levels of the two genders. End of story. And it's unfortunate because we should be allocating the same amount or the correct amount of skill, regardless of what we're seeing. And you can damn well be sure that in that situation, that attacker was expressing all the skills she had to be able to take the ball into the circle on that reception, out of the air deflect it forward, that was control and that's good enough. The five metres was given and then the players can make an attempt to dispossess. Dats it.

So Umpire Lover. Hi, first of all, welcome. You're thinking that because she wasn't able to go toward her backhand and forced an ugly, um, an ugly forehand corner.

That's a tough argument. That is a really tough argument. Because if the attacker wanted to go to their forehead, if that was a better play, then I think they would have been trying it. They didn't, they kept it on their forehand because they wanted it there. It was the best spot for them. So yeah, not buying that one.

It's not hard to instigate a Rant of the Week, Thomas Parker. Everybody knows my trigger words by now. Everybody in the comments, they don't know that what's going on there. 

A.J., yes, it was. So the EHL was a really interesting situation. For the first time ever, in my view, you had true equality going on where men were umpiring women's games, women were umpiring man's games, teams were mixed. It was just a pool of umpires and a pool of teams. And they happen to all be of both genders. And umpires were getting appointed to the games that they were best suited for and they were getting experience and they were getting reps and they were working with different teammates and it was fantastic with it was just fantastic.

And so I had the opportunity for one of the first times ever to, to see, like really compare apples and apples with the same umpires, doing men's games and women's games and how they were calling the game was different. Different applications, different interpretations were being applied. Simon pointed it out when he was commenting, when one decision was quite mysterious and said, huh, I'm getting the feeling that things are getting changed for the different genders and maybe umpires aren't looking at things the same way. 

I'm not saying sh this stuff's easy. It's not okay. It is really difficult to go out there and umpire a different pace, a different tempo, a different, uh, power level of a game. It's really difficult. And if you don't have a lot of reps in it, because it's not something you usually do at home in domestic competition, while you're going to be under double stress in that.

So this is a new frontier for a lot of umpires, and we have to acknowledge this. And it's not because one gender of the game is better than another. They are different. And each have their challenges in different ways. And just like you have to change your interpretations for levels, you also have to understand when the level is actually the same, just because it's expressed at a different tempo, that's it?

Um, so don't love the word bias. Speaking of trigger words, I think it's, it's simply a misapplication of the same interpretation because of, of not identifying the correct factors. That's it. And we tend to associate that with one gender or another, but the B word staying away from that one. Cause I don't like it.

Okay. Luckily, the next ones are going to be faster. I promise.

A little bit on the old carding techniques.

I'll just play this one for you, and I wanted you to see the buildup.

I'm probably thinking there was any infringement.

And now…. That's the tackle there.

I think we might see a card or the next break in play

classic. Same on goona. They're taking the ball forward with one of those wonderful runs with such strength and balance. What's up. I'm going to pause it. Still chatting about identifying who the player is that we think will get penalized such a long passage.

stick dock over there. So absolutely no surprise that Sam Spencer is paying less for. It gave me, 

You can hear what Simon was saying. This is the tackle coming in here. They had a better, um, they had better ears on the umpire comms. And what happened there, is that the umpires were discussing and they were agreeing that they were going to come back, to come back to that card.

That's powerful in a multitude of ways. One of them being, first of all, the two of them can make sure that they get the player's number and they can confirm that back and forth. So there's no confusion when it's time to actually give the card. They don't have to stand there after calling time and then say, okay, uh, which player was it again?

Uh, they're doing that work beforehand. They're preparing the card that they're going to give at the right moment. So that's the first excellent part of the, the communication that was going on. The second benefit of that is that they're actually talking themselves into sticking with the card. So if either one of those umpires out there had seen the breakdown and then thought to themselves, I'm coming back to that, but they don't express it, who's to know if 30 seconds later: oh, everybody's forgotten. Yeah. I'm um, I'm not going to stop the play and I'm not going to come back to that. You, you literally talk yourself into it and you make that promise. You make that commitment. 

So verbalizing saying, yeah, I'm coming back to that. What number do you got? Oh yeah, that's three. Gotcha. Three. Can you help me with that. Three? Okay. And you're saying these things over the radios back and forth. Okay, ready for the next stoppage? Yup. Hang in there. Hang in there. Still go back. Yeah. I'm with ya. You keep talking that through and that will help you come back to this play.

Yes, I understand. But in sports we have to be careful about the words, you know, what I'm like? Um, yeah. And it happens it's, it's a complicating factor. It can make it really easy. Um, how did they restart the game after giving the card? Um, if a free hit attack then, or if the free hit at the team was getting the advantage.

Yes. I mean, it doesn't look, it does look messy, but because they didn't have to stop the play for that card, it doesn't mean that they can't come back to award the personal penalty. The team penalty doesn't exist. By playing advantage, that was better than awarding a team penalty. That little unit: gone. It's doesn't exist anymore.

Pull my mic around. I'm so excited. Does that make sense? So, yes, it doesn't look great because the team that you're sending off with a card has earned a team penalty because they didn't get advantage from a foul that happens 30 seconds later. Absolutely. But it's correct. 

No such thing as a silly question, until I tell you it is. If 24 had fouled again, low-level, later in the play, would he be given the green or five minute yellow card? Otherwise love the comms from the umps. Okay. This comes up frequently as well. First of all, what I think is beneficial was that not only you verbalizing that you're coming back to that for a card to your colleague, but if you verbalize it in the way that the player understands it, I'm coming back to you.

Okay. I saw that, five, I'm coming back then that player is going, Aw, no, I'm getting, aw. They're going to be more careful in that moment. It is very seldom that if I just, I have never seen it happen with a player it's been communicated that advantage is going, and that the card is going to come back and a player engages in misconduct. Again, it's just so, so rare. So that's one of those hypotheticals that doesn't happen very often, but you can make that a hypothetical that isn't going to happen by being proactive, very important.

Um, but would they probably, they'd still just give the green card. And not, and not do the compound. 

Ben, when the umpire steps in to give the card, it was in possession. Surbiton okay. So. It hit a foot. 

Um, in general, what is the maximum time you can delay the personal penalty award?

I don't know. It, it could be minutes. The longest I've seen was around 45 seconds. 30 seconds is a long time, 45 seconds for nothing to happen for no foul to need to be awarded for the ball. Never going out of bounds. And yes, it can happen. It absolutely can happen. 

If I were at a low level. And for some reason, Play one on play could have been going on for two minutes. It just at, at lower levels of play, the players don't have the skill not to foul each other. Like it just doesn't happen. They'd have to all be standing still in the, the clock ticking down and nobody doing anything for them not to be some kind of foul

Again, it's a hypothetical that, you know, just doesn't like put it in a game context. And then what you realize is it's not going to happen if I absolutely had to, I'd bloody… I just, I'd just blow my whistle and I'd award a bully and then I'd give the card so that nothing stupid could happen, but I've never had to because a whistle has to be blown long before them. Okay. Okay. Everybody cool. 

Yes. Very important to have good communication, Stefan. You're absolutely right. And yes, everybody's living in the present, which is a really beautiful sentiment. Namaste, but you know, there you go. You worried that the attacking team got two opportunities from the one offense instead of waiting for a natural restart, such as a sideline, but they weren't more disadvantage advantage is the decision that in that moment, the best thing out of that foul is to continue play.

So the benefit from that foul has been given. Play is allowed to continue. That is the best thing. So we don't have to do… the scales of balance, have been righted there. And then an extra personal message needs to be delivered later. Uh, yeah, as A.J. rightly points out, the player will often sub themselves off because they think that if they can hide on the bench, they're going to be okay.

Um, a sportsball example? Nah, I'll just remove this one. Fine, uh, player thought he got away from the first one, did another bad thing and got both yellow cards in one go. Interesting. Um, there you go. Oh, hi. Oh, Umpire Lover. I'm so glad you're here. Make sure you join the Discord. Okay. Did you know we have a Discord? It's right here and then you, you won't be able to get enough of us. We'll be all over the place. 

Okay. Where am I at? Very welcome. Um, yeah. Okay, cool. Cool. Cool. Cool. Is that all of my things. Yes. That's all of my things for cards. It's going great. You guys, I got 24 minutes. Not a problem. 

From, to that food line for what little mood lifted, dangerously. However, that's the perception.

Okay. Is questioning absolutely everything. I try. I really don't want to send someone out for that. We need to be quiet.

okay. So that's my opinion. Really good game management from artsy Martin. And he's gone to the captain. He's clearly said I don't want to send people off for chatting. However I'm telling you now you need to get control of your team. Yeah. 

So a lot of really good… coming out of that. We had a conversation on a huddle or we've, we've had a continuing conversation in our fhu3t huddles.

And if you don't know what the fhu3t is, let me just quickly do this. Okay. Have you two-third team yellow is our mentorship and we have regular conversations in our weekly huddles about techniques that we can use to, to be better when we're out there on the pitch. And a lot of conversation has been happening recently about whether …how do you deal with the nasty comments and the things that you don't like hearing from the players?

Because we know that those things add up to dissent later on. But when do you step in, how do you do it? Do you start throwing cards because somebody says a snarky, cynical comment to you? You don't, but you do this. Okay? You get the captain involved, you have a conversation, you're very direct and you tell them under no uncertain circumstances.

Martin is exceptional at this. And this is part of his background as being, you know, a member of the, uh, police force in Scotland. He doesn't, he understands the importance of keeping things contained. And so there were several examples, not just this, where you would hear him over the radio and you don't know what's happening because you're not picking up all the audio, but you can hear him say, oh, do you have something to say to me or something similar?

Michelle Meister did this where she said: that is a nasty comment. I don't want that.

Beautiful, okay. Just because it hasn't stepped over a line for something that you would give a card for doesn't mean that you can't intervene. So intervene for the sake of the game, intervene because you are keeping the spirit and the temperaments close. You're letting the players know that you're hearing them, that you're on top of it. 

And when you can intervene like this, and I think it was Shayne in a huddle a couple of weeks ago. He, um, he had been telling us about one game that he, he wasn't sure what to do when he was hearing a lot of really negative, nasty comments. And then he told us the next day he went out and he did something very similar to what Martin did here and just said, no, I'm not having that.

And then he had a magically beautiful rainbow sparkles coming out of unicorns butts kind of game for the rest. And that is what we want friends, just a little bit of intervention early. So there you go.

Absolutely. I use Discord loads. Oh gosh, let's be friends. Can't wait. Um, me too. Martin Madden was on Umpire At Home, Umpire Lover. So, uh, I think that the mods can put that link in the chat for you. So you can see when we had a talk, uh, about his career and all that kind of thing. 

And so Thomas, who knows? Maybe this particular kind of approach, doesn't jive with your personality, the words don't feel natural, whatever the case might be. Maybe getting that physically close to a player is something that, you know, you don't feel comfortable with.

There's a lot of things in there that if you try them, you might find that they fit really nicely. And I think there's a very intentional use of all of those little things. The proximity, the angle to which Martin was presenting himself. It was generally, it was kind of like a side on thing with the captain. And then when the guy that he was actually upset with for what he was saying, started talking to Martin, Martin turned and faced him and said, you're the one I'm talking about. Right. And then the captain's like, oh, okay, okay. I want to turn you back around. So you're not that confrontational there with my player. I'll look after it. Hey guys, no more in it, you know? And he said whatever he did probably in Dutch. So there's a lot of little tiny cues in there that are super, super effective.

There you go. Thanks very much for the link Dina. Appreciate it. Um, yup. Uh, great umpires come from a lot of different backgrounds. I think it's the richness of all of our different experiences that we can bring in that give us the skills and the tools we need to be able to, to implement, you know, a beautiful game and, and to serve the game wonderfully. 

There you go. The boiling frog game. Yeah, that was the analogy we were using the whole time. Um, sometimes I get a little carried away with metaphors and I definitely did on that day when we were talking about how, you know, a frog doesn't know that they're in a, in a boiling pot until it's too late and umpires don't know that they're in a game that is simmering over and has bad tempers until all of a sudden somebody is swearing at them and calling them an effing cheat. That doesn't come from nowhere.

Ooh, those double negatives. Oh, yikes. Sorry. That really gave me the heebies. That comes from somewhere. And that source is often in comments that we've decided, uh, you know, I'm going to keep an eye out on that one and I'm going to come back to that person later. So deal with what you need to in the moment.

If you hear something you don't like, tell them you don't like it. And off we go

Dragging on the penalty stroke. Doot doot doo doo…

Women's final. Penalty stroke is awarded after a foul by the goalkeeper….

Oh, interesting.

The stroke or the moment that the shelter is taken by the Amsterdam player.

To me, that looks fine.

I also think as soon as you slow something like this,

Laurine. There is no clear reason to change your decision. Stick with the goal. 

Laurine self-refers this, which I really appreciate, but watch this penalty stroke. The right foot is behind the ball at all times. There is a pivoting of of the hands so that the right hand is lower. That allows the player to pick up and to push, push the ball along the ground in a whipping motion, carrying it on the stick for an extended period of time, and then releasing it out a particular angle. That is a legal, non-dragging, entirely pushed penalty stroke.

Ladies and gentlemen.

We're happy. And yes, that's exactly the point. There it's the same stroke.

We're still buzzing about Martin's management step in there and justifiably so. Um, yes, it's, there's crowd control, recognizing leadership, taking them away from the crowd, talking to them, calling upon their personal responsibility like that. Very well done. And, uh, as Iain said, walking the captain backwards, like. Martin, wasn't afraid to get very close. And what's nice about that is that you can then take your volume of your voice down. And that creates the sense that even though you're very close, you're calm. If you're trying to communicate to a captain who is 25 metres away, excuse me.

If that captain is 25 metres away, you're going to be raising your voice and everything that you say that tone will infect, how you're communicating that message. From nice and close though, Martin can use a more intimate tone that doesn't sound as aggressive, but he's got that physical proximity that we know is slightly bit intimidating kind of thing.

So very good stuff. Good technique. Yes. Show, show them, show them. That's the one.

So Gideon's asking, why did Laurine refer? To set a marker for the future to overcome issues? It would be brave. She's a lawyer. She knows what precedent is. She knows jurisprudence, just like I do. And that's one of the things that I do sometimes, like I did with the video referral that was wrongfully asked for by Surbiton is, I remembered:

yeah, I've seen this before, and this is how it was handled. This was how it was, did judicated. The fact situations are not different. Therefore the same rule applies. That's jurisprudence. And that was correct. I do that all the time. 

But if Laurine watches What Up Wednesday, first of all. Hi. Second of all. I hope it's cool what I said earlier, and third of all, thanks for being here. I don't know if she does though. Uh, okay. People I'm going to do it. It's going to happen.

Intentionally off the End Line.

I think I left the one with the…

That's incorrect.

Don't worry. Watch me fix this on the fly. I thought I went through all these.

, but it doesn't really matter the outcome at the end of that passage, you play absolutely the same.

so pinned back in that bottom corner stolen by size man. So reaching tackle is considered to be a foul blown. It he's blown it for deliberately being knocked over the place line. Are they going to contest it? Rollies, you can't deliberately knock it over the baseline, but there's also no, this, this to me is a tackle.

I don't see that. I just see that as a tracker. I don't understand where else the ball can go. If you have another five feet of pitch, the ball will be sitting in front of you.

Yeah. It was almost the right video. I did fix it though, so, okay. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Okay. Because this one, we did have some really good discussion in the Discord server. In the Discord server. And I, you know, I had feelings. I'm going to keep them to myself for a moment. 

Um, okay, Chris, I'll just deal with this quickly. So the, yeah, this, somebody else asked this in the watch party, cause we were doing one and that's because it was a shootout stroke. That meant all three umpires were already there on the pitch. So the reserve umpire was already on the back line. So the supporting umpire didn't need to go there.

That's why.

Okay. So back to this, um,

we had a really good conversation in the Discord about what a defender could potentially do in this situation that would not cause them to put the ball off the end line The ball is literally millimetres away from touching that end line. The attacker is dribbling that close. If this is an intentional send off the end line, I just don't know where else, as Todd says, where else could they put the ball?

They could try to pull it back into the feet. Maybe? But you know, that, that is really, really tricky. They could try to shave tackle from inside, but then they have no, they have no play. They can only pull it straight back, but if they shave and they try to pull it with the top edge of their stick back towards them, they're liable to take it off the end line as well.

Is that going to be ajudged?

So these were the questions we were asking. Uh, Chris, you're hard pressed for a PC they're on such a fine touch. The defender didn't obnoxiously sweep with a ball at the pitch. Okay. Pin that. There was a hand on the back. Um, I think at this level, given when the player fell down, they didn't fall down because they were being pushed in the back. They fell down because the ball was suddenly not there anymore. That's what was going on there. So, I mean, yes, it's possible, but, and when you watch where the umpire was and he definitely did not make the D he made it very clear in the audio that he made the decision because of the intentionally off the end line. 

From Mike, the angle of the stick suggests the tackle is trying to bring the ball back. Absolutely. And so a judgment for the penalty corner is about the likelihood of success.

I like this. Okay. So now what we're doing is we're starting to pull out the factors that we look for as to what makes something intentional. So it's, you know, it's one thing to say, well, they didn't obnoxiously sweep the ball off. Well, what did they not do? What did they do? So Mike is pointing out the angle of the stick.

And the stick's travel. We also look at the positioning where the player is facing. If they come in to make a tackle and they are facing off the end line, as they send the ball. Well, that is a stronger indicator that they were reckless as to whether that is the direction the ball was going to go in. And I think Chris, when you're saying of noxious, we sweep the ball off the end line.

What you're talking about is the velocity that the stick is moving on. I mean, perhaps the player could have been put a little bit less on it, not would have kept it in the pitch because it was barely traveling at all, but that's the fine level of difference. If that player had big back swing, ping, and put a lot of force into directing that ball or making that tackle, and it goes off the online that's when you say: that looks intentional. So those were many of the things.

A tackle is about dispossessing the individual, not the following option. That's a, that's a really interesting argument. And I liked that Scott. Cause what I think, if I can put words in your mouth, you're trying to say is that, that the, the tackle was one part, is one separate action. And what happens to the ball is separate. Do I have that, right. You might want to give me some more words for that.

Yeah. What else can the defender do? And some people say, well, you could argue potentially that the defender can't make a tackle there. So does the attacker get all that free space to work with, just because they dribble along the end line like that? Does that seem fair? Is that a fair balance of play in that circumstance. And that's hard.

Um, yes. It's not an offense. You're absolutely right. We just regard it as a method of replay. If the attack gets on, the only defense is to go ahead and take up space. Defense had been beat, but does that mean that he's not allowed to attempt to tackle from there? Does that mean that just like with the interception, same theme, we're coming back to this again. Does that mean that they just have to let them go because they'd been beat. When we say high risk, high penalty, it doesn't mean certain outcome, certain penalty.

It doesn't mean that it's a chance. It's a good chance that that tackle is going to fail. And if that tackle would come through, the stick had obstructed that attacker, then you've got a penalty stroke. It's a high risk, but he did it cleanly. He was able to, so we don't take away their chance to try it. We just have to award the proper penalties if it doesn't work out.

That's it.

So for Steffan, they're not trying to hit the ball of the unknown is this type of tackle deliberative act. Hmm. The defender got stuck behind the attacker. So poor positioning. Yeah. But knowing he only had inches to spare, but does that mean that he can't, as I just said. He doesn't job across, he's making an attempt to hit it back to the player.

I, I mean, he's only got that far to show what angle the ball is traveling. It's it's, you know, it's, it's a very, very short distance.

So for Scott. Ah, no, I get it. Okay. Brain good work that the deliberate act is not deliberately tackling. The deliberate act is the play off the baseline. I get what you're saying. Juanko, good to see you. Uh, you've been giving a PC for all those tackles that end on the end line in Argentina. In this case, the player knows the ball's going out on the end line.

Yeah.

But is it. But is it. Because that means that they can't tackle. It means that they, they, they absolutely, the only way they can tackle is if they somehow. Like, I, I just don't know where they can, you know, are they going to be able to get their hand all the way around? So the stick angle is totally different so they can play the ball back.

That's physically impossible. So that means that there's no opportunity to tackle at all. It's just gone. And the attacker gets that because they're close to the end line. That doesn't seem right.

We need to see it as reckless to the outcome of where the ball can go. Thank you, Luke. Good. You think the player puts extra effort into the attempting pulling motion and not just swing to knock it off? Yeah.

There you go. And the attempt was to tackle. Yup. I'm, I'm gonna wrestle with that because I'm not sure. I mean, now I understand what Scott's getting at night and I hear you repeating it, Shayne and I just want to make sure that I'm going to think through this properly, because it's a bit of, a bit of a newer idea for me.

From the defender reaction, who knows what's going off the end line but does that mean he deliberately pointed off the end line.

But that's not an argument. That's, that's not a principle we can hang our hat on. Because we actually don't know what the player knows. We're trying to get away from mind reading because we're terrible at it. We are very, very bad at it. And I know that the word says intentional, but we're true, but we have to figure out a better way to diagnose what that intent is in that moment.

So just because his reaction after he puts it off, the end line is like, oh, I put that off the online. That doesn't mean he intended to put it off the online.

Okay. Circular logic. We have to get away from that. Yeah. Absolutely. Um, yes. Coaches love to scream lots of things, including tackle back. You're right, Umpire Lover.

So yes, uh, Mr. Denman is repeating that, for other things, we talked about the intention being the action, not the outcome. No one intentionally fouls, nobody intends to commit the foul. People intend to commit the action that has a high probability of not working out. Does that mean if I'm arguing, I'm now flipping my brain.

Like I don't, I don't like the PC or I'm not going to, you know, I'll just tell you, I don't like it. But if we flip the, the principle around the way that I've been describing it to you and trying to convince you guys for three years now that this is how we need to regard intentionality, does he commit his action and full control of what he's doing, knowing full well that there's a high risk that ball's going to be played off the end line. If that's the case, yes. I still don't like it though. I don't know why, because it just looks like a defender can't even try. Is it a high risk that he's going to put it off? Yes. Is it, is there, is that the only thing that's going to happen there?

Did he do everything he could to not put it out the end line other than not trying to tackle? I think he did.

And Steffan is seeing the same thing. The defender channels first and then tackles, ignoring the hand to the back. Thank you. The defender tracks the ball, increasing the likelihood of success, but he's behind the player in small margins.

Yeah. Needs the sell. You agree with the intention? Uh, but the, the action to tackle dispossess the individual rather than the direction it's played.

Yeah. That's an interesting one, Scott. I really am. I'm going to give this one some good. Oh yeah. Okay. Darn it. I thought you, weren't going to notice, Thomas. I did leave the hole or a good portion of the clip in with this too, to sort of point that out.

So we've got the play in the corner and right now, is okay. He's okay. He calls a free hit. And then what I would prefer, what I advocate in these situations is rather than he immediately tries to come outside. Around the corner and then look, the defender shapes to push inside the pitch again, if he had been where he was, or even more preferably interior positioning and a couple of steps back, okay.

Here comes the pressure and the umpire is still stuck outside. I'd much rather see him ahead of this play 'cause then he might've seen the hand in the back that may or may not have been disadvantageous. I'm not sure.

Yeah. It's and it's, it's just, it just doesn't look. The lack of the hard swing, all that kind of thing. Yeah. I think we said that last week. About common sense. There you go.

So those were all the clips and it is 1:33 and DING um, I did not, I didn't have many announcements at all to sort of go, go through. I did talk about the Discord.

Did I do this thing where I say, if you, if you enjoyed what happened today, that would be nice. Do those things and you could buy me a rosé. It was quite the weekend. Oh, it sure was. I think I've recovered, but not quite sure. And yeah, don't forget about the third team. Okay. We, um, I'm really excited. The south central officials are starting to all sign up.

So if you're a part of that group and you're watching right now, very pleased to have you and things are hopping. We are over 520. And yeah, I'm really enjoying what's happening in the Discord server and all of these new yellow people are coming in and that, in the Discord servers where we provide a lot of the watch parties and all those sorts of things, so make sure that you hop in there.

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. And so am I, and I appreciate everybody's thoughts on that because I just still not quite sure it's a big decision for it to feel that level of ambiguous. 

Can we come back to goalie /player? All right. Okay. Sorry. And so just a side point, I'll wrap this up that in penalty strokes, it is no longer required and it's actually not good practice to set up your penalty stroke by saying, player ready, keeper ready, and then blowing your whistle.

Especially the levels at which we were witnessing it happening quite often in the weekends. It's poor because what if a player says, oh no, I'm not ready. Or as happened at the Commonwealth games several iterations ago, the team doesn't speak English at all and they don't know. And so they, they have no idea what you're talking about and they're not responding.

So if you say, keep her ready and the keeper doesn't answer, what do you do? What you do is you announce on my whistle. And it was even in the rule book that you had to ask and then it was removed. So please it is part of really good management and conduct of a penalty stroke competition to not ask. You tell. You wait for the players to be…

You have told them, I'll blow my whistle when we're ready. And then the players are like, okay, I'm going to get ready then. And they do so, and then you blow your whistle. Easy peasy. Exactly. Good. Yeah. I'm kind of undecided too. I'm just not quite sure what I'm doing with that. A note about concerns. Bring it into the Discord server.

I'm not sure what your concerns are. Glad you're going to be coming by. That's going to be great. Uh, Chris sadly, um, required. Yeah. Good. Well, that's just another one of those peculiarities of U.S. rules. Glad we don't have to deal with that. Mini rant of the week. Absolutely. Okay. 

Thank you so much for coming by everybody. I hope this was useful. Remember, next week we are definitely going to go through double yellows to reds. We are going to talk the death out of them. And then I don't want to hear about this for another three months. I'm saying you got to pay 37 pounds of content. Um, okay. We'll talk about in the Discord.

Okay. You just pop in don't you worry. We will get you sorted. You sent me a Matla. Thank you for the Matla clip. I appreciate it. I know where it is. I just couldn't find it. Or I know it exists. I just couldn't remember where in my collection. Okay. 

We will see you in the Discord servers, have a fantastic rest of your week. If you were busy with hockey last weekend, and you get a little bit of reprieve this weekend. Great. If you've got some playoffs to do this weekend, all the best to you, please come and tell me how they went and we will see you in the server. And then that next week on the next one up Wednesday, have a good one.

Bye.

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