Live Q&A #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 75

📅 May 11 18.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube

We're going to cover what angles mean on 5m infringements, how attempted aerial interceptions should be handled, and what constitutes a red card. Also, let's have a confab on what y'all are going to do on your summer vacation!

Submit your penalty corner feedback to the FIH: fhumpires.com/fihpc

⏱ Chapter Markers:
0:00 Chair Dancing
2:27 Topics!
4:31 What is 5m?
16:20 How to Intercept an Aerial
51:08 When It’s a Red Card
12:23:19 What do you do in the off-season?

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

I'm a tiger on the prowl / Imma make you go wild / I'm original, and I told you so / I'm a kid in a candy store / Put the leather on the denim / I ain't the cure, I'm the venom / If you want to find me find the tail lights / Somethin's coming in / You're going to want to take a red eye / It's time to go / It's time to go / 

Get ready.

I don’t wait for nobody / Imma sign my name on the dottie / City lights call my name / Drawn to the flame / And I’m feelin’ kinda naughty / I hit the ground running / Step out the door and I’m stunnin’ / Better hold tight cause you know what’s going down / Settin’ the pace ‘cause this is my town /

Okay. That bumper came in hot. Whew. What up Wednesday? Keely Dunn, FHumpires, good to see you all. Uh, other than the fact that I just blew your ears out with that bumper, I hope the sound is okay. Do let me know. I've got my Discord open for mods. Things are a bit of an s- show over here. I had to re-install Ecamm about a half an hour ago, so yeah, it's been great.

Uh, everything's fine. We're I mean, I just don't know what's going to happen when I press my stream deck buttons, we could get the next scene. We could get total chaos. We could get dogs and cats living together. I don't know. I am really glad to see you all. Thank you so much for joining in today. We have some fun things.

To talk about, as we always do, we're going to go through a five metre situation that seems to a flummoxed the internet. We're going to talk about interception of aerials. I think we're going to talk about this one every week until, you know, probably every week happens. We're going to talk about a red card that nobody seems to have like looked at, probably cause it wasn't a red card, but was it a red card?

I mean, we're getting super, super esoteric here and I wanted to get your input on what you do in the off-season. So. Gang. I'm seeing lots of friendly faces is always in the comments. It's always so good to see you. Hi, Cathy York. Marcos is here. Hi. I think he might be new, and Godders enjoyed the huddle on Monday. Thank you so much for always coming in and all that.

Um, I am not a legend. I had no choice, but thank you. Let's get down to business and let's see what works. It's going to be fun, y'all. It's going to be fun. Okay. Everything we're talking about is going to be from the matches of this weekend, England vs. Germany, and there was a five metre situation that just seemed to really confuse a lot of people.

The penalty corner is given Sophie running absolutely dead straight from five metres out.

He's the boss. So he steps in pedals and then goes down. He hasn't gone back. Yeah. It's all changed his life. I can't get mine. So by staying in the same lines, we're looking at the five metre rules. If I stayed in the same line, the defendant is effecting the runner with the ball full stop. Cause he's not bailed out one side of the ELA step forwards five because of weather doesn't line is then the tackle.

Isn't five. If the ball style is on the dotted line is inside the dotted line. The dotted lines, five metres, the defender is in the space. He sucks him out by moving and now the tackle is within the five metres. So, oh, that's easy influencing the movement. I mean, to me, that's a corner. Well, we'll say, Sarah

Wilson has a better handle on these things. My interpretation of that is the defender is influencing play a starter within five, the back away line did y'all see what Sarah just did. There influences the ball carrier. I stood up the decision for you. The player is five metres from the bowl of seeking a word to keep it a fatal.

Thank you.

Simon's being really hard on himself because he does get a few more of them right than. You know, then he imagines. This is my little replay. That is the start of the situation. Okay. The German player bites and then steps back. And then the tackle has made. Let's hear from you all. I would like to know what your thoughts were.

We did discuss it a little bit in the Discord server, because many of you were watching the game live. We weren't doing a watch party, but we were hanging out, you know, as, as the kids do on the internets, having a good time,

enjoying a beverage, enjoying the match. And I did get asked about this one on Twitter.

So I would love to hear it. Just double checking. Is that in the moderator section? No. Okay. It's still quiet on the, on the comments, but that was the key moment for me. I realized what had happened when Sarah stood up and literally looked over at the pitch,

looking over. What I did. And I assume that their video booth is up in a way, uh, in the stands there. Rachel David's magical word comes out in the very first comment. Thank you very much. You're a legend. It needs a good angle, but the attacker wasn't going directly in, so always more than five metre total.

Thank you so much. Okay. We can go onto the next topic, just like that. That's all we need. The problem with the replays is that they were only shown from the F the straight angle. So I am not dumping on anybody in any way who only looked at that angle and said, oh, that looks like he's going straight. And everything is compressed into this.

And so you can't discern that five metres very well. Okay. Uh, Mike, perpendicular to the dotted line, then it would be a PC, but the forward doesn't run in a straight line. Well, he runs in a straight line, but he doesn't run the line. That is the shortest distance between the dotted line and the five metre circle,

does he. He runs at an angle very straight, but not that shortest point between a and B. Yup. Not the direct line, which five metres would be measured on says Godders. Thank you very much. Yeah. Perpendicular line. Yeah, absolutely. Hey Mr. Milford, uh, 10 games and a penalty stroke competition in four days. Sounds like you're slacking off.

I mean, I heard what Sam did last weekend and I think that this is just a little light. I hope Sam's here tonight. Who knows? Yes, we will see you very soon. Oh yup. There Sam and Nik. Uh, it was great to see the photos. Thank you very much. It makes me feel like I'm still not there. So there you go, gang. That is the key point,

okay, that I wanted everybody to notice, and this is why our angles are so, so, so very important. Okay. Is that the German defenders offset. Now, if the decision was made because the German player jumped and that influenced the play and didn't manage to get back properly in such a way that you would allow play to continue, that's different, but arguably he stepped back to that point

that was five metres. Which is actually a little bit inside of where the circle line is and that's where he's able to tackle from. So there's the moment at which he bites,

and that's the five metres away.

So it's really, really important when you're watching. I know I've said this a couple times, you know, one or two times before in the past, it's really important when you're watching to, to try to shut down the words from upon high. I'm not saying that the commentators are always making mistakes.

Absolutely not. They're often getting it quite right, but it's just like, if you're going to use these matches as an umpire preparation exercise, if you're going to use your brains and you're going to think about and apply interpretation and rules, you have to simulate it as if nobody is in your ear and the radio and telling you what the call is.

And I've always been interested in the idea of umpire coaching, where as a coach, I could have, you know, audio contact with an umpire on the pitch. I D I don't like that idea to be totally honest. And I'm not trying to be old-fashioned about it because I love tech and I love all those sorts of things.

But what does it do to the way that we are processing the information that we're seeing in front of us. Are we able to apply our critical thinking skills if we're listening to what is being told to us. That isn't actually a player on the pitch, who's mad cause we didn't give them decision. We're pretty good at screening

a lot of that out. That's one of the first skills you kind of learned as an umpire is to ignore it. But this to me was a situation where if you simply watch it and you watch the correct angles from it now. Um, I think…

I'm trying to remember who was on which end? I think I have to go back.

Cause I may have clipped out the portion. I can't remember, but, but what you can see there when you see the moment at which either Jakub or Martin are making the five metre decisions. I think it's Jakub who's on the whistle there and Martin is backing up his decision, which is totally fine. But when you look at the angle at which Jakub is to the play, he's at the same angle as the, as the camera's on the, on the slow motion replays, he's in line with everything.

And that's very difficult. Martin is not. So that is why you need to offset a little bit. So one of you has a bit of a different angle. So between the two of you, you have the opportunity to get that decision completely nailed down and buttoned down. Well, that wasn't very contentious. Two-minute warning, gang.

And I think, I, I think I already gave my summary of all those things. To the, the person on Twitter who asked me the question. I hope that you're very unhappy that I disagreed with you. I was, I was told under no uncertain terms that this was a wrong decision. Sorry, hate to burst your bubble.

And it's, it's one of those things that, what I'd like to challenge all of us to do when we're watching is to first see why the decision was made, the way it was made. Not necessarily whether it was correct or not, but you put yourself in the position of, this is what we're looking for. These are the principles.

These are the angles at which an umpire can readily perceive the play. This is the pressure of the situation. These are the emotions, you take all those things into account and you come up to, it all adds up to what is this decision? And from there, you can better diagnose perhaps what might've been the better decision. Uh, instead, or was that actually the better decision in the moment we, we, we kind of leap to the right or wrong very quickly without parsing things out and reserving a little bit of judgment on our parts.

So I would invite you to consider that process. It's, it's very easy because we always get asked and we get told, and we have to tell when we have the whistle in our hand, but can we, when we're doing these exercises and where, when we're examining these plays, can we suspend a piece of that, that, that process and spend more of our mental energy on

the factors and the principles, rather than getting to the conclusion.

There you go. Thanks very much, Jennie, for that. Uh, you're saying you love this. You agree it you'll take my tips as an assistant UM onto the pitch next session. Oh, you're going to be an assistant UM good work. Great to hear. Okay. Let's move on to the next one. Has this ever happened for it's 12:19 and ah, this could be the shortest What Up Wednesday ever. Except I do have a potential red card situation as number three. So who knows. Here we go. 

How to intercept an aerial?

So I've got a couple of situations from the weekend that were decided in two different ways. Okay. This one didn't raise many comments. This is one that I picked out. If you were with us, when we did the EHL Roundup show, we saw a similar one to this. 

Unfortunately. So he was never going to get there. And he's just got into that space and for madness and easy Colt and looking to see if that wasn't advantage you grabbed her, she got shot away.

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this again.

And Jakub has got his arm out. He's prepared to make the decision right from that. So before the ball is even started landing, he's making a decision.

And at the, um, let's see, is this going to work? Yes. And during the EHL, there was a decision that was similar to this, where the ball was coming along the same angle that the two players, the two opposition players were ready to attempt to a reception. And it was coming over the head of the opposing player, the defender, who was attempting and interception, and it was falling further towards the attacking initial receiver potentially.

So my question in this situation, it was my question back a few weeks ago was: how do we handle an attempted interception because oops, this is the wrong, this is the wrong clip because this is absolutely an attempted interception.

Okay. So I'd like to hear what you all think about this, for sure. Good to see you, Andrew. Clear receiver, clear receiver, defender came into space, no safe interception. Okay. That's definitely what the rule used to read.

Tomas: I'm not sure if that's in whites playing distance here, it looks like red is far enough away for a safe interception, isn't moving into white. So the rule, as she pulls up the rule book. Yay. It worked. Yay. I'm not on the right page, but it still worked. Okay, I'm going to try to scroll to, nope, I don't want 13.

I want 9, 9:10. Okay. So here, we've got the rule again. Oops. Hey, it's somebody's birthday today. Okay.

So with the changes in 9:10 here. Okay. We do have the ability to attempt that interception and that interception does not have to be attempted outside of five metres of space.

Okay. So there is no… it… at the point that this is that this play is shaping up. Both the players are running in parallel lines. It's not as if one player is underneath the ball and then the interceptor comes. We're going to see that in the second clip, but that's not what's happening here. Both players are running in a parallel line and one of them is cutting.

You know, the defender is coming underneath the ball first and, and misses the attempted interception because of the ball drops just a little bit further towards the attacking player.

So to me, I'm seeing a play on situation here. There was nothing unsafe about this interception and yes, it could have been within five metres or maybe wasn't within five metres, but do we penalize unsuccessful interceptions, but allow those that succeed. So the penalty for missing the ball here is: you give up a corner, despite the fact you didn't create any danger or any disadvantage to the receiving player.

I mean, he's, he's cutting underneath the ball and he struggles to pick it up because the ball was quite low and then it bounces and then he's trying to catch it on the bounce. That's hard. That's a tough skill. Even a player of Gramusch's caliber, which is very, very high. That's going to be tougher than even just receiving it out of the air.

Did the attempted interception make that more difficult? I don't think so. And then the ball was running away from that. So what I see here is a F a legally attempted interception that instantly turns into an infringing on five metres. And that doesn't seem fair to me. That doesn't seem right. Let me see what you have to have to say here.

Um, Mike, you wouldn't be giving a corner for this. What happens if he successfully intercepts the ball? What then? Exactly. The defender doesn't stop the forward from playing and actually backs. Yes. He backs off because he's like, oh, I've missed it. Now I'm going to stutter, give him five. Okay. Now I'm going to pursue, because advantage was being played and the whistle

didn't come right away and that's a play on for Godders. Play on, unless that white doesn't get advantage. But, advantage means that there has been an infringement. And the point I'm trying to make, Jennie, is that I don't think an infringement's been made here. I think the interception attempt was legal, it just wasn't pulled off.

So we have to, I mean, okay. Let's, let's get a little bit real here. This rule change has come in january 1st jurisdictions like England hockey refuse to play it because I guess they want to watch for a few months and see if that helps them out. But you you're throwing these umpires and these players into a situation, you know, and there's no other way to do it.

Okay. I'm not saying that this should have been rolled out any other way. You can't, but everybody is learning here. So I am not saying this from a critical point of view at all. I am enthralled with how this is all playing out and all the permutations that we're seeing, the unintended consequences. And that to me is one of those unintended consequences, is that it's really hard for us now to call the initial receiver rule.

If somebody comes in at attempts and interception that is safe and not within playing distance of the initial receiver. Okay. Those are the two things that make it okay.

So Luke, you can see the PC being a very hard sell at a lot of these levels and not a decision that a lot of players would be expecting. But it was interesting because the players actually were fine with this one. They kinda they expected it because it's in line with how the rule has been applied for the last 10 years.

But I don't think it's in line with the way that the rule is intended to be applied now with interceptions being possible. So it was, I don't know, Sorsby, I don't know. And it, none of the England players, they had the referral, they could have used it. They didn't, and Germany went on, Pelliat scored that drag flick on that goal and, and, and, uh, pulled up the score.

What was it at that point? I still have Jennie's comments on there. This is interesting. Um, yeah, so that was the go ahead goal for Germany. That was the most important goal. And England there, they've got their referral. Little green triangle and they, they chose not to use it. They were okay with it.

So again, this is a learning process for everybody and everybody gets to see all these things and, you know, maybe weekly, we're going to have an interception situation to, to see. 

I'm not convinced there was a clear receiver. White was in a better place, but red just misplay on. Yeah. Actually red was in a D D the best place would have been right in between the two of them.

And actually, if, if that defender had, instead of trying out here, closer to Grambusch, but actually I think it Sorsby if Sorsby had been able to peg it out of the air, he was actually in a better spot, even than Grambusch, because Grambusch had to take it off the carpet, off the bounce, which. I'm a tennis player.

And I know that's hard. You didn't see the five metre backing off by the defender. You saw a possible five metre infringement, maybe too quick on the whistle. Well, and and Jakub didn't blow his whistle right away. He actually played an advantage, but he decided he decided that there had been infringement, which then leads you to say, oh, he doesn't have good possession or an opportunity to do something good with this.

So I'm going to award the PC. The decision, you know, was already in his mind and had led him to that. But at the moment that the ball was dropping, I don't think that's an infringement. Uh, Cris, the umpire's perception based on his inline position might have been that the defender was way closer. That's a really good point, Cris, that the angle still wasn't fantastic.

Let me see if I can, I can, I can shore this up a little bit. There we go. Um, stick, might've got close to the attacker's head. Yeah. That's thank you for pointing out because that is, that is very important. And this is the trick. This is the tricky stuff that will come in. And as we move on to the next clip, you'll see it again again, angles and all those sorts of things.

It's going to be hard to figure out, um, what is, and what is not a safe interception, and within playable distance of the ball. Okay. So we've talked about this, about how I'm not super entranced with how the word is, how the word, how the rule is worded right now, because, um. Oh, sorry, Luke, I missed this.

This might be a Pibworth rule moment, gang. So I don't want to miss anything. Luke says, did I make this up or did something in the rules doc say that we decide on receiver 20 metre from 20 metres from receiving that is the guidance that accompanied the old rule. We can't do that now. Absolutely not. And if it's still in there, if it's still in the FIH briefing, it's garbage.

You can't because you can't decide anything at that point because something, somebody may swoop in late. And that's why everybody had such a problem with that play that, you know, I've, I've only done on this stream about 14 times from the world cup when, uh, Eddie Ockenden swooped in and stole that ball from Seve Van Ass,

and it was the tying goal in the semifinal of the world cup. It looked right. It looked good. It was like, this is safe. This is exciting. But the initial receiver was Seve Van Ass. By the old rules, 20 metres, you know, you're like, yeah, go ahead. I still argue that it was outside five metres anyway, and should have been allowed.

But when the ball is in the air and there's an initial receiver, does that mean everybody gets to just stand there and wait? That drove the coaches and the players crazy. They hated that because it looks stupid. It looks like the players are giving up. Like all of a sudden there's no competition for the ball.

There's no effort. You have to go from going a hundred and. A hundred percent. I hate the more than a hundred percent things. You've got to stop yourself from you're out there, putting everything on the line to try to get that ball. You're trying to win everything. And then S but suddenly in this situation, the ball is still in mid-air and you have to go: after you.

It was silly, and it didn't make a lot of sense. And that's why we're moving towards this in slow baby steps. And Luke finally knows what the referral triangle's for. Congratulations. Here. Let me fix this too. Some weird things broke when I reinstalled Ecamm, like my comments have, they're not automatically disappearing and I know how to fix that, but I don't want to do it right now because it'll, it'll mix me up.

Okay. I'm a little concerned. This isn't going to be correct. Uh, but let's see. Sorry. The 20 metres was a briefing guidance. Yes, it would have to, but I wouldn't be surprised we can look it up. I can, I can, I can pull up the briefing and we can see, um, whether it's here, FIH briefing,

final key 2021-2022. I'm not going to, I know this is not going to be pretty. It's still going to be there. I shouldn't say that. Okay. What if I do this? Is that going to

Nope.

On the fly because we can, because I made such good time on the first topic. Let's do this now.

Oh, sorry. Oh, that looks good. Hey, you can see lots of things.

Options. Keynote, primary display keynote. If you sing to your computer works better.

It does what you want it to do.

We are all over the place, but we're going to get down to it. We are going to get down to it. I wanted to do this shoot out regs underneath. Okay. Look. It's like it was there the whole time.

Crowding aerial balls, aerial balls. Oh, there it is. Friends. And I understand in a way, because this is the 2021-2022 briefing. And there are things in here that weren't in the rules yet, but they were coming in the rules, but that inconsistency really doesn't help anybody. It's it's it's like there needs to be a consultant with the rules committee who is an expert on technical manual writing, you know, uh, uh, I, I studied, um, editing very briefly, um, gained my professional editing certificate and there's an entire sphere of editing that is for technical writing.

And you, if you go more in depth into that position, genre, I guess, of, of writing you learn more about how to basically track these changes. It's kind of like a mix of programming and, and writing and creative writing. And it's like, they need somebody like that in the policy so that it, we don't have this happening.

But there you go.

Uh, let me turn this off for a second. So we don't get any more confused. Okay. And I'm going to leave this up because Stijn is asking a question about 9.10. Players may be intercepted within the five metres but outside playing distance provided it's safe, but it wasn't, does one revert to the first sentence:

players must not approach within five metres. Well, um, I mean, Stijn, that, and that's fine, if that was judged to be within playing distance. But I don't believe that was playing distance.

Okay. Especially given what playing distance has been given for in prior games. So I'm looking at the jurisprudence and I'm looking at the standards. I mean, Sorsby we can't even reach that ball. It's, it's, it's a little, it's, it's basically at the tip of where it is. If is that considered playing distance for the purposes of this rule?

If it is, why the hell do we have a, you can intercept within five metres. And this is what I've talked about a few times is that I don't think that that should be, I don't think that those two concepts are, are conflicting. And so now you've introduced a. Uh, conflict by the way that the word is ruled at the word is ruled.

The rule was worded because five metres in the context of an aerial, as long as it's applied, directionally is playing distance ish. So why is it not? How can it ever not be both? If it's not both, that means playing distance is smaller than five metres. So this, this I think is okay. And do you go back to that?

Well, um, I guess, but, but do you, because this is the question I'm asking, Stijn, is how do we apply the attempt at the interception, which is safe, which doesn't disadvantage anybody. I'm just going to see if I can change the, the comments. Okay done. It's weird. The little things that don't stick. Okay. So I hope you, I hope you're picking up what I'm putting down and I'm not saying that there's a definitive answer to this, but what I'm saying is we have a definitive problem.

There, there is something that we're going to see, start to emerge over the next few years. Like this is going to evolve over years. Just the same way that the aerial rule itself in its first iteration evolved over the years. So we are going to get to a better and better understanding, hopefully, which is more consistent, if at all possible.

If the rule jives with the spirit of the game, if it makes sense to how the players are playing, that will, that will happen. But if the rule doesn't make sense, which the old aerial rule didn't. You had things happening in a game that the umpires instinctively were like, yeah, that's cool. Like, let's go, let's play.

The players want to get on with it. Everybody thinks it's it looks fine. But technically, according to the D the rule, it was arguably incorrect. That's when the rule has to change to keep up with what the game is showing us, because if it doesn't serve the purpose of the game, if it doesn't keep the players safe, if it doesn't encourage the skill development, then we change it.

Exactly. The logic dictates. Otherwise, you don't have to say both of those things. You only have to include those if they are two different, two different aspects. And that to me is where the, the concept of the. Which I've never been able to explain well, and I've been at it for a year or so, but that where the ball is actually traveling through space and this big tube of, you know, range around it, a ball that's coming towards me this way, doesn't need five metres behind me.

It needs five metres here in front. As the ball is traveling through this five metre tube. That's what I always argued, but it didn't make a lot of sense cause I can't even articulate it very well, but that may be more of what they're trying to get at without being able to articulate it very well themselves, and still using this concept of drawing a disc on the ground, which does not work. Does not work.

The Dumbles, Dumbledore's Army wants to say, you could argue that the players were never more than five metres apart. You could, but they were pretty close. They were pretty close in which case, if, if they weren't, if they weren't ever for more than five metres apart, then there's no initial receiver. And then you go the other way.

But that would have been like, just imagine if that had been a free hit decision. I think everybody would have gone that doesn't look right. So we wouldn't have gone there staying. In other words, Stijn, the defender tries to intercept legally, but fails to do so, detracts, even from the technically best attacker from receiving and controlling.

Do they?

If you then have a clear receiver, but do they detract? That's it. That's what I'm asking. I don't think that that's the assumption. We want to make.

Question mark?

Steffan, good to see you. Okay. So I'm going to keep picking out these scenarios because I think it's really important for us, for those of you have the luxury of not having to call this yet in England. Um, for the rest of us around the world who do need to employ it. But I don't umpire right now at a level that I ever see any of these.

So it's not going to be a problem for me. Um, you know, let's, let's keep working on it because the dialogue is going to be really important. And when I hear it from other sources, when I, you know, hear different angles of conversation, I'm actually, um, actually I'm absolutely going to bring that to you so that we can be on top of these developments for sure.

Okay. So here's the second scenario. Did I get the right one? 

I've won. Number one, running has to the pump now for them as they try and

intercept, you're not allowed to intercept cleanly. Now this will be interesting interpretation because you are allowed just come within the five metres, as long as it's an intersection and all that. There was a green card as well for England. So your Dunkin Scot plus the penalty corner that was prior to this.

So here, the white defender is, is attempting the interception here and succeeds. 

As long as you take the ball down, but it's not Texas. I have a decision for you. It takes our penalty corner and the we'll keep it a fatal.

And oops, whether this is a, an angle situation or whatever, but this to me is where you see the attempted interception is within the five metres. It's also within playing distance and it isn't really safe. And the problem is the explanation that comes through doesn't include those things. Simon only says that you're allowed to intercept within the five metres, as long as you take the ball down.

Those were the words he used. Unfortunately, those are very misleading words in this context. And as we're trying to flush this out right now, um, this was another one that came to me on Twitter, where a person said, this was absolutely incorrect. And it's like, actually, no, this, this. The ultimate decision that's made here coming through from Sarah is the correct decision because the interceptor is absolutely within the playing distance.

And it's the patience of the players here to not be swinging at the ball because the German player knows if he doesn't do anything, he should be getting the call. He doesn't get the call, but he knows he has video referral. So he's not going to get, you know, his shorts too much worked up into a knot. But when you look at how proximate the players are from this back angle here, okay, everything's fine.

But the interceptor comes towards the receiver who is more stationary than in the situations we've been looking at. That that didn't defender does not need to run onto, or sorry that attacker, the German player doesn't need to run onto the ball. He's in a receiving space already. He's been picked out. And

the def and the defender, the England player runs into not only within the five metres, but also within the playing distance, because they're like, they're this close together.

And I think, again, this is just an issue of, of the umpires getting accustomed to this rule on how it needs to be applied. So it's going to take some time, but the omniscient voices aren't always correct. Yes. Mike, for you there's danger and PC is the correct decision. Yup. Um, she will see what they say on the five years.

Steffan, if your daughter is doing her first course, they're not going to spend a lot of time on five metres, right. Who knows what she's going to be told at that level. Hopefully nothing too crazy. This one has to be called on danger. Yeah. Yeah. It's within the playing distance. And again, it's kind of like, you could have just, you could have just said playing distance, or you could have said danger, but you don't have to say them both because really what you're saying is if it's within playing distance, it's going to be dangerous because both players could be attempting to play that ball because it's within playing distance of the initial receiver who is attempting to be intercepted.

Does that make sense? So just scrap the, you could just say within five metres, so long as it's not dangerous, and then you can apply a better,

a better thing. But they had to throw in more words there because they didn't want to open the flood gates entirely.

But now we've got, now we've got a sticking point. We've got an inconsistency. The attacker could have made it. He exactly. He just stood there and went, uh, DERP.

That's not there. Okay. So two minute warning.

So we had two different situations with two different outcomes and what we're focusing on, I think, and what you can be focusing on when you go out onto the pitch is going to be what is safe. If you always keep that in the front of your mind, if you're always keeping that spirit of the rule and the intention of the rule,

I think, um, I think it'll, it'll still work out for you. Okay. Because that's really what we should be getting at. So don't get too caught up in the, within playing distance because safety should still guide you. Okay. They can try that interception as long as it doesn't make it dangerous. And I don't see any reason why attempting the interception, attempting the interception and attempting it safely,

if you miss it, and the initial receiver is distracted or something else from the ball, it doesn't matter because there is no offense. The offense does not exist. It's not the same as an initial receiver and a player coming into apply pressure too early and infringe on the five metres. So if it's safe, if it's within five metres, if the interception is attempted legally, there is no offense from which you are then processing advantage or not.

Okay. That is going to be my, I'm sticking my flag in this one. That's what I'm, I'm thinking. Okay. It's the only interpretation that makes sense within the context of the rules, but I am open to more feedback and more discussion on the Discord servers. 

Thank you very much, Dina! 

Jennie, intercepting in a crowded space is tricky. Yes. But if it's going into a crowded space, that's time! My timing is terrible, my timing's terrible. Um, you're right. If it's going into a crowded space, it's going into a crowded space and you don't have an initial receiver and then you are calling it early. We're talking about those space balls which, again, which you're seeing only at the higher levels of play, where the aerials can travel that distance and the players have the wherewithal to be going into a space rather than into a congested area.

Yes. Um, it, every rule change helps if the umpires are talking about it and explaining it well. Okay. Try to keep it simple focus on within five metres and focus on safety and that's it. Okay. Awesome sauce. As, um, D did refer to you, if you, if you don't know. It'd be really, really nice to get all that.

Especially if you are finding value out of this here, fine presentation of internet wisdom, please do. Uh, get those notifications for things coming up and share with a friend. So when Godders is talking about how, you know, explaining things well, is, is important for us to learn the rules. If there's somebody you know, that could benefit from hearing about any of this, pick out a timestamp, don't force them to watch the whole thing,

cause only us nerds want to partake in all of this, pick out a timestamp and share it with them and the goodness shall be revealed. And also don't forget the Discord. The Discord is a great place to go for more of these conversations and coaches are welcome. People who are just fans of the game are welcome.

Don't be intimidated. There was one coach who said to me, oh, I'm not at that level. And I, so I don't want to join the Discord because you know, you guys are all talking like high falutin' talk and it's like, we're actually just, you know, we're all more looks than brains. So just come on in and make yourself at home.

And you will catch on to the things that seem to be talked about, ask the questions. Cause we're dying to share the knowledge. 

Rosé number three, for

our friend, Rachel David's doing very well. And there's the link for the Discord. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's go on to the last scenario, which I will show you in just a moment. 

And I'm asking the question: when is it a red card?

Hesitancy clever from all. Great.

I just give me a card in here potentially for rural excellence, old grades, jabbing around all over the place. Did you have a clear view on that?

Just over it. And he plays well when he is on the edge. He's just funny. Just

it doesn't look like there's any, now there is a yellow card caught in that there was a big whack of a stick, but yeah. Six to come out of player's hands.

Let's see that's five features and he's still going into direct self-serve. So after this whole passenger players, the whole thing moves forward. There's the trip now? Does he back away at any point? No, he does that very first movement from grocer. If the whistle had gone, I didn't hear it. If it's gone, I can understand.

Did you blow the gate for lead for the train to free? Yes. Yes. So he did bloke. That's what we didn't hear. So if he's blown his whistle and I didn't hear it, then I can understand why it's been given. Cause Cardosa didn't back off

Oh, look at this. Oh, I didn't see it. If we watched the replay, this, we saw why Roy got his yellow card because when he pulls his stick back, what's your.

So, what we're looking for is free. Here. It is here. So this is where the free hits given. Then it only comes in that and he does impact upon the, of all gray. In my opinion, I think that's enough how corner there is no reason to change your decision. It was no five metre in Germany to a phone, and here is my slow motion, very pinged and replay.

So

I checked around, I Google searched. I did all kinds of things to look for whether any supplementary discipline had been administered to Mr. Ruhr after this game and could not find anything. There is no scuttlebutt. There are no questions being posed on social media, the usual suspects of Self Pass or Ritual Hockey or Real Hockey, or blah, blah, blah, all those people,

some for some reason have not put this clip up that I've been able to find yet. Maybe they will now, because to me, this is. How it had been seen in the moment properly. This is a red card.

And you can hear Jakub in the moment asking, you know, did you get clear eyes on that? Because Jakub didn't. And so he's like, okay. Okay. Okay. And one of the mechanisms that is, that we have available to us umpiring. Levels is the technical team. The technical director has the ability to enforce the code of conduct that all athletes, coaches, umpires, volunteers sign in regards to how we conduct ourselves, including moments on the pitch. And in the FIH pro-league regulations.

They talk specifically about how this can be looked at afterwards, and I don't know why it hasn't been. And the black-hearted cynical human sitting in front of this microphone can't help, but wonder as to why.

To me, it, I mean, the stepping on the sticks so that the rounded part flips the stick up. He's like, he's making it easier for him to take to, you know, to pick up a stick from the ground. That wasn't a, you can't have this. Like, I don't know this is, this is how I pick up my stick all the time, because bending over is hard.

So put my, my, my foot on the toe of the stick, flip it up to myself, bang. And to me, the slow motion makes it very clear

that there's no question that Ruhr knows where the player is. Okay. In this moment, he knows the guy's behind him, he's coming to get the ball, his head's up.

I'm not saying he's trying to hurt him, but he sure is being reckless as to the use of his stick and ripping it out in that moment.

I don't like how Albery's going like this of course. Inviting for cards is just, it's just rude.

No need to escalate and be a jerk

But this is something for supplementary discipline and I've seen over and over again at tournaments that players will do things that are reckless with their sticks in the course of play, and a card is awarded. For example, a yellow card was awarded to Taylor Curran of Canada in the Commonwealth Games when they were playing against Scotland.

And Taylor came around from behind, the Scottish ball carrier was falling. As he was trying to play the ball and Curran's stick rode up the Scottish attacker's stick and hit the Scottish player in the face. He was banned for two games, suspended for two games after that and the tournament. And I'm not commenting at all whether that was appropriate discipline or not. Probably was.

But if that's the standard that's applied, apply the standard. It needs to be there. Let me hear what you have to say.

Yeah, it wasn't during the course of play. And even during the course of play, these things can be upgraded to a red, but it's like, well, after it's well, after he accelerates the stick, absolutely deliberate. Yeah. And it was just because it happened a few, you know, a few seconds after the immediate play and Jakub probably's got somebody asking them a question, and this is why swarming is so bad.

You guys, this is why, this is why we're trying to get it completely out of the game. Because stuff happens when we're not looking. My worst game of my life in 2006, I had a fight break out in my match because I had three players, very tall players from the Netherlands Antilles, so obviously they were Dutch players who just were like, not even C, B or C players.

They were like D players that had to loose connection to that arpeggio. And, you know, anyway, three of them came running up at me and I put my hands out the way that I, that we're trained. And while I was dealing with that, at the top of the circle, there's a melée that I don't know who started it. I don't know who swung at who at that point.

And the swarm distracts us from being able to, to have bigger vision, to be able to see everything that's happening and keep our eyes on the nonsense. So that's why we have to get that out.

You think Albery, and that's fine. Simon Webb, you're saying that you think Albery reacted well, he's just been hitting instead of retaliating and kind of run, but he's appealed to the on part. Yeah. It's not ideal. It's not ideal. Like you say, I just don't like that. It's just like give him the card, you know, it's from that other sport ball crap that I'm not interested in.

Um, it's better than what many would have done. Um, yeah. No, it's not something for the video umpire. The video umpire does not have power or remit to review personal penalties. They only are reviewing questions that have been put to them by an umpire on the field. But it is something that the, um,

it is something for the panel. So I brought up the regulations, but of course scrambling. So let's do another one of those fancy stick, uh, S screen shares on the fly. You all were so patient. So why not screen share, but I'm going to change it to dude, to do, to do to, to, to, to, to, there we go. 

So these are the Pro League Competition regulations, is a very pretty… most tournaments don't get such pretty regulations. They're usually just plain and boring, and we're looking for discipline issues. Section nine, don't get dizzy as I'm scrolling super fast.

Okay. So this is where you can find the information. Oops. My comments are still appearing on the screen and not disappearing. Let's get rid of this, Stijn you're awesome. But oops.

There we go. Okay.

So here are the provisions that we'd be looking for. Okay. Personal penalties that they're incremental penalties for, um, for taking repeated cards. Put that right in the corner. Um, disciplinary points, five minutes, receive five disciplinary points, 10 minutes get 10 disciplinary points. The amount of disciplinary points, um, players are recorded.

It's recorded in the TMS and published on the FIH's website after each match. And then, um,

let's see, sorry. Cause this is, this is going all over the place here. I mean, it's, it's, you know, really interesting that they have this very systematic approach and I have heard nothing about these totals and these tallies. But there was something else here. Here's the code of conduct that then pertains to these things.

So what's interesting is it's not necessarily clear here whether the technical delegate or the match manager, if they are responsible for making a report about a yellow card, that is 10 minutes and forwarding that to the Chief Executive Officer

or a technical delegate to further review. Because at any other tournament, the TD, the technical delegate looks at lots of things. If any match footage is handed to them by a team where that team is saying, Hey, um, get a load of this, this isn't cool. Then the TD will examine that, decide whether there needs to be hearing and any other supplemental discipline involved.

It's not super clear in here because they have this codification of the cards that have been awarded. Now, let me just make sure that I haven't missed anything because the appeal jury has to do with, decide, appeals from decisions of umpires, video umpires or technical officials.

Okay. So that's very different. And that's anti-doping. 

So if I took these as being a very strict reading of how discipline is dealt with, the only remit would be, if somebody else, anybody,

submits some material and evidence about a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Match Manager then forwards that to the Chief Executive Officer within two hours of a match. So what I'm gathering from all this is that

got away with it.

Mo, our league started last week. We've not had enough engagement to form a common understanding about the aerials. Sorry to hear that, but it's going to take time. Like it doesn't matter. You could engage the crap out of this right now. There's going to be differences of opinion. There's going to be differences of understanding.

And until you work it out on the pitch over time and mistakes are made and corrections are made and correct decisions are made. Th this is just how it has to go. And we have to approach this within that spirit I think. Cathy, can a red be awarded retrospectively after the game once the full story is unpicked. Usually,

yes. Yes. And it's not that, uh, it's not that a red card is given it's that that 10 minute yellow card gets examined and the match footage gets examined by the Match Manager, uh, in the case of the Pro League, you would, you would have thought. But at a tournament, the TD would look at the match footage and say that ain't cool, we got to talk about this. And that player would be summoned to a hearing with, accompanied by their team manager. And they would work that out.

Uh, the red card in the Hoofdklasse final, it came from the VU without being asked for if you recall. No, it's because the actual decision, the decision was referred. So the accompanying recommendation could be made by the video umpire about the incident around a team penalty.

Okay. So for whatever reason, somebody referred it,

but didn't ref it didn't refer the card. Cause you can't refer a card. You can only refer a team penalty. And then the video umpire is able to make a recommendation. So it's different.

Yeah. I'm, I'm not, I'm not here for that. What I'm here for is just sort of wondering, you know, what is happening in this particular process? What messages does this send? If anybody was paying attention? I know I was, I know other people were and are wondering what's happening with this. And if it's a case that what happens in the Pro League stays in the Pro League, wow. ‘Cause you don't pull that kind of nonsense at the Olympics. You don't do it in the World Cup. How was is best that hockey can be played, and you don't adhere to basic standards of conduct and discipline. And again, this is not shade whatsoever on Jakub and Martin because, of course they would have missed it in its entirety, but known something.

Maybe they saw it out of the corner of the eye and went, huh? Oh no, no, no, no, I I'm pretty, I'm sure enough for a 10 minute yellow here, but I'm not sure enough for the red,

which is something that happens to a lot of us. Okay. So if you have any more thoughts about that, I would love to hear them. Please do pop into the Discord and let me know if I've missed anything. I'm going to put the link to the regulations into the chat so that y'all can look at it. In case I've missed something because I was busy reconstructing Ecamm and didn't have a chance to fully review the regs and put my legal eye on it.

Lay person eye with legal training. To make sure I understood fully how it worked, but I'm a little confused. I'm a little confused because if you compare that to how the general regulations go in any other tournament, that's not what we're seeing. 

So if I went to oops, I'm in the wrong window trying to type.

Oh yes, of course they have changed that link. So we're going to go to our official documents on the FIH website, this stuff hasn't been ported over to FIH.hockey, by the way, FIH.hockey.

So FIH newsletter facilities event resources is where you go for all kinds of fascinating information that doesn't seem to fit under any other category. Bid manuals, host obligations, event manuals, hockey five court specifications, because this is the easiest way to play hockey, but you need entire court specification.

I didn't want to blow an air horn there. I wanted to alert. Event, field specs, med, you know, medical stuff, blah, blah, blah. This is where you get the fun stuff, the tournament regulations. And let's just open up FIH top tournament, top tier tournament regulations, top tier referring to,

usually refers to, olympics, world cups and all that kind of stuff. This is November, 2021. So this is fairly recent and, Code of Conduct and sanctions is probably where we want to go.

Oops.

Admission to field to play, duration of matches. I S I missed it. Sorry.

It's hard to keep a track of everything. There we go.

Um, okay. Uh, appendix 12 provides further information for the TD about the applicationof the Code of Conduct, appeal process, guidelines on the sanctions and the process for hearing and determining any reported offense. Um, so the Code of Conduct does, does encompass things that happen on the pitch as well as things that,

off the pitch, and the Technical Delegate has the ability to impose suspensions that affect match, matches or should otherwise take place beyond the conclusion of the competition. Um, giving notice the FIH Chief Executive. So this, you can see there's already a different remit that's explained here in these regulations, as opposed to the regs that I showed you before.

So I'm a little confused.

Yup. You can only decide on what we see, which is a theme that we're discussing on a regular basis here. Steffan, can the umpire with their question, get some more input about carding? Yup. Yup. Because that's advice that they're, you know, if they're going to take a recommendation about a team penalty and take the recommendation about the personal penalty, they should be able to ask about that.

But. The question might be phrased, I've never heard it put this way, but perhaps the phrasing is, and any recommendation you can make about a personal penalty.

Because you can't refer the lack of a penalty. You can't say should that have been a yellow card?

I know it's dicey, but they haven't really haven't really cemented the verbiage really. 

So would a self-referral on the corner result in a potential red card here?

First of all, the team penalty decision could only have been a corner or not a corner, like only a free hit. So that was the, the, the play that was under question Mike. So, that can't be self-referred. You can only self-refer penalty strokes or goals,

so that didn't give the scope for a self-referral question anyway, but Germany then referred. They wanted to have, uh, input. They wanted to review the five metre decision that Jakub had made, which again, it was difficult to hear the whistle that, of what happened around the centre line, but when the, or the centre line; the 23 metre line.

But once the German defender had stumbled and a free hit was awarded, and then that defender did not disengage and was always interfering with the five metres. And then he got broken down anyway. I mean, boy, you didn't even have to rely on the five metres. You could have just relied on the fact that three players, including Ruhr, from the back, came in and crunched that guy.

Yeah, that's a breakdown. Intentional tackle. Corner easy.

It is an interesting question, which I'll leave open because I'm really not sure as to whether Céline could have given more advice as to what to do about that,

because it didn't work that way. As, as Joep did point out there, was that situation. Remember that time of band camp I'll put it down in the, in the description, or if anybody can find that Hoofdklasse red card, where it was the boom in the Brinkmann stomach. Okay. That the question about the card did not, wasn't a topic of conversation, but the recommendation came from the video umpire, and I recommend,

that it's a red card instead of the 10 minute yellow that was given. I believe. I'm a little worried I'm misremembering now.

Uh, Steffan and rugby, the referee asked for the video to help for help. They can ask for any reason for a play or type of personal penalty. Yes. And that, that would be it. That would be, you know, can you please review, you know, the whole play, which is wording that the umpires are using at times now? Like, can you look at this whole play please?

And it might be that they need to start including, at the right times, can you please let me know if there's a personal penalty I should have looked at,

and give you a recommendation on that? Okay. But it's, it's, it's hard to know, like you would, you would only know that you need more clarification on that if things were very, very contentious. And we're seeing, and you can easily get distracted from asking that question. And the ref watches the footage on the big screen.

Yup. And that's not what, you know, the, the, the umpires are instructed not to look at any screen replays. That's what I'll say on that. 

Joep, it was a yellow card at least. Yeah. I think it was a 10 minute yellow. That was that it was initially given by Michiel, but I'm going to have to review it now and look at that and compare that to what happened in this situation and say, okay, is there, is there something that we can look at in terms of the procedure here, something that could be an included in the umpire video briefing. Something that needs to change in the regulations, because it's very interesting because the video umpire briefing is a briefing and not regulations. And yet it has the effect of being regulations at times, but it's also a guidance piece. It's again, understanding the consequences of what particular pieces of information are called is important because if somebody said, well, look, you just put it in a briefing.

That's not even in the rules. That's not in the regulations that we are bound by. That's just something that helps the umpires, but isn't necessarily even binding. It's only a briefing. And when it comes to something as serious as a personal penalty in the range of a red card, you would think it's kinda gotta be a little more official than that.

It's an interesting question. Interesting question. Okay. So I guess I'm wrapping up that. Oops.

Yeah.

It's so difficult for us to have eyes on the afters and as a supporting umpire, the biggest thing you can do to help out your colleague is not to look at the same things that they do at any point, especially when it's easily within their thing. So if that controlling umpire has players in front of them, they need to deal with who are asking about maybe having a video referral, not having a video referral, whatever, they've got something to deal with,

don't watch that. Watch everybody else, if you can. And it's so difficult because we are, all our attentions are always attracted to what's happening in the hotspot. The more we can keep our vision broad and possibly perceive the danger of something else emerging somewhere else, and then be able to focus our attention on that,

so we can have our best view on what happens. And somebody did point out that it was Martin's card on that. And again, maybe he saw it very fully. Maybe he saw it a little bit out of the periphery as well. And if he thinks that that's a 10 minute yellow card, that's fine. I would be shocked again, had that been a different tournament with a different set of regulations in front,

I think that would have been reviewed up and there would have been a ban. Maybe only one game, but that kind of use of the stick, despite the fact he didn't manage to break, break, any fingers could have broken fingers, so, needs to be dealt with. Okay. And that's the best lesson we can sort of take a way, stay vigilant friends.

And that's time.

And Steffan, you like that with rugby that they do that and they talk it through, but the video can interfere and you don't like it. You think the on-field ask and get help to prevent disruption. Yeah. There's just so much that we can look out in hockey that it makes it difficult for us to sort of all watch the whole thing.

And if the direction isn't good. I, and I mean, if the product, the presentation that's coming from the production truck isn't spot on can get very confusing. Hi Ali. So the trick is you drag it all the way to the front of the YouTube, and then you put me on two times speed, and then you, and then you can catch up.

I'm just kidding. You don't have time for that now, but I do that all the time catching up on live streams. 

Keep the video camera trained…

I don't want to get sued. What we, what we say in the watch parties and, and that, that stays there. What happens in watch parties stay in, watch parties. There you go. Okay. 

The last topic I wanted to bring up is just, um, I'm just looking for some. Some input from y'all. 

Cause I'd like to have a conversation what to do in the off-season.

And now I phrased it this way and I didn't get the scene finished. I phrased it this way because I know that the Southern hemisphere is entering into their season, but you just had an off-season. So I'm interested, Shayne, I know you're in the, in the room. I know you're hanging out. I'd like to hear your everybody's thoughts on what the do in their off-season.

Because for me personally, this is something that I don't, I don't understand the concept of an off-season because we have a four month, maybe five month outdoor season with three weeks break, and then we go into a six month indoor season. And then we have a three week break. That's not really an off-season.

That's like a holiday. And although I really do manage to get myself out of shape in that time, especially if I've been injured or recovering from knee replacements or whatever the case might be. I don't understand this. Especially these days, what is not hockey? Like what is that? How do you do not hockey?

So I want to know from all of you, what you have done in your off-seasons, what has worked for you. I'd like to hear some conversation around it because I'd like to help build a little bit of a, of a program and some advice for all the people who are part of the fhu3t, go to fhu3t.com, that scene's broken too, to learn more about that, because I'd like to say:

keep working hard. Come on, everybody let's keep doing all the things, but maybe you found that taking a two month break entirely, your brain gets to shut off hockey and you go play sport ball, or you go play sport ball, or you officiate sport ball. I don't know. You could do any one of those things. And that gets you best prepared to get back into your next season.

So I'd like to hear your advice on that. You're going to want to go to Discord.com and we have a little, we have a little S a survey set up in the general channel. So I wonder if I go, if I go here and I'll just show you really, really quick.

Yeah. This is how we do it. Okay. Here's the survey it's in the general channel. So if you're not part of the Discord, you can't vote and you can't partake in the conversation. I'd love to hear what you're doing. I have a feeling that we're not normal, this particular demographic, we're pretty keen, but I still want to hear about it because some people are talking about it in new.

Also helped me to say, okay, these are the kinds of things that I can do for you in the coming months. And of course, I'm starting to ramp up my activity activities with the Southern hemisphere folk. Uh, New South Wales group is starting. We're starting to have our workshops and that sort of thing. And Shayne is ripping it up on the scene and all the kiwi umpires and such.

So just have a look for that and tell me what you think, any closing thoughts from all of the fantastically good- looking people. Thank you very much for the link as always. Yep. Some counties don't do indoor and that's. Yeah. If you don't have a big indoor presence than it is an off-season. And I know that some people in, in areas where indoor is available, choose not to participate.

I don't know what that is either. How do you take a whole season of hockey off? I don't get it, especially when it's indoor. Cause indoor is fun. Until it's not fun. And then I want to play outdoor again in about a month. I'm going to be like, oh, I wish I was playing indoor now. I'm so bored of outdoor.

Um, let's see, Rachel, your COVID summer. Nothing now, summer league, if you can get it. Yeah. So there's maybe in your area, there isn't a lot going on and it would be nice to see, sir. You're right on time. I'm about to wrap up. It's all good. And you already answered. Thank you very much. And there's the link directly to the channel. If you want to see where the poll is.

So that would be. We're great. Godders, in the UK, you have a summer league or you have a summer break from league hockey. You like to have a break from umpiring so that you don't get stale. You do some coaching and assessments on friendly summer leagues, but no umpiring yourself. Totally fair. Totally fair. So that's an interesting balance.

Do you step into a different role and focus on that so that you can maybe brush up on some other skills and take a different perspective on things while you're still enjoying the game that you love? 'cause I, I think it's going to be really important for the umpires, especially those who are level three or level two aspiring, um, and whatever level two and level three means. Level, level three is national level.

Okay. So whatever that is in your country, I think it still bears out. Th the, the, the new aerial rules are going to be a big deal and to take off the entire summer without thinking about hockey, without watching hockey, without maybe putting on your thinking caps and engaging actively with your umpiring brain watching hockey might be not a great idea, but I'm not an expert.

I'm not the rocket surgeon here. So I'm looking for your guidance and help and input. Mike, you coached on Sunday. You're umpiring tomorrow, playing Saturday, learning Wednesdays. That's a nice, that's a nice little thing. I am. Let's see. What did I do? I umpired Saturday. I was supposed to play and umpire on Monday, but the game got snowed out.

Yeah, yeah. It's May, it's May and we got snowed out. What do you want? That's how we do around these parts. It's nice now though. Uh, last night I played and umpired, so my back is killing me. My everything is killing me. I got hit in the finger. Can I complain anymore about these things?

And then I have learning Wednesdays as well. Cause I learn with y'all. Mark Cummings, you agree with Steve shift from umpire to umpire coaching. Yeah, cause it's a nice opportunity. Isn't it for other people to step on the field and get that experience in an atmosphere that maybe isn't as high pressure, but still is competitive because there's no such thing as a friendly, we've talked about this.

There's no friendlies. There's no friendly. There is only game.

And you've always used summer league to test new rules. Yeah. I mean, it makes sense, except unless you're in the, in the pressure of it being a competition and people are actively working on it and the people who are going to be umpiring those particular permutations more often, I'm just saying, I'm worried, I've got this worry just in the back of my head.

Okay. Thank you very much for today's session. Uh, thank you for your patience. As I got everything together at a few screen mix-ups but hey. Uh, I worked out pretty well and I hope we learned some more things. Remember, you can always bring your situations, your scenarios, make sure you post the links in the server so I can go follow up on them because I don't always have my eyes everywhere, especially out on social media.

I'm not really great now because I spent so much time in the Discord. I miss a lot of things on Twitter and Instagram, and people don't tag me enough. Like just everything that happens with umpiring, and just put out every jump jumpers and see if I retweet you or repost you or respond, or like, I mean, this is what I do.

I sit around all day waiting for people to tag me. Just tag me. Tag, you're it? No, you're it, no, I'm it. Okay. Bring your situations. I want to talk about them. Um, watch parties. We'll go this weekend. I'm going to schedule them. So if you're in the fhu3t yellow, we have those coming up. And as always, we'll see you next week on the next What Up Wednesday.

You're very welcome, Rachel. I hope that third rosé is treating you well, thank you very much. And. We'll see you around on the pitches. Bye everybody.

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