New Video Umpire Protocols at the Junior World Cups! | #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 140

📅 Dec 13 19.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube

New Video Umpire Protocols came into effect starting at the Women's Junior World Cup, and have applied at Men's Junior World Cup and the first mini-tournament of the new season of the FIH Pro League.

What a time to be alive, says every rules nerd ever!

We're going to break down everything you don't strictly need to know, but DESERVE to, because you love this game goshdangit and knowing your stuff helps you win arguments on social media.

If we have time, we'll also touch on a few clips from the past week, but no promises! There's always next week… 🎄

See you there!

🚨 Sign up now and nail those big calls with Mission Critical Positioning!

⏱ Chapter Markers:
00:00:00 Chair Dancing
00:07:49 Topics!
00:12:05 1a. VR: Misconduct – NEDvPAK Men's Junior World Cup
00:23:45 1b. ARGvBEL Women's Junior World Cup Semi-Final
00:26:20 1c. ARGvGBR FIH Women's Pro League
00:53:31 2a. VR: Let's Restart With a Bully – ENGvUSA Women's Junior World Cup
00:59:21 2b. ARGvGER Men's Junior World Cup Quarter-Final
01:07:36 2c. NEDvGBR FIH Women's Pro League
Where's 3? I MISSED IT! Stay tuned for the last WUW of 2023, I'll get #3 done then. Promise.
01:24:03 4. Breaking Bad (Early) – ENGvGER Women's Junior Hockey World Cup Quarter-Final
01:26:35 5. PC for Aerial Infringement – BELvJPN Women's Junior Hockey World Cup Quarter-Final

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

🎶

#WhatUpWednesday Ep. 140

[00:00:00] Um, pick up the signs. Everything's ready, we're getting everything. I'm getting high, I feel the way. Up on my shoulders, I'm showing it off. I will rise above, so I'm gonna be okay.

[00:00:32] If I can be anything, I think I'm gonna be me. Mmm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm. I know I gotta be me. Mmm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, mm. I'm the one else I wanna go. I'm the one else I'd rather be. I think I'm gonna be me.

[00:01:09] I keep. I'm a gonna find my way with everything. I'ma get it, I'ma get it, I'ma get all the way. Up on my shoulders, I'm strong enough. I will rise above, cause I'm gonna be okay. If I can be anything, I think I'm gonna be.

[00:01:52] Um, umpire, umpire. FHum, ah, yeah.

[00:02:46] Happy WhatUpWednesday, Keely Dunn of FHumpires here. You're the third team. And yes, we're 30 minutes delayed. Apologies for that. Had some significant issues with the old live streaming software and it just. Wasn't going to happen unless I got things fixed. Luckily, everything worked. So I would like to apologize to the following people who have been waiting so patiently.

[00:03:12] Luke, thank you so much. Or I'd like to thank you for waiting patiently. Shayne, uh, thank you very much for noticing the start time reset. I did my best and Shayne, right on point because you have the t shirt that is going to be a big topic of discussion today as we look at the new video umpire protocols that are now in place.

[00:03:36] Surprise! Ta da! Wait, ta da! Is that the right one? Ta da! I don't know. I don't know if there's one for it. Uh, there you go. Um, William, great to have you and let's see. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, very much, very much so. And everybody's got a cold in the Flintstone Cottage. Sorry to hear that, Simon. I hope you get, uh, hope you all get better very soon.

[00:04:09] Scott is here and a simple Merlot. Rachel's not here for complicated today, nor am I. Wait, speaking of Complicated, let me get my soothing music on. Although, let me just double check that because it's a little louder than it used to be. I turned it up and I think it's too loud. Sound effects. I'm not gonna find it in time.

[00:04:36] Oh well. Screw it up. Is Mr. Mac here? I don't know, let's find out. Steve? Hi? Here I am. Gregor! You're here live! This is great! It must be because you don't have any outdoor going on. Um, hello! And yes, I delayed it for you. That's why, Bruce. Thank you. Marcus, Ryan, is here. Stain, of course, is here. An orange flavored That sounds Delightful.

[00:05:09] And there you go. And the balance is okay for you. Okay. All right. Uh, let's just get a couple notes when it's done. This is going to be, I'm, I'm really glad I had technical issues because now I'm mentally like a little bit off my game and this is not going to be an easy show because I'm trying to parse through the new video umpire protocols for y'all using examples But also raised a few things that I have some questions about that I wonder if they were deliberate choices or inadvertent omissions and what that means for other types of referrals.

[00:05:48] And I'm going to be drawing heavily on you as my intrepid translator. Informers, advisors, collaborators, please do chime in when there are things that you notice like, Hey, I have questions too. Ask your questions because let's question and let's get to answers together. So yeah, I'm going to need a lot of help.

[00:06:09] So for announcements today, just want to remind you of the ongoing GoFundThem from, uh, that is being hosted, spearheaded by Anna McClain. Please go to the address. It'll be in the description. I didn't have a chance to get it in there to the YouTube description, but it's in the last few past videos. Um, we're getting to crunch time in the holidays and it's a really good time to be able to give somebody.

[00:06:36] responsibility, and security. So if you have that room in your pocketbook, we would all be very, very grateful for that. And also, on the note of congratulations, I'd like to congratulate this following individual. Yellow team member, William Mewis, otherwise known as Polaroid. I feel kinda, I don't know, I like calling him William.

[00:07:00] Anyway, he's just been promoted a whole bunch of levels. Like, I don't know how many levels. I don't know how this works, but all of a sudden, he is, well deservedly, a level 2 B panel umpire and, uh, with a bullet, may I say. So, anyway, well done. And it's been a pleasure working with you in Yellow for the last bit of a while.

[00:07:23] We've done a few Viki Reefs and I've actually been talking about you and your ability to manage your positioning choices according to, perhaps, who is watching you. on a particular day and how that is a really difficult, uh, execution of that skill. So anyway, just keep on, keep on being you because you're doing a great job of it.

[00:07:48] Okay, here are our topics today. We are going to go through these new video umpire referral protocols. Starting with misconduct. Let's restart with a volley! Retaining the referral. And then I've got a couple clips to wrap up from the Women's Junior World Cup that finished on Sunday including a series of penalty corner early breaks and aerial 5 meter infringement for a penalty corner which turned out to be the play that won the game.

[00:08:20] So. But it was right. So. Anyway. There you go. That's what we're doing today. And, let's, I don't know, let's sort of get into it. Ian, good to have you there, by the way. And yes, thank you for referencing that. Uh, the Discord, if you haven't seen it, fhumpires. com forward slash ds and that is a great place to go.

[00:08:46] We're gonna work through all those, so please do go in there when you have something that you want. We need to get into more detail or I just can't possibly understand in the moment and I need to think about and maybe research and ask some questions and things like that. I'm hoping to get some more feedback from Um, some of the people who've been using this over the last couple of weeks, because the video umpire protocol, uh, came into effect, apparently, for the Women's General Cup, which started two weeks ago, basically, and then was also in play for the men.

[00:09:32] So it was like a journey of discovery because I'd be watching a game with y'all and we'd say, look at that. That's not how it's usually done. That's a change. I wonder if there's been a change to the regulations and, and sorry, to be clear, I'm going to really try to say the word protocol rather than say regulations because that is the wording on the paper and I'm going to assume that's a deliberate choice to call it a protocol.

[00:10:00] Because perhaps they don't want the formalistic balance of a regulation. I'm not sure what the, um, the, the thinking would be behind that, but that's what they've described it. So let's be proper about that. So there you go. Go ask them in that. Thank you very much and congratulations. There you go. Uh, you really hope everything doesn't go as planned.

[00:10:23] You know, that's, that's really mean, that is really mean because I was just. 10 minutes to go time, I was ready just to defenestrate my entire live stream setup and just cry for like a while. But no, you're right. This is part of the thing. I enjoy the challenge of trying to do all this stuff on the fly.

[00:10:51] And also I think it's a fantastic metaphor for what we do on the pitch, which is Do the best with what we can, try not to let the pressure show, try just to serve and get the right results. And if we are as Sarah Wilson described to me once, the depths on the surface of the water that look very calm, but then underneath it, yeah, that's, that's me, except I'm pretty sure y'all see my feet, my little webbed toes, lapping away.

[00:11:25] That's all there. There you go. Hello, Stefan. Good to see you. Um, just here to ask if FHumpire is allowed to disagree with the video umpire after referral. We're gonna get into that. Because I have a very good example of that later. Happened. And, uh, I think I saw that yesterday. Okay, well, it happened earlier in the week as well, the Men's Junior World Cup.

[00:11:46] So, please, uh, let me know which match that was. Oh, actually, that was probably, that is the example I have. Ernst loved it. And the protocols specifically say, yeah. So, we will get to that, and welcome future Stefan. Okay, let's rock and roll. Let's start with misconduct.

[00:12:13] And this is something that we have been waiting for to be added to the regulations, to the protocol, for quite some time. It seemed like a manageable change. Jim, I've got an umpire referral here for an incident outside the 23 metre line. If you can check if there's any serious misconduct there, then I need to look at.

[00:12:43] What's the left elbow from Dylan Lucian? Yeah. There's a stick into the face immediately. Sophia car goes down.

[00:13:04] There has been serious physical play by the Netherlands, number 20. Okay. And you should award a 10 minute yellow card for hand contact to the face. So it's reckless play. Okay. It's not, it's, yeah, it's not violence, but it's reckless play. So it's a 10 minute yellow card. Okay, so this was the first instance that I saw.

[00:13:28] I may have missed something in a previous game, but this is the first time I'd seen it happening in a match and getting called upon. So I thought it would be worthwhile for us to go in and have a look at this area of the protocol, just to make sure that we understand everything that's happening here.

[00:13:46] So, let me see how I can best present this. So, this shows us sort of the first area where the addition, so inside the protocol, everywhere that there is red type, that shows you that something has changed. And that there is an update there, so I'm going to put mine in red as well. So, now, under The umpire referral process, and this is, this is hard.

[00:14:19] I have to look on one page and I have to do my circling on an iPad that is too small for me to read because, well, and then I also have this part. So this is a, this section or these sections about misconduct here are under the umpire referral section. Okay, so these are. The way that I read it, these are the decisions that are for the umpire to refer, to self refer for any kind of information.

[00:14:55] In this first clause in 2. 1, it mentions misconduct incidences anywhere on the field of play. All right, and then Section 2. 2, it's a bit confusing because it basically restates everything that's in 2. 1, but then says it a little differently, which is usually not really helpful when you're trying to make rules.

[00:15:20] Or regulations, or guidance, or anything like that. So, match umpires may refer decisions to the video umpire when they're not convinced they're able to take the correct decision related to the awarding or disallowing of goals, awarded or non awarded penalty stroke decisions, or misconduct incidents, anywhere in the field of play.

[00:15:38] And then it says, referral shall only relate to whether a goal has been legally scored, or if a penalty stroke has been correctly or incorrectly awarded, or if serious conduct has There is no difference that I can read between those two clauses. That seems to be the same thing. But, 2. 2 adds the word serious in there.

[00:15:59] And this is, could be important. Now what we saw in that first clip with the Netherlands Pakistan game. We saw and we heard in what Bruce said and what Jim repeated back to him when he gave the advice from the video booth, were the words serious misconduct. But what we find later on in this document, it's way, way, way at the bottom, this definition here, and this definition reads.

[00:16:34] When I scroll to it, just give me a second. For the avoidance of doubt, the phrase serious misconduct in this document shall mean any conduct which may be considered a level 2 or level 3 offense under the FIH Code of Conduct. But Keely, what are level 2 or level 3 offenses under the FIH Code of Conduct?

[00:16:59] I'm glad you asked, because I have it right here. Oh, I sure hope I have it right there. Of course I don't. So, when you read through the Code of Conduct, Okay, you can go ahead and, you can, you can scroll your pages there, friend. There we go. That's working. But I can't read it, so, just give me a sec. Let me open this up.

[00:17:26] Yay, code of conduct, in a size I can read. Once I get it over onto the better book. It's just been a

[00:17:44] day. It's, it's just been a day. Okay. So. Specific offences, level one. And they say that the guidance here is helpful to illustrate. It's not all encompassing, it's not many. to be an exhaustive list, which is here in this section, but that it is, it should be a fairly good outline or guide of all the things that could be there.

[00:18:17] So um, using language or gestures that are obscene, gotcha.

[00:18:26] Dissenting to an umpire's opinion, something that we saw, sorry, rewind that. Charging or advancing towards an umpire, crowding, any officials. Throwing a stick or ball on the pitch, that's this one here. Um, deliberate, reckless, or careless physical conduct. Deliberate contact between players in the course of a play, okay?

[00:18:54] And that would be here in F.

[00:19:05] Deliberate, reckless, or careless physical contact between players in the course of a play.

[00:19:16] Pin that. Because when we move on and we look at some of the others, everything else in level one is fading injury, uh, overreacting to alleged physical contact from another player, diving, um, abusing equipment, breach of the uniform advertising policy or dress protocol, a breach of the media policy, public criticism.

[00:19:44] About an international match, uh, an incident inside one of those, or any participant or team, etc, etc. When we get to level 2 of the Code of Conduct Let's see if this is going to work better. Yes. Level 2. Okay. Seriously obscene gestures. Serious public criticism or inappropriate public comment. Attempt to manipulate match results.

[00:20:19] Intimidation of an umpire or third person. Okay? Threat of assault or physical assault without injury on a participant or any third person.

[00:20:31] Um, that's basically level two. Level three is threat of assault or physical assault on an umpire or technical official. Um, active violence. It's on or off the field, that sort of thing. So what you see is that level 2 and level 3 code of conduct defenses require, level 3 is a minimum of 5 matches of a ban.

[00:21:02] And then level two is, let me make sure I get this right, a minimum of two matches. Level one offenses are potentially no ban and, or maybe a singular match ban.

[00:21:20] I'm going to check in with your comments just to see if you're, if you're picking up what I'm putting down here.

[00:21:29] Um, the music is too high. Thank you for letting me know I have stopped it. It, it helps calm me down. Okay. So, let's see. Luke, you've read 2 1 is misconduct, small m, and serious misconduct as a defined term. Now you're unsure whether mistaking or writing the word. Yeah, that is an issue there. Okay. So, what we saw in the first video was something that absolutely is the kind of misconduct.

[00:22:01] I think that we are hoping that we are going to be able to aim at and see and take out of the game when it's too difficult to see in the moment because there's too much going on and you're playing advantage and you're trying to get it. Results in, and there's 22 players on the pitch and all that sort of thing.

[00:22:25] This is still a tool that we want to be helpful, but this is not under the definition, under the FIH code of conduct, this is not a level two offense. This is not a level three offense. This is a level one offense. This is something that a technical delegate would review. After the game, may or may not choose to hold a hearing for that player and say, Hey, let's talk about this.

[00:22:53] And then may or may not impose a ban according to the Level 1 Code of Conduct guidelines. And so right off the bat, we have, I think, a confusion as to whether this is serious misconduct. And I still, I, I'm sticking up for the umpires here to say that they should have done this. They should have awarded the 10 minute yell card.

[00:23:25] This is what we want to see in our game. The way that the protocols are worded, it doesn't help them do their job the way that I think they should be able to do it.

[00:23:42] Okay. So that is, uh, a tad confusing, I guess. This was the second time I saw it get invoked, and this was in the semi final between Argentina and Belgium. I have edited heavily. As you know, because there's a lot of sort of standing around, but this is the play. But we can see if something happened there on the sideline.

[00:24:08] Okay, I will check. Free it. Thanks for giving me the feedback on the music, everybody. So it doesn't look pretty, because it's touched there, and she brings it up under the arm, and then into the face as she tries to free her stick. Now, you could argue that she's not looking at that. Melissa, can you hear me?

[00:24:23] I can hear you. In the play, the Argentinian player has run her stick up into the face of the Belgian player, number 18. I recommend a yellow card for physical play, 10 minutes. Thank you very much. She brought her stick up. There wasn't any care as she brought her stick up, but it's a 10 minute yellow. Okay, so, pretty similar.

[00:24:48] Entanglement, reckless use of the stick, a 10 minute yellow. Awarded for this, uh, this area of misconduct and I think an, an excellent job. Absolutely well done there. Um, the last example that I have to show you. I'm just waiting to see if there's anybody who has questions about any of the plays or anything like that.

[00:25:10] And if you disagree, and if you want, I don't want to just talk about the video umpire part of this. You can absolutely, you know, ask questions and, you know, express some feelings about the decisions that are there. Because these are decisions that we have to make without the benefit of video referral.

[00:25:30] And so, what I'm What we're hoping to do is raise our awareness of what these offenses actually mean, what these actions should be characterized as. And what I really like about this is that it sends us the message, unconditionally, that when players are reckless in using their sticks and make contact with their opposite, uh, opposing players, that that is a form of misconduct that has to be dealt with.

[00:26:04] Big cards. Five minute yellow isn't enough. A green card isn't enough. This is a 10 minute yellow card situation. Okay. The last example I had was this, and this happened in the Pro Week. Neil Howard. Good strength from Gza Howard gets rattled at Robertson. Golan is really hurt. Ignore that. The podcast, and this is really negative news from Argentinas.

[00:26:40] Oh,

[00:26:44] Tess Howard. Stick swung around. So, Gozolani instigates the body contact, but then look at this, as Howard falls, stick comes round. Yes, we are looking for a misconduct in the middle of the field. Okay, I have an answer for you. I understand it was a dangerous use of the stick, so I suggest a yellow card of 10 minutes from the GP player.

[00:27:16] Wow.

[00:27:19] Well, et cetera. So, I wanted to bring that one forward as well. Because, to me, that's, that one's a little tougher than the first two because of the degree of control that the player had who made the stick contact. And the whole point of recklessness is that you had the opportunity to take care. You had control of your body, you had control of your stick, and you chose something that was reckless.

[00:27:53] Not malicious, not, I want to injure this person, but I don't care if it does. That is what reckless conduct is. And so I wanted to show you that because we still are thinking about and considering the balance between how much control does a player have when they've been knocked over and they've been knocked over at top speed and whether this is a, you know, a fully, you know,

[00:28:33] I don't believe that the defender makes Good contact with the ball. I think they come in recklessly themselves, and that this very well could have been a breakdown play, but the ball continues on, so advantage is played. And we have to consider at the same time, is there an action that creates, that creates the lack of control?

[00:29:01] And that to me doesn't always, won't always constitute reckless play. But I'd love to hear what you would like to see. Uh, that last one, can you specify which is the last one? Because I have three, so is it the first one, the second one, or the third one? This is the third one now. Is the physical play of these players, in these cases, an automatic 10 minute yellow card?

[00:29:32] Is it not a step up with the context of the match? It is an automatic yellow card for 10 minutes. It does not matter what has happened before. So danger, and I explain this in my, Hey, I can say this part now. So I can say this. As part of my control elevator course, I, when I talk about the RDI framework, that repetition is in one sphere.

[00:30:09] Danger operates all on its own. Danger is not contingent upon repetition. Low danger is low danger. If high danger happens, if that slide tackle against a player in possession of the ball, possession of the ball that takes the player to ground, comes in and takes that player down from You know, they're, from their play, oh, I'm going to the wrong place.

[00:30:38] The high level of danger there is a 10 minute yellow card. That's why that went into the briefing is to show us one specific example where that, that should apply. Danger is completely on its own. Now, if you have repeated danger, then yes, you can step up, but we look at mildly dangerous and seriously dangerous, and then.

[00:31:08] You know, and then we're looking at other things outside of that sphere, perhaps violence and things like that when we get to other levels. Okay, hope that helps. Um,

[00:31:23] red, no, Jonathan. Okay, let's stop that right now. Okay, that is not a red card. We are not football. I am, I, I, I get very vociferous about this point because I seem to have to say it every single week. This is not violence. That's what we award red cards for. In other sports that don't have graduated penalties, that don't have temporary suspensions, they have a binary system where either you get warned or you get kicked out of the game.

[00:31:59] That is not our game. We don't apply the same penalties and the same cards in the same way, so do not ever characterize this as a red card. Unless you see Tess Howard stand up. Look at Gorzolani in the face and then smack her with her stick. We had that last week. We had a red card last week. And it wasn't given as a red card and it should have been given as a red card.

[00:32:25] So you can go back. I will, for everybody watching on the replay, you can, uh, go back. I will link to that particular clip. But to call that a red card is flat out incorrect.

[00:32:47] And you, this is a very good point. The fact that we have three examples over the span of just a few days makes you wonder how many of these calls we may have missed. There's a lot of them. There's a lot of them. And I, I really appreciate the fact that this change in the protocol has come, like, it's not a moment too soon.

[00:33:08] And I don't think it's a moment too late. It would have been nice to have it earlier, but it's coming at a time where we really do need to prioritize and use the facility that we have to help the players stay safe and to take more consideration of their opponents.

[00:33:39] So now that I've discarded the red out of there altogether, do I think the Argentinian Breakdown Tackle was a card? Yes, I do.

[00:33:49] And, uh, at this point Sorry, it's Q1, it's winding down to Q1. I don't think there'd been any cards at this point in the game, but I can't guarantee that. You know, was that a physical breakdown tackle that warranted a yellow on its own because of the danger? Probably not.

[00:34:15] So, probably a green. I would see that. Unintended reckless play is still a 10 minute yellow for you, Ernst. Same with the Dutch player versus Pakistan. I mean, I guess, it's What I'm querying is the degree of control that each player had. If I go back to the first example, how much control did that player have of his stick when he was in contact with the Pakistani player?

[00:34:51] I would argue that's more control.

[00:34:57] And the Dutch player wasn't, wasn't on the ground tumbling and trying to regain their feet and trying not to knock their head on the ground and, you know, all that kind of stuff. He was fully on his feet, had his stick there, and had his left hand, and was careless with the action. The Pakistani player wasn't interfering with his stick.

[00:35:30] There was nothing like that going on. So I think that's highly distinguishable. Let me know what you think. Does that help?

[00:35:50] Hey, Stefan, that makes sense for you. You're planning to MCP an elevator course next year. So protocol. For the tournament, only or being consistent, standard for all tournaments. The fact that this, this is an FIH video umpire protocol. So it started with the Women's Junior World Cup. It was the first tournament that I had seen it being employed at, and then I got my hands on it and it is applying to the Men's Junior World Cup.

[00:36:13] It's applying to the Pro League. It is for all video umpire, uh, tournaments. Involved tournaments going forward. And I'm sure we'll continue to evolve as a document.

[00:36:28] Dave, it's a deliberate action and reckless that could break her arm. What if her head was there. Do you, do you understand what the word deliberate means?

[00:36:42] I, I don't, I D I don't understand that.

[00:36:47] You can absolutely characterize that as careless. I accept that. She is also like, have you ever fallen on the ground? Have you ever tried to control your body and. Have you ever had like a glass of water in your hand and slipped and fallen to the ground and tried to control all those things? And if I hit, if I splashed that water on somebody, did I intentionally splash that water on them when I was falling down on the ground?

[00:37:17] That's not, I, that's not deliberate.

[00:37:26] Um, your earlier comment on the first clip. Let me go. First clip. Let me bring it up so I can watch it. Sorry to miss it, Godders.

[00:37:41] Oh, and it's very small.

[00:37:47] Okay, what would the outcome be if advantage had resulted in a goal? Attacking player paid the pass after his foul on the defender. Stance. It's just like when a team has too many players on the pitch. There is nothing in our rules that redresses and winds back the team awards and the team results to align with personal penalties that have been given.

[00:38:18] We don't have that mechanism in the rules. There's nothing in the protocol. There's nothing anymore for that. Do I think that needs to be changed? Maybe, but we got 99 problems right now, including people that don't understand the difference between deliberate and not. So let's focus on that first.

[00:38:44] I mean, I, and, and, and so, like, let's look at that. In the action of

[00:38:56] my earlier comment stand, but

[00:39:03] if your understanding of how players who have just had their heads smoked in a collision and are then tumbling on the ground is that they have to drop their stick, possibly fall on it, and break their own bones. Like, I just, I don't, she's spinning on the ground.

[00:39:30] Highly reckless is fine. And I'm, I'll go, I'll go with that 10 minute yellow. I just want to show the difference that she's, she's got her eyes closed. She probably doesn't even know which way is up at that point.

[00:39:51] No, Ernst, absolutely disagree. Absolutely disagree.

[00:40:02] Then we have a fundamental problem here. And we need to figure out how to get on the same page.

[00:40:10] Because this incident was reviewed by a top level Olympic umpire. Who didn't have any hesitation in awarding a 10 minute yellow card.

[00:40:24] We have to have consensus on these issues. We have to. This is not a, Oh, you know, let's look at different angles and, you know, I have a different feeling about this. This is important. And this is people's feelings of, of, of safety. Red cards can turn into criminal investigations. That is Very serious. It's not football red cards.

[00:40:56] Hockey red cards.

[00:41:05] I'm just, I'm disappointed. I'm, I'm, I'm just disappointed and I'm frustrated.

[00:41:13] No, I do not see the best in people. Trust me. I generally just have a lot of frustrations, but What I try to do is find Universal things that we look for. Not just a gut feeling that you react to and say, Oh, that's got to be deliberate. We have to look at what caused the action. What led up to it? How much control did that player have?

[00:41:39] Did they make eye contact? Did they look back, see that they were there? And then flick them. We have examples and the more examples we look at, the more we tease out those facts, we can find the principles, the factors we look for that guide us into these things. I do this every time we have a penalty corner for a ball played intentionally off the end line or not.

[00:42:03] And the first thing that comes out of like 90 percent of people's mouths is, ah, well, it was only going one way. What the fuck does that mean? That is not helpful, but I do have a list of about eight, nine, maybe 11 things that you can look at and weigh them up to inform your decision as to whether it belongs on that side of the ledger or the other.

[00:42:25] including body position of the player, how much control they have, how much force did they apply to the ball, did they make good contact with the ball, what direction were their feet facing, what direction were their shoulders facing, how close were they to the back line. Like all these things, if we look at these empirically observable facts, we can then come to what should be a consensus decision far more often than not.

[00:42:54] And that is what I'm looking for.

[00:43:00] So it's not my feeling about Looking for the best in people. I absolutely do not.

[00:43:12] Does there need to be rewrited definitions to have a consistent language of articulation of what different words mean to set the boundaries discussion? I don't know. I didn't know that we had to define deliberate to say she, like,

[00:43:31] I, sorry, I'm, I'm just really struggling. Cause I don't know how to explain this any differently.

[00:43:39] The Argentinian didn't have her stoke hooked. Absolutely true. Bruce pushed it up into the arm and had turned away, but knew exactly what she was doing when she. Drag the stick into the face. How did she know exactly what she was doing? Wales etc. Good

[00:44:02] strength from Ghazalani. Howard gets rattled there. Robertson. Ghazalani's really hurt and this is really negative news from Argentina.

[00:44:19] Oh, Tess Howard's stick swung round. So Ghazalani instigates the body contact but then look at this. In slow motion. It, of course, looks more intentional. It looks like she has more control. She's just been hit in the head.

[00:44:44] Gorzolani's hip. Watch this. Right there. And her hand. Stefan,

[00:45:02] for the third clip of the review concludes the actions of the blue player contributes, would both players get it? No. No. The, the, the, the, the defender who broke down the play would get the penalty associated with. That's what that breakdown of play requires. How dangerous was it to the ball carrier, and what impact did it have on the play, was the repetition.

[00:45:27] That's separate. You're not, you're not sort of calculating the two and then coming up with your own thing. But what that does is inform you as to the level of control that the player had.

[00:45:44] Uh, Gregor, most importantly for red card. Uh, do you both intend to perform the action and do you intend for the physical result? If you're falling, I don't think you swing with the intention to hit her. Okay, thank you. Stefan, the, uh, third clip is a video umpire. You wrote a five minute Yale card to the Argentina for Blake to play and ten minute for the GBR player.

[00:46:06] Yeah, and I think that's fair.

[00:46:11] And Bruce, I, I appreciate that we can talk about subjectivity all we want, but there's a cop out in there where we can apply a much more rigorous process to our decision making. And I think that we can, we can just do a lot better than we do. And stop saying, well, my feeling is, and, ah, subjectively that, and spit out some cliches here and there.

[00:46:40] No, I, I am pushing us as umpires, as the third team, to be better, because I think the players and coaches and fans deserve better from us, okay? That is my, that is my drive, that is the thing that I am obsessed with, and I believe very strongly. that we can do better. We can do better.

[00:47:09] Jamal, if a ball is played dangerously in a player that makes it more dangerous, you penalize the first player. Pretty simple application. And Goddard, simple protocol is best. Game is played in real time. We umpire in real time. Okay to have review with slow mo, but the reference must be back to real time.

[00:47:23] Yeah, if she dropped a stick, she would likely cause more harm to herself. Did she do something reckless? Yes. Deliberate as per violent? No. You're sold on the 10 minute yell card. Okay, there we go. Um, I'm just going to pop to this just so I can see where we're at with my notes and okay, let's go into the next example because the next sort of area of the video umpire Um, protocol changes because that might help bring out some of the other things.

[00:47:56] Or actually, let me just tie this up because we can tie up the misconduct area, uh, this way. And let me get rid of that. The question that I still have when I go through this is that all of the misconduct redlining is inside of The umpire referral definitions. So we know that, that umpires can refer for either serious or, or regular misconduct, hard to say we're, we're still a little bit confused on that one.

[00:48:38] Anywhere on the pitch. So in terms of team awards for penalty strokes and goals, that's still incidents that occur within the 23 that lead to decisions about the awarding of penalty strokes or goals. And the. Um, but the misconduct is anywhere on the pitch. When you get to the team referral, it gets a little confusing because,

[00:49:11] just trying to make sure I'm on the right section here. Team referral. Okay. So here,

[00:49:22] this is really hard. Each team is allowed their team referral, um, for a greater range of referral possibilities and for umpire referrals, but are restricted to. Decisions within the 23 metres area relating to the award or non award of goals, penalty strokes, or penalty corners. To me, that is an exclusive list for all those things.

[00:49:51] It does not mention that misconduct is is one of those things that they can refer. And then the very next phrase here says teams may not ask for a referral outside 23 meter areas even if they believe serious misconduct has occurred. So does that mean that they can ask for a referral inside the 23 meter if they believe serious misconduct has occurred?

[00:50:17] Because I took the first clause as saying they can't ask. That is not part of their, so I think that could be tidied up to make it very clear. I might be completely wrong about that. It might be that they're supposed to be able to ask for this, which still, I think, um, doesn't make sense when you go down to the team referral process and you start looking at what the results can be goal, no goal, penalty corner, no penalty stroke, no penalty corner, all these things.

[00:50:52] And Then this very declarative phrase, these are the only possible outcomes of team referrals. So it seems to me like teams cannot ask about misconduct. They just can't. So if you think I've got that right, that would be great. I will absolutely take on feedback about that. Okay. And I'm just going to pop over here.

[00:51:21] Um,

[00:51:25] let's see, Rachel's still asking about the Argentinian action, which Although contributed, if you read it, would not be subject to review as a simple hockey action. Um, yeah, I, I, yeah, I, I guess not, no. It would be subject to that, but,

[00:51:45] and it happened, it, it would be really weird. It would be really weird if, oh, this is a really good point, Rachel.

[00:51:58] If only the serious misconduct could be addressed, but there was other misconduct on that play, and then you really get into what the definition of serious misconduct is. Which brings me back to the original point as to the seeming requirement that it has to be a Level 2 or Level 3 Code of Conduct offense.

[00:52:22] And none of these are Level 2 or Level 3 Code of Conduct offenses. None of them. None of the, the instances I've seen. So, it's a little bit confusing. Okay. Thank you. That's, thank you for that. You'd still like to see serious misconduct, um, which impacts the play giving an opportunity to review the playing outcome.

[00:52:46] Okay. I mean, that's, that's something that, you know, I'm sure that they can start to revisit and look at, see if they can do it. Um, let's see, factors, speed, visibility, control, reaction to incident, expected physical actions and circumstances. Um, yeah, I'm not sure about the previous century one, but absolutely, those are great factors that we would look at.

[00:53:08] And I, I love that you listed those because that's exactly what we need to do is. Have those on hand. Have them in our brains because we're greasing the wheels to be looking for those things in the moment when we don't have video referral, we don't have slow motion, we don't have the ability to look at something 14, 15, 17 times.

[00:53:27] So, that's really good. Thank you for that.

[00:53:33] But, let's restart with a bully! We have a t shirt. Space in behind.

[00:53:43] Okay, I'll have a look if there is an obstruction or not. So this was Mr. Robert said she thought there was an obstruction in England. Said we disagree, which they're entitled to do. Do it within the letter of the law politely.

[00:53:57] And so the umpire here awarded appellant coron for what they perceive to be an offensive fo. There that's gonna come as obstruction and defenders will feel aggrieved. Note, the defensive team referred it, so the play was stopped because of the decision made. I have some advice for you. You can restart with a bully.

[00:54:19] Because there is no obstruction, and the team keeps its reform. No obstruction, there we go. Close call, and it's given. England's way. So I think this is the first time this happened at the Women's Dream World Cup as well. And so there's a little bit of confusion. And then they have to, you know, sort it out.

[00:54:38] But it actually went, it went pretty well. And they just had to, sort of, skate it a couple times. But, guess what? We now have contested bullies. Back in the game, because at this point, the defending team is like, we're not just gonna give you the ball, because, you know, why? That, you know, nothing, nothing happened that would indicate we need to portray that sportsmanship.

[00:55:02] That sportsmanship. And now it's off to the races with contested bullies, okay? Which is really, really fun. If you're Matt Allen and John Lee of the Reverse Stick podcast, who went into a permanent, semi permanent hiatus, and their big, their big thing was, they said, if the FIH brings back the bully, we will stop podcasting.

[00:55:33] I think, I think they got their wish. It's a little bit, you know, it's, it's that limited circumstance, but there have been a few of these already. More than I've seen contested bullies awarded in the last year of international magic. So congratulations, both of you, I hope you feel great.

[00:55:58] Okay. So Luke, just going back on the last topic, I think what you're saying is in the umpire referral outcomes, it does mention that no serious misconduct could be a result. And yeah, and that's in the, in the umpire referral outcomes, but not in the team. Right. Have I read that? What you've indicated there.

[00:56:24] Hi, Frank. Uh, ironically, you had a similar situation in an indoor match this weekend. Which one? Like, like which scenario did you have where you awarded a penalty corner and then realized you shouldn't have awarded a penalty corner, and then you had to go with a bully because that's the thing. Uh, let's see.

[00:56:41] Simon, you're just glad that you get to see these issues here. Yes. And that's, yeah, let's, let's get to, you know, the real purpose of this. Thank you for reminding me. Oh, these are really, really small. I don't. I don't know what's happening. Um, just Simon pointing out here that, you know, we're, we're getting some reps, we're getting some thought reps in, and thinking about what's important, what are our priorities, what does the rule say, what should we look for, just like how Bruce gave us that list, which is really good, um, and helps grease our wheels so that we're, you know, Smooth out those neurons so they will fire at the speed that we need them to fire when we're out there.

[00:57:30] Um, I'm actually probably going to go out and do some indoor men's hockey, uh, in the coming week and I haven't done men's indoor for a long time and I'm looking forward to it because I want to see just how much watching, watching, watching, watching, watching, talking, talking, talking, all the time. Does it actually help me or am I going to be rusty AF?

[00:57:59] Let's, let's go find out. It's all about gathering data and trying to get as much information as possible. So thank you for that. Apparently it's expensive and they don't want to do it in Cell Central Leagues. Weird. Simon Central should really have video referral. And it implies that teams, yeah. Yeah.

[00:58:21] Because that doesn't exist in the team referral section. Okay. I got you, Luke. That's, that's what I thought. I just want to make sure that I'm, I'm thinking clearly. Yeah. And the red text clarifies, well, the red text is an addition, um, to make sure that they still cannot refer outside, but it doesn't necessarily preclude, like they don't have to, they, they, they don't, they don't have to put the, even if they believe serious misconduct has occurred part because they can't refer for serious misconduct, see what I'm saying?

[00:58:57] I know this is like my lawyer brain working here and maybe nobody else cares about that, but I care about my lawyer brain. Um, let me just make sure. Okay. Um, Frank, yeah, you thought the ball went over the end line due to several lines on the pitch, then realized it was still in play, so you awarded bowling ball, you did it right.

[00:59:16] Okay, you did it right, so good for you. Now,

[00:59:22] This is PC number five. Here's an interesting angle on this. Minnadeo at the goalkeeper. Germany clear. And there's a break on here. It's a three on two. And this existed beforehand. They were asking for a danger ball coming out from the circle. Can you check for me? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, look for a dangerous ball.

[00:59:42] In a sense, but now There's the shot. So the rules have changed, such that If there's no reason to stop the play A bully is to be awarded instead of the free hit that would be awarded prior. So it was just said, well, the defensive team won their referral, so give them the ball. That's their reward for successfully deferring.

[01:00:11] Which kind of made sense. Some situations kind of didn't make sense. And of course, uh, they're just waiting for, as we see, just limping off towards the halfway line. But this one was interesting, because the ball was flowing with Jeremy, down towards the other end in an overload situation. There was a, according to the commentators at 3 on 2, that Argentina, by requesting the referral, not only got to stop, and yes, they lost their referral because they didn't win it, but then, they got a bully.

[01:00:52] At the five meter dotted line, and they won it. And then they were able to turn around and create a scoring opportunity out of it. So I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that this is something that, you know, is going to be an interesting little wrinkle to catch up on because it compounds the ability of a team to stop the momentum, the forward progress by asking for video referral, and it doesn't just.

[01:01:24] Give the ball straight back to the opposition, but it gives them an opportunity to regain possession. And if you are late in a game, if you were in the late stages of a game, like 30 seconds left, I would ask for a referral every frickin time, even if there's absolutely nothing there. If the other team is breaking away, I'd be like, Yep, um, yep, we want a team referral, please.

[01:01:48] Team referral right away, because now we get to bring the ball back to 5 meters outside the circle. There you go. Um, Frank, uh, happens to all of us. You're wanting to swallow the whistle, whoops. That's not the thing that I wanted to, I wanted the comment to get bigger. Happens to all of us. Okay. Um, Stephane, can you request the contested bully to be taken outside the 23 meter line?

[01:02:26] I mean, you could ask, but there's absolutely no grounds under the rules why it would be. for an incident that happens inside the circle. The bully must be taken.

[01:02:42] Let me get rid of that. The bully must be taken. Is it in the bully section, everybody? Let's see if I'm right.

[01:02:55] Do do do do do. Okay, right here? Okay. The bully takes place to restart the match when time replacement stopped for an injury and no other reason. Do do do. Um,

[01:03:10] and then this. A bully is taken close to the location of the ball when play was stopped but not within 15 meters of the back line and not within 5 meters of the circle. So you can't request it to be taken far away. Okay? No. Um, that's as far as it can get taken from Circle. I hope that helps. I just said it?

[01:03:34] Uh huh. All good. New rule. Youngest player on the team takes the bully Confusion Goaler. There you go. Um, you could argue this is recklessness as a result of breaking a play. No. I think you'd be, no, because, because you're not committing a foul against somebody who's in possession of the ball. Or, could have possession of the ball.

[01:04:06] It's not. It doesn't fit that. But is it a potential form of misconduct? Just like so many other forms of misconduct that aren't explicitly listed in the rules? Yeah, sure. Why not? Taco, if the referral was lost, the bully should be taken to the place the ball was at at the moment of the whistle. But if it was inside the circle, it can't be taken there.

[01:04:31] And it's, I see what you're saying, but no, you can't. Because That, that would just introduce all kinds of potential shenanigans.

[01:04:52] Because if it takes a couple seconds for the players to get the attention of the umpire, is it their fault that the umpire doesn't see that right away? No. No, I see what you're saying, but I don't think we can do that.

[01:05:14] Was the men's bully even valid? The ladies hit the sticks first, the men did not, unless it was the fastest bully ever. It was a pretty fast bully. I didn't even look at it, man. 99 problems, Simon. I got 99 problems right now.

[01:05:30] But hey, no, I mean, it's, it's worth, it's, it's worth looking at.

[01:05:47] Let's see if I can get to the bully part of it.

[01:05:56] Watching very carefully.

[01:06:05] Yeah, it just happened really fast. And that's an interesting illustration. Let me just say, or, tangent for a moment, that we had that super duper close up. of the sticks. And you think, Oh, that's going to be so good. We're going to be able to see everything. You can't see. It's actually harder to see something happening at speed up close than it is to be able to back away from it for, for back away a little bit from it.

[01:06:35] And that's why when people are 60 meters away, sometimes they can see feet that people that are five meters away can't see. So we can always be all like, coach, you're way over there. There's no way you could see that, but maybe they could. Maybe they could, and the fact that we were standing right over it was the reason that we struggled to see it.

[01:06:58] There you go. And anyway, just had a little, a little look over. Don't forget, if you're enjoying my frustrations, if you're liking my special effects, if you like the fact I can draw on the screen. Oh, wait, see? If I can draw on the screen. Sorry, Nazmi. I didn't mean to draw on you like that. That was really rude.

[01:07:20] If all that's impressive to you, please give it a like. I'm not very good at asking for this, but I am asking right now. This is the last example, and this is where Fraser messaged me. I picked this message up early in the morning and I was on the right frame of mind for it. I was almost as angry as I was about tennis.

[01:07:44] And what turn can't get there? Gibby, Aspie, foot in the

[01:07:54] Last play of the quarter. The horn has sounded. So we are in extra time. Sanders was under the mask,

[01:08:18] and if you think we're looking at the same place several times, you should have seen it. There's no what advice, possible advice possible. So stay, go with your decision. You may restart with a bully in the 15. Okay? The much is finished, Monte, but there's, there's no advice possible. So, that was, I mean, this is one of the most convoluted, difficult, and changes that have, that have come about because of all this.

[01:08:54] Because we also have, in the whole rules of hockey thing, let me see, I'll pull it up this way. Um, we now have conditions, the conditions under which penalty corners are completed no longer include the award of a bully. So, if we look at, uh, 13 5,

[01:09:24] this changed in the 2022 Rules of Hockey, question mark? The Pibworth Rule that took away subclause G, which said when a bully is awarded. So if play were stopped for no reason, other than perhaps an injury or the play was stopped mistakenly by an umpire because they awarded a penalty corner that turned out not to be a penalty corner, or in this case, a video referral is asked for, which was not successful, then normally you would award a bully.

[01:10:03] But at the end of a quarter, a bully doesn't end the match. And this is spoken about in greater detail. In this monstrous section. And I don't even know if I can possibly underline the right parts, cause I'm gonna do that thing where I look down on my glasses and it's not gonna help because I'm not wearing progressives.

[01:10:29] But let's see. It's this whole area here. If players stop during a penalty corner either because of a team referral, because of a decision by a match umpire before the penalty corner has been completed, and remember the penalty corner is going to be completed if one of the conditions of 13. 5 occur. A goal, a penalty corner, a penalty stroke, ball goes five meters outside the circle, ball goes over the back line or the sideline.

[01:11:04] That's all five of them, right? I think I'm missing one. Anyway, um. In accordance with rule 6. 5, which

[01:11:21] 6. 5 then also reaffirms

[01:11:29] right here in the case of the award of a penalty corner in case of award at a, of a bully at a penalty corner without any of the conditions of 13. 5, which we just reviewed 8 to F being completed, then the penalty corner is retaken.

[01:11:48] So pull this bad boy up again. So this includes when an umpire is awarded a non justified retake of a PC. Therefore. Uh, let's see. If play is stopped, and a retaken PC is awarded, and the defending team can only refer the decision if, yeah, that's not the part. However, if there's no foul by the team, then the PC will be retaken, but the defending team will not lose their referral, as there was no foul by them.

[01:12:13] If the team referral was made by the attacking team, that situation we just saw, and the referral is in their favor, the match restarts with penalty corner, and the attacking team would take the referral. But, if they don't win their referral, then The play has been stopped for no reason, like we saw in the other two cases, so a bully would normally be awarded.

[01:12:33] But because a bully can't be awarded in this case, it has to be a retaken PC.

[01:12:42] Do I have this right? Please let me know. I will post Actually, this has already been posted in the Discord server, but I have to put it in the resources section to make it very easy to find. We have a nice resources channel that helps us easily get to the FIH stored posted rules of hockey and the regulations and the rules of indoor and general tournament regulations that you can refer to that may be persuasive in your jurisdiction if you have nothing that overrides them.

[01:13:16] All that kind of stuff. It's all there in the Discord server. Very helpful. So let's see what your comments are saying right now and let me put up a pretty picture that makes it more interesting to look at.

[01:13:35] I, look, I can see it, but okay. See, it's not, this isn't working.

[01:13:49] In the circumstances where the referral's tactical, so we're, we're back to the, the last clip, um, where the other team has broken away, could it be described as a breakdown? Which is the question that, um, I think Youp had, but 6. 5 aces close to where the ball was when play was stopped.

[01:14:18] That's a good point. Let me have a look at it.

[01:14:35] Hmm.

[01:14:46] It's a good point, and I think I have to think about it more because I think the point is still valid, that the ball could be, you know, all over the place, but in this situation, this particular situation, the language is not meant to allow for a delay with things. It's supposed to say, this is where the thing that was happening, that you don't You take it to the other end of the pitch, you take it to where the thing was happening and the thing that was happening was the incident which is being referred.

[01:15:27] That's the spirit, I think, that underlies why the ball is taken where it is.

[01:15:35] Because this language doesn't contemplate what's happening with video referrals. Because this language hasn't changed for, I don't know, a couple decades? It's a good point though. I like it. There you go. Um, just putting that back up and you'll come back later. Thank you very much for being around and your contributions.

[01:16:06] Look at the outcomes of 5. 4c, a bully is not listed as one of the outcomes when attacking team lose a referral. So you think play should have started with, restarted with a 20, 50 meter restart. Okay. Let's, uh, I'll be your Huckleberry. Let's have a look at this

[01:16:30] and let's move on to 5. 4c.

[01:16:40] Okay.

[01:16:44] In the event of no evidence possible, which is what we had there, the referring team retains the right of furrow, which they did. If there's no clear reason to change the, okay. So am I on the wrong 4. 5c?

[01:17:08] Yeah, I think, I think I'm lost as to where you were taking me. So there you go. And just refresh. I'm sure there's other likes in there. I see 20 though. So thank all of you who've given me 20 of these.

[01:17:26] Um, there you go. A very early like from Keely. Thank y'all. Uh, so now what about the Pibworth rule? Exactly. Pibworth rule! If no advice possible and otherwise would be a bully, you must go back to the PC. Yep. So, so are we Did I get it right? I don't know, I feel, I, I'm shickened. I'm shickened. I don't know. Um, everything you've read so far, the correct result is to restart with the PC there.

[01:17:55] But the attacking team lose their referral, but they didn't because there was no advice possible. So you can't, you can't penalize them. By losing the referral when there was no advice.

[01:18:11] Yep. Okay. Which you say, you don't think an attacking a referral should ever result in a bully, uh, it's either a PC or a free hit. Um, yeah, but, but that's not the case anymore because the regulations have changed. I think you just showed up, so that's okay. You might want to scrabble back. Okay. If they lose, they lose the referral, but they get another go at the PC.

[01:18:38] Has some logic. Yeah, but it's, but that's not. That's not what the regulations, what the protocol describes.

[01:18:48] So yeah, that was really, really complicated and difficult and, um, for Jono's second or third game in the Pro League, I mean, one hell of a baptism by fire, uh, and all that kind of thing. And, and with this just changing, to me, it's not extremely clear. In this whole section of 5. 2 in the video umpire protocol, they could have been more specific in laying that out.

[01:19:22] So that would have been helpful.

[01:19:28] They lose the referral, but, um, uh, Herman said no advice possible. I have to be careful. If I press the buttons too fast, I will ruin everything. Okay, there's the horn. And the third, to back and

[01:19:53] With your decision, you So, so So, stay

[01:20:03] There's no Wi Fi, it's possible. So stay with your decision.

[01:20:12] Uh, in 5. 4c, with the results of the bomb, it doesn't mention a bully.

[01:20:23] I'm, do I not know what 5. 4c is? Because I don't see.

[01:20:33] I, I, I'm sorry, I'm, maybe we need to take this into the, into the server. Because when I look at this,

[01:20:44] that's A, B, C. That's 5. 4, so what? I, I don't understand. They did not replay another PC, they just walked off the field. I think they didn't know what to do.

[01:21:11] Are you saying it's all at the bottom of this?

[01:21:17] All this section? Okay.

[01:21:22] Uh, sorry.

[01:21:27] So the attacking team loses their right to refer if blah blah blah blah blah.

[01:21:37] I, I, I'm sorry. Oh yeah, the continuity is driving me crazy.

[01:21:49] So this is about why they lose the referral, but that's what 5. 4 is about, right? 5. 4 It's about whether they lose the referral, not how play is restarted. So,

[01:22:06] I'm still confused as to how this is applicable. But,

[01:22:12] but let's continue that discussion. I'm trying to find a way to sort of wrap it up and move on without knowing how to deal with that a little bit more. Um,

[01:22:25] it's, I think it's a good movement, but I think we just need a little more precision in how things are laid out. They could be laid out more clause by clause by clause style and with simplified language instead of it all being a big paragraph, which is difficult even for me to read. And just imagine how difficult it is for somebody who doesn't speak English as their first language, how difficult that is for them.

[01:22:55] So, um, that would be. That would be tough, right? But those are some of the examples of how the new video umpire protocols have come into play in the last, in these three tournaments that either have just concluded or are going on right now. And I hope that either befuddles you entirely, or I prefer that there's some clarity as to how that is moving.

[01:23:23] But what I really like is the indication that The rules committee is trying to move forward with suggestions that are coming from the community. The idea of addressing misconduct with using the power of video referral is Really, really positive and should be applauded. It's not something that you can do lightly, but it, I think, means a lot to the sport.

[01:23:49] And I think it's really going to help us moving forward with, um, making the game safer and better disciplined and not going down the route of some other sports. Let's quickly look at a couple of other things, wrapping up from the Women's Junior World Cup. There's nothing to sort of vote on or see here.

[01:24:10] I just wanted to show you because it's really interesting. Stoffelsma and Hahn goes to Stoffelsma. Good save. Reward.

[01:24:25] So what actually happened is that right side attacker, this right side attacker here, okay, who came, who came from this position, this one over here, broke early. So the injector must go. So a new injector is coming in to take their place.

[01:24:50] The English defenders are like, but they get another corner. I think they just need to concentrate here. There's no need to get involved.

[01:25:02] He would, he's been good to this point. He needs to focus back in. New injector is Juliet Hemmeler. Only one at the top. It's Stoffelsma. And she did it again.

[01:25:22] So that injector now has been sent to the center line. The question sort of arose in commentary as to whether the original injector could come back and retake the penalty corner. And my understanding of the rules is no. And that is, in fact, what happened in this case here, is that a third injector needed to come in.

[01:25:45] Because those players are removed. from the play.

[01:25:56] And she managed to time it right on the third time. Yeah, it's a no poll Wednesday, sorry. With all the technical problems I had, I couldn't even set up a poll for, for the things that were,

[01:26:14] that we could have, we could have talked about. But there you are. Don't worry, it won't happen again. Won't happen again. Any questions about that? It's a pretty rare thing to see the retake happen. Twice for the attack seen it a few times for defenders breaking early.

[01:26:36] Okay, and this was a Call you can inform Tell me what goes long when you watch this, this is the trickles out that'll be it last few that's will be it Between players Um, Belgium are asking for penalty corner for being within the five.

[01:27:11] I know.

[01:27:23] And worth a shout anyway, with the referral, considering we are And I think what we can attribute that to In the final seconds to make the situation is that the instruction would have come over the radio, and may have been a little This is a giant call late, and then it has to get translated in the brain, and then the video umpire.

[01:27:41] So, this is one of the reasons why I do like when umpires talk to each other in the supporting umpire. It's specifically empowering to be able to stop the penalty corner or fire team. It makes me nervous AF, but I can see why the timing works better that way. Because there is no maximum number of players on this.

[01:28:12] Okay. You can restart with a penalty corner. Wow. And Belgium keep their referral. Okay. Thank you. Oh, wow. Why are all the comments coming so late? I'm just gonna come back. Oh, was it this one? It was this one.

[01:28:35] I was late to the party and then you were late to the party. But on the injector breaking early, it is, is the hand signal the PC or is it just a blow the whistle?

[01:28:48] You re award the PC. Yeah, you reword the PC in order to, to restart. And I know that doesn't, some players get confused by that, but that's the best way to do it. Otherwise they have no idea why you're blowing the whistle. And you have to be really careful about how you wave that injector to go to the center line because it can look like you're giving a free hit for the defense.

[01:29:10] That is not what you're doing. So I actually always take my right arm and I, I open my palm. I'm like, I would offer you the opportunity to immediately go to the center line. Here you are, go over there. And then it,

[01:29:29] it was there.

[01:29:36] Okay. Are there any other comments on this one before I go back to the five meter aerial decision? And then it's going to be a 20 to 25 second delay. Thank you, YouTube, until we get to it. So should I just wait? Just wait? This way? Okay. So this is now the replay of the five meter aerial infringement and this, uh, is Mike's comment here.

[01:30:07] So we've had this discussion in the server and trying to parse out the difference between an interception attempt and an infringement because both those things could be, could look the same. But you would handle differently when it comes to intent, because the intent of an intercepting player, pardon me, is not to break the play down.

[01:30:41] What constitutes a non reckless attempt to intercept the ball? And I think what we, Mike please correct me if I've got this completely mistaken, but we talk about Whether the interception attempt can be within the 5 metres, we know this. So long as it's still safe and not in the playing distance of that initial receiver, the interception should just be considered, if it fails, it's just a non intentional foul that infringes on the 5 metres.

[01:31:26] However, if it's within playing distance and or dangerous, to the initial receiver, that we can consider to be an intentional or reckless infringer because it's reckless as to the danger that it puts the initial receiver in. Do I have that right? Let me know.

[01:31:50] Okay. And so factually in this case, you know, we can talk about whether, you know, parsing that through, whether this was the, what we would want to look for is whether the Japanese player, the defender who is attempting to intercept the ball, are they intercepting within playing distance and or are they making it dangerous to the initial receiver?

[01:32:14] If they are, I think we can still call that, we can call that reckless as to the result of breaking down play. But if not, it's just a failed interception and it's just a free hit. That would have presented, if that had been the decision, that would have presented the video umpire with a difficult decision, because she would have said there was a foul on the play, but it's not a penalty corner, and therefore, you know, you could, it's, it, it, I, I've never quite understood if that's now a wrongful referral, or if that's just a lost referral.

[01:32:49] Play restarts with a free hit to the attack. With 0. 9 seconds left on the clock, or I think it was at 9 seconds left on the clock, and the attacking team, Belgium, lose their referral because they don't get the result that they are permitted to ask for.

[01:33:13] Does that make sense? Do I have that? And so that's the thing, right, Gregor, is that there is a foul there. That the attempt at the interception failed, it disrupted the attacker, so the redress would be a free hit to them. Because it was a 5 meter infringement, but do we declare it to be an intentional, reckless as to the result of breaking down play, therefore a penalty corner, because that's the only result that Belgium can ask for in this situation.

[01:33:49] And so for Godders, that was an unintentional interception or an unintentional infringement, but it was an infringement because it was safe and did not impact, I mean, I, I don't know. I think it disadvantaged the attacker. But it didn't endanger the attacker, and it wasn't that reckless factor in there.

[01:34:11] Yeah, very weird situation. Did that make sense? So, for Ernst, it, hey, if you see that as being within playing distance, you know, okay. I'm not, I, I'm not sure from, from two angles it is, but when I look at this angle, that is not playing distance to me. So, it, but, you know. It's, it's right on the edge. What I more wanted to explore was the idea of how do we determine what a five meter infringement is and what a recklessness to the result five meter infringement that we would upgrade.

[01:34:52] We would either give a card for outside the 23 meter area or we would give the penalty corner or the penalty stroke inside because we need to get standardized on this. Ernst and I did a whole show about it. You know, it was Ernst, it was my most popular live stream or my most commented on live stream of 2023 YouTube told me.

[01:35:12] You can go look for it. I will put up a little card in a corner over that way saying, go look for this live stream. It's really good.

[01:35:26] So that's what I think that's what we look for. Does that make sense? So whether that changes the outcome here, isn't the material point. It's that we're, we're working through the principles of the situation because, uh, getting more certainty and understanding how these calls come about will be really helpful for our.

[01:35:47] consistency when we're dealing with these decisions. For Stane, it wasn't within playing distance. Yep. And tries to intercept against the ball's course. Okay, that makes sense. Playing distance needs to be measured body to body because their sticks are closing the space between their bodies. Yeah, that confuses the issue.

[01:36:05] But, but to me, that's, that's pertinent to playing distance. So, if the ball was in front, of the Japanese player where she attempts to intercept it. Her playing distance is in front of her, the Belgian's playing distance is in front of her, and that makes a much more Like, that's fine. And this is what I keep talking about when I talk about the trajectory of the ball and how if it's low and it's coming towards a player, even though she's got somebody right on her back, she, that player isn't in playing distance because she's got the ball coming towards her low here.

[01:36:41] And anything she's doing here doesn't affect the player behind her.

[01:36:48] So to me, the fact that it's dropping in between actually more likely makes it within playing distance. Because that's where the ball is playable, is in between the two of them, not in front of the Japanese defender. Does that make sense? Did I say that right? We absolutely will with 3D skills! Let's go!

[01:37:12] I'm excited about that one. Okay. All right. Thank you so much for joining in. I apologize for the 30 minute delay in getting things done and I really appreciate people sticking around, entertaining themselves, having glasses of wine, doing all those things so that they could be fully fit and ready. For the fun and frivolity that ensued, talking about the difference between red cards and all that kind of thing.

[01:37:41] And Simon, ooh, playing distance in front, that makes so much more sense. I know, I make sense sometimes. Not all the time. Apparently not when I'm talking about red cards. But I make sense when I talk about the judicatory of aerials. It's something I've been, you know, working through and, and it just comes from watching so many balls and how there's different speeds and, and pathways and, and different.

[01:38:05] You know, players aren't just like this, they're like this, they're like this, they're like this, they're all over the place in relation to each other. And so playing distance changes. It's a much more fluid and complicated concept than just a disc that's drawn around somebody on the ground. So there you go.

[01:38:24] I need a, I need way more wine, way more wine. You're very welcome. We will see you in the server for more watch parties. We have the rest of the Men's Junior World Cup, which has been a just a great tournament and just like with the Women's World Cup, the really great Uh, to see a lot of the umpires that we don't get to see on a regular basis and be able to get to know them and, and see how they're progressing.

[01:38:47] And, um, there was one just really outstanding game from the very first game of the tournament, France versus Egypt, that I think really set the tone for what's happening in Malaysia right now. And Nazmi and, um, who was on with him? I can't remember now. Somebody remind me. Those two did a, just a, just a bang up job on that game.

[01:39:13] I was so excited and cheering along when, and bouncing up and down when I was watching the game on my own. And then, um, it's just been a fascinating tournament to keep watching as things have gone through. So we have four more days of that. Wraps up Saturday ish for those of us in this later time zone.

[01:39:33] So please do come and join in the server. Send me your questions if you see stuff on social media that you think I could help out with, or get angry about, you know, just send it along. I'm here for it. Uh, putting it in the, in the server is a great place because we can have a little preliminary discussion and people can help me think a little bit before I actually come out on YouTube and start talking like this.

[01:39:57] And get my, get, get my ire all, you know, my dander. Dander? My dander. Get my dander irked. I'm mixing up my metaphors. The server is a great place. FHumpires. com forward slash d s. Okay. And yeah, I really appreciate it. And there you go. There will be a show next week. Cause I've got men's junior world cup stuff to do.

[01:40:22] Um, I don't know what condition I'm going to be in, but I'm going to do one. So I hope to see you there and, Oh, good to see you, Ryan. It's always nice. Woohoo! Permanently out. What did you burn it down? You don't have to go to school anymore. That's totally fair. That's very cool. Thanks, Frank. We'll see you soon.

[01:40:41] And Rachel's actually going to take a break. Awesome. I love it. All right. See you around. Bye.

#hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules