The New Aerial Rule Trial, Goalkeeper Collisions and Holiday Cheer | #WhatUpWednesday Ep. 166

📅 19.00 GMT
➡️ YouTube

It's a holiday feast with a roasted new aerial rule trial seasoned with examples and an au jus of gloating. Dig into the social media side dishes of goalkeeper collisions and tackles, and we may even have time for glazed experiences in the UK for pudding.

Cozy up in your best ugly sweater with a festive beverage in hand, #WhatUpWednesday is back to wrap up 2024!

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

⏱ Chapter Markers:
00:00:00 Chair Dancing
00:02:27 Topics!
00:08:05 1. The New Aerial Rule Trial
00:48:29 2. GK Collisions
01:13:29 3. Tackling Things

Check out when the next #WhatUpWednesday will go live.

🟢🟡🔴 🏑

Transcript

🎶The New Aerial Rule Trial, Goalkeeper Collisions and Holiday Cheer – Rules of Field Hockey Explained

(Music): I feel it getting close, I feel the joy in the air. Everybody's going home to the people they care for the most.

And I'm on my way, cause you're my happy holiday. Na, na, na,

na, na, na, na.

Speaker: Turning down our road, I'm like a kid again. I can't wait to see all of my family and all of my friends.

And I'm on my, cause you're my happy holiday.

(Music): Oh, everyone we love is here, drinking up the season's cheer. Oh, oh, you're my happy holiday. Hello, welcome

back!

Keely: It's a What Up Wednesday, I just thought I'd throw one in at the end of the year, like, Merry Christmas! Um, I am delighted to be here and I can't believe that anybody showed up. You folks are amazing. Um, good to see all of you, you know, so you might have noticed I'm in a little bit of a different, um, surrounds than my usual, uh, my usual place.

So the show is going to be, actually it's probably going to go technically better than it usually does. And technically, like, technologically better, because I have less, I have, I don't have my stream deck, I don't have proper lights, I have, I have a little mic under here, I, I don't have my usual camera, like, it's just, this is the most minimal of minimal setups, and I am guessting that Uh, staying in the bedroom of a teenager of a good friend of mine, Gabriel, you're awesome, thank you very much.

So, I'm pretty much in heaven, I don't know, you can't, you can sort of see right behind me there, YA novels, YA fantasy novels all over the shop. Okay, I might be a bit of a nerd. Very nice to have you. Aboard. And there's Quentin. Good to meet, see you, Quentin.

Quentin is working with the French Federation to

do a French translation of the rulebook, and I am looking forward to digging in and maybe giving him a little bit of a hand with that.

Um, my French isn't fabulous, but I sure do know some English stuff. So it's going to be very enjoyable. And Richard's here. Sarah, good to see you. You and I need to have a chat very soon. And there you go. Oh yeah. Let's, let's just go back to this. Let's just go back to this because I would like to. I didn't do the usual, like, flowers and the third team announcements and

all that stuff because meh, meh, I'm just

struggling

to, to keep my

life, but let's all give a shout out.

Boo has gotten her level one. Oh, and if you can't hear that, that means my noise cancellation is working. Tell me, can you hear that? No, I think it's working. Is it working? Let's find out. I'm sure you'll tell me. Um, fabulous, Boo. I'm so excited for you. And let's see. Good to see you. Jolt, cola, people. Feder, Rodrigo, Miranda.

Muy bien. Very good to see you. I hope you're, uh, taking in all of the hockey at Santiago del Estero.

I don't know if you're in the Northwest, but if you're, if you are, jealous, if you're not, well, at least it's in the right time zone for once, right? That's the kind of stuff we're dealing with. Alex is here.

Great, uh, great stuff. Doing some indoor as well as Jurjen. Jurjen doing some indoor there. Um, of course you tripped over the sideboard in your first match. Well, hey, I've got a solution for that for you. It's called interior positioning and it's when you never step over the sideboards. Bam! Just saying.

Um, the clapping is audible. Okay, good to know because there is a, um, can you see? Can you see her? You can barely see her nose. Uh, Coco is under the bed. This is Coco's room, actually. It's not even Gabriel's room. It's Coco's room. And Coco is an Australian heeler and will have some

reactions to share later on.

Hopefully, they will be well timed. I, I really don't, don't know how that's going to work out. Um, yeah. Rachel, giving the testimony, preach, sister, preach. There you go. Maybe I need to change my sound options because I actually am really terrified that, and there's, there's renovators coming over during the show.

Look, it's just going to be all over the place. So I am going to find the sound levels, you know, while you talk amongst yourselves. Good to see Irene. Irene is here. Options, window, sound, levels. There it is. Ah, yes. I have the wrong microphone. Okay. Exhibit A. Ready? We're going to switch. Um, oops, my, my trackpad is

crisp.

Okay.

Mmm, I think I fixed it. Let me know if I, you can still hear me, um, well enough there. Oh, Godders, I can't, first of all, oh my, it's only because it's raining, right? That's the only reason that you're tuning in, because Godders is in New Zealand right now, taking in some sports ball with the black mat thing.

I read about it on the internet. I don't know what it is. Um, and yeah, it was really fun to get on the court with you. I should have brought photos out. Look, there's a lot of things I should have done today. But let's just celebrate that I'm here, okay? Ben's here. No claps. That is fabulous because Coco is going to lose her mind.

And you, you will, you will know, you would know. Okay, what are we doing today? Look, look. It's gonna, it's gonna be fun because we are gonna talk about the, the aerial trial. Okay? And if we get to the aerial stuff, we'll do goalkeeper collisions and I've got some tackling things. That was pretty quick, right?

But the aerial trial is a big one and I can't wait to introduce you. So the first thing I'm gonna do is recommend, and I think I've got the link in the YouTube description, I've talked about it so many times because it's one of my favorite live streams of all time, where I got together with my good friend Ernst Bart and um, blanking, David Ames and Bernardo Fernandez, and the four of us talked about specifically aerials into the deep.

And we spent an hour going through a whole bunch of clips and talking about nuances and the player perspective that David brought and the coaching perspective that Bernardo, Bernardo brought and, and Ernst's perspective, which is the Ernst's perspective. He's, he's just, and he's, let's call him the media perspective, the fan perspective, but he definitely is an expert in, in the area.

And then me bringing like, Bringing the jam, bringing the heat, the spice, the sass, bringing the umpire perspective. And the four of us, at the end of the show, got to this. So let's kick it off. We're going to talk about the Ariel on trial, the trial rule.

Ernst Baart: But I would like to hear from both David and from Bernardo and from you, what should the rule be?

David Ames: I think I just said it at the very, very beginning. Um, I would love to see a defender that is five meters away from an attacker. As soon as he touches the ball, I should be allowed to encroach and defend my own circle. I feel like that's the best case scenario for, one, an improvement over an attacker to make sure that your ball's controlled.

And, um, You're in charge of it, and two, it gives license for a defender who is five meters away to now defend his own circle rather than having so much advantage at the minute given to an attacker to be able to either get his eyes up and pass or shoot the angles correct, or, yeah, that type of stuff.

That's ultimately what I would like to see.

Bernando Fernandes: Or at least at a reasonable, good maybe senior or high level junior level, make it. After the first touch, that's control. You have a first touch, that's control. Because the players are developing so much aerial skill in the passing and in the receiving, that it feels wrong that we still give such an advantage to the attacking player inside of a circle.

also make it one touch as a criteria of quality. Control, and make it five ish in a good level and maybe five in a not so good level. Don't tell me we agree, Keely.

Keely: Bernardo, I, that is exactly the thought that's running through my head is how do I How do I sit here and actually say I agree with Bernardo Fernandez?

This is a shocking thing, but I really like this because I've had the opportunity to hear, you know, what David's had to say, what you've had to say in Ernst and bringing that all together and applying it to what we saw in the clips. I actually do like this first touch idea a lot. Would I expect there to be a fair, safe competition for the ball?

I would, so as long as that initial five meters is given, so yeah, I get to the same conclusion that you both do as well. And I mean, who knows, maybe Ernst is, are we gonna go four for four on this? …

Ernst Baart: and you know, me, I, I am stubborn. I, I will stick to, to my own view and uh, let them be the judge. Is it dangerous or is it not dangerous?

Keely: but that's probably the most consensus I could have ever imagined that we were get gonna get on a show like this. This is awesome.

So there we are. I wanted to bring that out because that was, when was I in New Zealand? It was last year. It was a year, a year and a half. No. Oh my goodness. Yeah. That wasn't from New Zealand.

I'm confusing that with the one that I did with Joep, Phil Roper. Anyway, that was a year and a half ago that we sat down for that conversation. And the four of us, mostly Ernst, … just had to be extreme and very Dutch about it and, and go fully towards danger. But, um, but for the rest of us, for at least three of us, three and a half, to get to the same conclusion, I'm not gonna say that we actually may have influenced what happened with this rule, because who knows?

It's a mystery wrapped in enigma, encased in a puzzle. But maybe we did. Maybe there was a little bit and the conversation started and then the idea started swirling. And now we have a, an aerial trial, okay? Now let me be very, very clear about this. This is a trial. This is not a mandatory experiment and they've, they've even moved away from even calling it, um, Uh, you know, anything like that going into the rulebook.

Because they want to be very sure, after all the panic that ensued after the penalty corner discussion last year, that this is only in certain jurisdictions. Specifically, in the Pro League right now. So Uh, this is from the email that was sent out by the FIH to all the national federations. And what I wanted to highlight in this particular section is that There will not be any other rule changes other than the trial explained in this particular email, but they will be looking at the briefing in order to find two things like that.

So that sends you two messages. First of all, you don't have any rule changes to think about in 2025. Great. This was the number one priority that they dialed in after Paris, which is interesting because Is it the most important thing for every level of hockey or is it the most important thing at elite level of hockey?

Hmm, we can argue about that and I can understand, uh, if we say actually that's just the elite level of hockey. So the other part that's really interesting coming out of this is that, um, that Changes to interpretations or anything that's going to change for 2025 is going to be in the FIH briefing. So what we, as people who are umpiring non FIH stuff these days, we need to pay attention to the briefing.

We need to understand that this is going to change the way that we should be coming to that consensus and following standards in order to give the best experience to the umpire. Matches that were umpiring the players, that were umpiring the coaches, fans, all that sort of thing. So, if you're saying, I don't know what the FIH briefing is That's okay.

That's why I'm here. I will make sure to bring out any changes and highlight them. But if you go through, if you search on the channel for past live streams, whenever there's been a change to the briefing, I'll do a slide by slide comparison and I'll highlight the things that have changed because changes are the important things.

Sometimes deletions matter, but sometimes deletions are simply, look, everybody gets this now. We don't need to keep saying, This is the way that you need to interpret this rule. Sometimes that's all it is. Sometimes the deletions actually do mean something. And what I try to do is help translate all the significance of, of everything and, and make sure that we all get what's going on in the briefing.

So those are the two things to, to sort of come out from there, that, that we need to look for now. I can't, I can't find my seat. My, Oh, there's my overlays. Okay. I don't have my stream back, so this is, this is chaos, friends. This is chaos. So, the next thing that we can look at is the actual text of the rule being trialed at the Pro League level.

So they had a briefing a few weeks ago, before the first Pro League match was started, so that they, as a body of Pro League umpires, and the whole panel has been appointed, they, there's um, That's, that's all been set out, whether every umpire who's been appointed as a Pro League umpire actually makes it to a match.

It unfolds as the season goes, and it's based on performance, and it's based on budget, and all this sort of thing. But they all sat down for a briefing with the Rules Committee, and hashed it out. There are still questions, surprise, but they're, at least the conversation is going on and they worked on this.

So here we, if we're looking at this, what's changed is now that the players must not approach within five meters of a point receiving that following race ball until it has been touched by the receiver. No longer is it controlled and on the ground. We all know that control was the only thing that really mattered, that on the ground wasn't.

Umpiring, That was a As aerial skills developed, that was sort of a guideline, and then it became a shifting ground. At your skill level, the matches that you're umpiring or that you're playing in, or coaching in, that may be required for control at lower levels of play, but higher levels of skill often control, is, can still be.

while the ball is still in the air. So what they've done is they've specifically looked after the situation that David and Bernardo and Ernst and I were talking about, which is the arrows end to D, but they've applied it all over the pitch. And I'm not mad. I think this is a very solid rules trial. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you some examples of it actually playing out.

in the pro league, and we can have a conversation about that, but I'm looking forward to, you know, you seeing it and giving your opinions what you think about it. And then, oh my trackpad is just misbehavin Okay, they set out these principles that are to guide, so this is an explicit statement that we can all refer to when we're looking at Understanding how the rules being applied in the Pro League and what, how we might apply the rule as we get, as it might come into play in future years.

Um, we want to see excitement, we want to prioritize safety, encourage the attacking play, reward skill, speed, athleticism, create fairness between attack and defense. So even though we're encouraging the attacking play, there is a notion of balance for the defenders. Yay, says this defender. And that they're looking for this to be able to be applied at all levels of the game.

Okay, so consider that. That is, that is very interesting. And before you get really worried, And you start going, this is going to be chaos and the sky is falling. Think about all the rule changes that we've seen over the last, say, 15 years, that we were really concerned were going to create chaos and danger at the levels of play that we were umpiring at.

When the rule that allowed players to play the ball over their shoulders first came into effect in the FIH rules of hockey, my particular jurisdiction, who's usually because I was leading at the time. We would just, yeah, we'll do everything the FH says, right when they say it. We don't need delays. We don't, we, we just do all the things completely.

We will follow the standards. But there were concerns in my area that that was going to lead to a level of danger that we didn't know about. I disagreed, but hey, sometimes there's a democracy and sometimes people win when they have arguments with me. And so we delayed the implementation for a year. And when we did it, no problems at all.

It didn't lead to any more dangerous situations than what we had before. And I think probably you all can, you know, uh, can, can reinforce that as well. Uh, the last part, uh,

did I read that part

out?

I can't remember. Ah, the rationale. No, hang on.

Yes, the rationale. Um, so This just more explicitly explains what I talked about, and that the priority and the understanding is particularly that within the circle, defenders weren't able to actually defend.

They didn't know when they could close, and we had multiple situations on Whatup Wednesday where I showed examples of umpires calling it on the first touch, which I thought was fair, calling it like there needed to be control, which I thought was unfair. And then, you know, that created a lot of inconsistency and defenders at the top levels didn't know what to do.

And the consequences were big. So when the briefing shifted and I can link to that video as well here. I'm going to point and pretend that I'm going

to put it

in

the video.

I'll link to the video where I talk about the change to the briefing that introduced the concepts of phase one and phase two. That phase one was the initial distance, the initial period of time as the ball was coming down to that initial receiver and the five meters that needs to be granted.

And if there's an incursion in that phase one, that could be either Unintentional with the regular penalties or could be deemed intentional if the right circumstances existed with those attendant team penalties and potentially personal penalties, uh, tacked on. And we've talked about that for several months.

That to me was the indicator that things were shifting and that this was going to be the next go ahead because what we're talking about is phase two. This rules trial is the next step of phase two. And the fact that they were saying, look, we're not going to call that intentional no matter what. Oh, sorry.

Did I skip that? I probably did. I haven't done this for a while. I'm a little all over the place. That if you infringed on the controlled part after the initial receiver receives the ball, that could not, should not be deemed an intentional foul. And that was my indicator that this was coming down the pipe.

And then I heard rumors that they were just going to remove aerials into the circle, and I heard those rumors from reputable sources, and they turned out to be absolutely false. Thank goodness, because I hated that. That's a step backwards for the game. So, this, I think, is a much better solution. It's fabulous.

Um, oh, look at that! Uh, somebody knows where I'm going with this. So, at the Pro League level, no. They've, the distinct Um, the distinct guidance as to Phase 2 is gone. But I'm going to talk about a little bit later with examples about how interceptions come into play and that sort of thing.

And then

And the last one is just a reinforcement that this rules trial is for the Pro League, but on application, Continental associations or national associations could apply and have this rules trial in their area and, you know, and, and work out terms with the FIH as to where they want to do it. So for example, in Canada, we have a, um, NVPL in Vancouver, which is a top flight club, uh, competition.

They do a draft and all this kind of stuff. And they run that periodically. That would be a great place to trial this rule. Uh, places where there's not overlap necessarily, those players coming up and down, or that there's a lot of visibility in terms of the lower players getting exposed and like getting confused and that sort of thing.

Nice top level competition and a good way to trial it. So we'll see what happens, uh, with that. Quentin, what happens if an attacker receives the ball from behind and intentionally drops to the ground without touching it, lets it run in front of him for 10 meters without touching it? Well, um, that's, that's a good question if, if we are worried about people getting bound by the technicality of that rule.

I think that if players start taking the mick about whether they've actually received the ball or not, it's just like when an aerial ball when we deem it to be over? That question has always, you know, been at the, at, you know, in play when we deal with aerials. And we say when the ball is safe and ready to be contested safely at that level of skill that you're at, the aerial's over.

So if there's a bounce and the ball then comes towards an initial receiver, is that bounce and the height of that ball at that moment in a place where Players could contest, say, at the knee height, at the mid thigh height. That's a place at that level that balls get contested all the time. 3D skills are in operation.

The aerial's over. We don't apply the five meter rule after that. Okay, so Quentin, I think that's when and that's how that's going to get handled. Okay, I hope that helps. And there we go. It's a good thing that you guys are also smart. Fabulous. Okay, so That is what the rule looks like. Let's do the thing that I love to do and look at some clips.

Power play, if

Speaker 11: you like. Cross field aerial, that's a good looking aerial ball. Great defense from Nick Park, stepping in. Round one up.

(Commentator): Really good, and I love this new interpretation at this level. Because prior to this new season, you weren't allowed to go anywhere near that until that was considered. So Park couldn't have stepped in there, but now because of the level of skill, the player only has to take it.

On the stick. So once it's considered to be controlled and the first touch is controlled, as a defender, you can then step in.

Keely: Okay. So, I probably didn't need to leave in all that verbiage, but I wanted you to hear it from Mace because, um, first of all, he explains things very well, and he explains it from the perspective of somebody who watches a ton of this level of hockey and comments on it in a very intelligent way.

So, um, on this particular play. Hopefully it looks quite clear for you and I will go to,

I can do this just because I can, just because I can. Okay, I'm gonna, I'm gonna play this through.

I've got this really cool app, Video Pencil. Okay, so

what we've got right here, let's get to the point. Okay, so first touch happens right there and at this moment The English defender is five meters away. So it is now free game at this touch that the player, uh, that that defender can come in and defend.

Oh

sorry, it's, it's this guy here. He was

also five meters away. Does that help?

And first contact is made by the defender because of the way that the attacker needs to touch the ball. And then, as this keeps going, the attacker takes the swing at the ball, stick obstructs, or interferes with a stick, doesn't matter, uh, the defender, and so the nice quick whistle comes in from Raps on that one.

So that's a really good example of what David Ames was talking about in the clip that I showed you that this is going to actually have a secondary effect of requiring better skill from the attackers. They don't just get to sort of receive and, and let it bounce, like they have to really do the thing to control the ball in order to take the action that they want to take.

And that evens out the playing field quite a bit for attackers and defenders in this case. So I really, really like that. Yeah, it is a good example, isn't it? Oh. You know, this is going to be a thing. Okay. And serious respect to the umpires for applying a brand new rule so well, so quickly. Yes. And so, well, I'll, I'll show you a few other examples of it coming into play here.

This one is a little more

Speaker 11: difficult to see just

Keely: because of the angle. Okay. So it's a good illustration of angles.

Speaker 11: Well taken down by Kalman. Kalman's first touch wasn't the best and Argentina do well to get it clear.

(Commentator): No, that's the first one. So we've got this new interpretation on the overhead rule.

Keely: Okay, and this was actually, this was the first one that happened in the game, so the one that we just watched was the third one of the game, this was the second.

But what's really interesting about this play is the angle that we have on it

is not the angle,

let's hope this is the right

Nope, that didn't switch. Oh yeah, because I have to do that. Okay.

And my big noggin's in the way, so we're going to do this.

And as we go here, there's Tyler,

Canadian umpire, doing a great job. But look at this incredible angle that he's got on this play. He has no obstructions, and he is completely side on to the two players in question. So he can read whether there is 5 metres given between these two players at the moment. So as we go and right at the moment,

okay, contact is made and then the defender begins to close and you could hear the commentator say, not a great first touch by Kelman. So that player really needs to know what they're going to do with that ball before it drops, before they have that first touch. Am I going to play it off to the side? Am I going to play it away from the defender?

Okay, so that's a really interesting little, um, a little, a little track there,

um, to that.

Let me go back to this so I can look

at comments. Okay, Paul, do I think this will lead to more 3D skills from attackers, i. e. not letting the ball come to ground to maintain an advantage over defender? Yeah, well, in a way, I don't know if it'll Lead to more but it'll lead to better and it requires like I was just saying the attackers to be able to read plan Anticipate and have something in mind what they're gonna do in a probably with 3d skills in that moment It's a really nice equalizer And yes, so as Godders is pointing out, the defender in this case actually was thinking about backing up into an interception and then goes, Oh, actually, no, I'm probably going to get called for that as a phase one, five meter infringement with the player behind me probably won't be a penalty stroke.

Probably shouldn't be, but hey, let's not take the chance because what I can do instead is back off the five meters and then I can come close. So that gives the defender another route to defend better and not necessarily say, well, I'm just going to give up the penalty corner because that's better than letting them have a free shot at goal or a free shot at, you know, something else, my feet, as it were.

Okay, let's see if I can get to the next

(Commentator): scene.

Keely: And

(Commentator): I wanted to

Speaker 11: show you this one because it's a little bit of a different

Keely: take by this defender because they are five meters initially. They could come in and close full board but instead what's happened is that attacker is now under

the pressure of the player, the defender coming, closing a couple meters, and the defender saying, all right, now you can beat me. And I'm delaying because I want to wait until everybody else is behind the ball and everybody's in formation and that sort of thing. It's smart defending, and it's another, it's another look that you're going to see.

The defenders don't have to close. They could, but they don't have to. So this is a great, again, Equalizer for the defender yesterday

(Commentator): about how you cope and what the mindset is coming into a transitioning team post olympics and that was always going to be a penalty corner and just explain why there Andy is vortel ball wins it

so the ball into vortel ball the aerial ball the defender has to stand five meters away until they've changed this uh interpretation slightly To say that, as soon as Vortelball gets the first touch, the defender can then come in.

He doesn't have to wait for him to control it.

Keely: Well, that's a little bonkers. Pardon the mess. There we go. So, this one is from a match a few days ago. And, for me, it was interesting, because when I first saw it, I thought, and it's still possible, I thought this was probably five meters. But you can see the different angle that Bruce has on this play, and I've actually had some really interesting conversations with, um, someone who probably isn't here tonight, but if he is, put up your hand in the audience, Mike McDowell, if you're here, but we've had a lot of conversations about how MCP comes into play with this particular direction of Ariel.

So this is a right to left, uh, going over top. I'm trying to pull it up on my little replay thing, and I've picked out the wrong there it is. And When the ball is coming right to left, across like this Okay, when it's coming right to left, if you are well positioned as Bruce is on this play, back on your back line, happy place, all that kind of stuff, you're actually in that position of the aerial going across your vision, which isn't fabulous.

It's difficult to gauge distances Often, and it's your, your vision, you end up doing this thing again, which is what MCP gets you away from. Because if you are interior positioned, you're going to have that arrow coming towards you, which gives you a full, broad view of everything that's happening, and is much preferable.

So you can sort of see, let's try to pause it where you can actually see things. So there's Bruce and he's looking across this way. So the angle that he's got on the play isn't quite as nice. It's difficult. So

is this five meters in here? Bruce deems it not. And at first I thought he was calling it for the stick construction, but when I listened to the replay a few times and I could hear the question that, uh, Bruce Uh, Brian asks of him, and I think the question was, when are you going to give that as a penalty stroke?

And Bruce says, when, if the, if the defender has the initial receiver behind him, probably not going to be. It's when he's got it in the view. So, Bruce explained that really well, very concisely to the attacker, so that he got some information, but it didn't have to be an argument, a debate, or anything like that.

So, uh, Really well done by him. And, uh, Andy, I'm, I take back what I texted you. So I texted Andy, said, Oh, I think he called that for the obstruction, but okay. So anyway, I, I can be wrong. I can be wrong. It happens. Okay. So that's another, another example of it in play, but you still have the same problems. Now, what I like to think about the conversation, sorry, getting back to the conversation that I was having with Mike McDowell is that.

What if, instead of being here and having this flattened out, as the ball goes, that you actually flash? So this is a concept I talk about in MCP, but it's not exclusive to MCP. When you go up so that you can look back and down on the back line situation without having the goalkeeper in your way, who's often, and that wasn't there, but is often supine and making saves on the ball and you get blocked by them and a number of players.

So if you flash up, you might have a better angle on seeing the distance. Not, not entirely sure there, but it's just an idea that I've been talking about. Whoops, um, I've been,

I want, oh, what did I do? Can I get it back?

Yeah, okay, so Something to, to think about if you're, if you're in the situation where you're having a lot of those aerials going right to left.

When you think about it, it's a really interesting strategic play that doesn't work when the ball goes on the ground. A right to left diagonal pass on the ground, that's not hockey. It never gets through. Ask me how I know because that's what I used to try to do all the time when I was playing. Don't try to do it anymore.

Because you're hitting into the strong sticks of the players. Well, if you're taking an aerial, that just skips everything on the ground. You essentially cut the lines and you can go over top at angles that you just couldn't access before if it's in the air. So that anticipating that that is a potential angle of attack is something that we, you know, we all can look at and consider if we're having aerials coming at us in that way.

Okay. And then, let's see, was that D

(Commentator): Robert Juice?

Keely: So you probably recognize this. This was on the Instagrams on hockey NL to vociferous outreach. Absolute bedlam in the comments and this is, I wanted to sort of tease it out because this is a situation where a difference in application that is isolated in a geographical area for a global game causes problems.

So the fact that this is a called a penalty stroke for this phase one infringement. Caused all kinds of consternation, and I mean, you can see the look on the player's face. I think he's, I think that's an Aussie guy, if he turns around. The rest of them don't seem to be quite as shocked, but he certainly is.

What most people don't know, but was brought to light in our Discord server, if you haven't seen the Discord server, you don't know what I'm talking about, I invite you to come along and have a look. That is the link there in the chat. We have several Dutch, we have lots of Dutch people in the server, and they let us know that the KNHB briefing was that phase one infringements in the circle had to be called as penalty strokes.

So this is the opposite to the FIH briefing. It makes me kind of think that maybe it was a mistake that they looked at the FIH briefing and maybe in translation it got messed up. But phase one infringements of five meter distance inside the circle must be called as penalty strokes in the land of the, the nether.

I think that's bonkers. Maddie Swan, thank you very much Jamal. You're absolutely right. That's who it is.

And so this clip ends up on Instagram and everybody's like, is this the right call? Well, according to their briefing, it is. Dude, you put out briefings that Contradict. Should you require your local umpires to umpire in a different way to what the international standards are, especially when this is, these are international players from all of the world playing in an internationally visible, arguably the top league, professional league in the world?

Should you be doing that? No, you just shouldn't. It's bonkers. So. The umpire is correct, but they've been forced to be against the hockey. So I hope that helps everybody in understanding where that comes from. Absolutely crazy. Simon Webb. Correct, correct, correct. Okay, so if you have any other questions about the rules trial, do you like it?

Do you love it? There is no option not to like it. No, I'm just kidding. If you don't like it, let, like, comment here, comment if you're watching this on replay. I know a lot of you are because I all of a sudden decided that I was going to, all of a sudden, but two days ago I decided I was going to actually go ahead with this because I had good enough internet here and.

Uh, I was like, ah, it's good timing, there's no other things going on because of the time of year, and I could put on my other Christmas sweater. So it all worked out, and sorry for not the advance notice, but if you're watching this on replay, comments, or come into the Discord server, as I linked above, and, or is linked in the description of this video.

Um, of this video and come let me know what you think. Um, would you want to try this in the leagues that you're umpiring? Why or why not? And what things do you need to know? The one thing that I didn't tease out that I probably should just sort of go over a little quickly is the notion of the strictness of the five metres.

So when we looked at the call that Bruce made, you could look at it. as this being a very strict 5 meter application. 4. 5 isn't good enough. That if we're going to have this, uh, ability for the defenders to close, that we're going to be very strict on the 5 meters. And when David made his comments, right at the beginning of this segment, and he said, you know, 5 ish, 4.

5 for top levels, 5 for the lower levels. I actually think that a strict five is the best way, particularly to trial the rule, so that we can actually see how fair it is between attackers and defenders. Are we achieving the balance with the way that this rule is being implemented that we're looking for according to the principles that the FIH Rules Committee have set up?

So, that's the way I look at it. I hope that makes sense. Jolt likes it. Uh, it's easier to rule to Yeah, anything that makes it easier for umpires to call is fabulous. So, a touch is quite objective. Empirically provable, uh, for the most part. Except for the little complication that Quentin introduced, which was an excellent question, but it's a lot easier than trying to figure out what controlled is, because I believed, and I still believe, that control is relative to the skill level, and advantage is also relative to skill level, danger is relative to skill level, so it's chaos all over the place, but there you go.

Um, you paused, and it's lucky to be three. Okay, Paul's always there to give me a little contradiction. Appreciate it. That's fabulous. Okay. Let's move on to our next topic because I managed to spend the first 45 minutes talking about one thing. Yes! I love it. I'm back! Bitches, I'm back. Um, let's see. comps.

And you know what, Paul? I, I think this is one of the few real changes that I would have said, yeah, they should just go for this. But they're doing the right thing by trialing it and trialing it in a, in an environment where they can control the outcomes. They can brief the umpires very well, but the important part isn't really what's going to happen here.

The difficulty is going to be, or the interesting part that we need to tease out is how is, could it affect lower levels of play, right? Will players understand this? Will it create danger, more dangerous situations? Do players have the skill for this? And. Do we need to be as concerned because how many aerials are going into the circle at top flight domestic level, at mid prime domestic level, at top regional level?

From what I've seen here in England, quite a few. There's quite a bit of that going on, so it's something worthwhile to sort of talk about. But there you go.

Um, nice THR nod there. Um, there you go.

You think you would have liked control, but it is subjective. There you go. Okay. Right. Let's move on to a little bit more, um, social media shenanigans, shall we?

Because there always are. There always are social media shenanigans. Oh, this is not how I had this scene set up. Garbage.

So this is an Instagram video. That came through clearly, um, I think this is from Argentine, uh, Argentina. That's like people saying Canadia, Argentina. And I wanted to show this because I want you to see what happens the, the beginning of the clip. Okay. This is the beginning of the clip. So what they've done is they've done it in inverse order.

They've done it the way that Opposite to how we as human beings on the pitch and doing video analysis usually would experience this. They started with the super, like it's narrow enough because it's vertical, but the super narrowed in, close up, slow mo version. That is not the way to watch a play. For the first time.

Ever. You should always see in a real time and big width, as big of width as possible in order to make the same sort of judgment that you would make as if you were on the pitch.

Okay? Because you really don't get a good vision on this as to where the players are going, what the angles are. You can't assess the angles when you're in that close. Metaphorically. Or figuratively. in with the camera, okay? But I'm interested to hear what y'all think now that I've destroyed what, if the angle is any good.

Goalkeepers are always very pesky.

I agree. Pesky goalkeepers. Is this going to work?

Okay. I always think they're right.

Well, I mean, you take all the chances you want in the holidays there, Simon. It's

totally up to you.

Okay,

I will cue this up while you're thinking amongst yourselves.

Talk amongst yourselves is a topic. Dogs, daughters, and coffee. Discuss. That's a terrible accent. My sincere apologies.

Oh, I can. Oh, this is so good. You guys, I can just do this.

Um, attempted shot, contact, incidental to outcome, play on. Uh,

definitely clickbaiting, yeah.

Oh yeah, you think that happens on Instagram, that people are clickbaiting the crap out of this stuff? They

are. Okay.

This is one of the wider angles, I think.

No, this is the widest angle. Okay, so this is what we're going to focus on. Because we don't have to see if the ball went up a foot. What we're trying to assess is, did the goalkeeper, actually we are trying to assess whether the goalkeeper made contact with the ball or not.

They did not. Is the goalkeeper moving into the space the attacker is going to after unsuccessfully taking the ball? Is the ball being moved away from the goalkeeper? Or, if the attacker is going straight at the goalkeeper, at this moment, if the attacker is going towards the goalkeeper, plays it at the goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper simply stands their ground and makes the save, that any collision there is just going to be, uh, at the, at the fault of the attacker.

That's when getting the ball first is not the right way to describe it. But it is technically getting the ball first, because they did get the ball, but it's the angles that the players are moving at. Okay, but the, the renovators are here and Coco is about to lose her mind. Pause.

Hold please.

Although you can still hear me, I think, because I've got the mic on my sweater. Okay.

Hmm. But the technology is working! Okay, there you go. Ah, I want, yeah, I want to hear what Boo has for this.

Okay.

So Boo says, Goalkeeper moves into space first to save. Player carries momentum in and can't stop. Player doesn't have control of the ball.

Okay.

And I

am going to slow this angle down, because I want to see it. Okay. Okay. So as this is coming, you can see this, there's a shift of the direction of the attacker. Okay, so the attacker isn't going straight at the goalkeeper. The attacker actually plants here, they've 3D'd the ball, and they're trying to go around because what she wants to do is to be able to plant the ball there and go bar down, top shelf, where mama keeps the cookies.

Probably. Lots of Canadianisms in there. Okay, so that's what she's done. The goalkeeper, as we saw on the other angles, doesn't make contact with the ball

and has moved out into the path of the attacker.

Could the attacker have reached that ball, which is now here, but for the contact

with the goalkeeper,

waiting, waiting.

And does the contact have to be clear? Does, is it because that defender recovers the ball, or is it enough that they could have reached it and fought for the ball with that defender and then taken a shot?

Let's see. And you think the goalkeeper got a touch on the ball. Let's wind it back.

Not that one. Oh, that's the beginning.

Okay, we can't see it on that one. Oh.

And remember,

even if the goalkeeper gets the touch on the ball, that is not conclusive. We can't see it from that angle either. Because remember, just because they touched it doesn't mean they get to move into the space that the attacker would be going into. Okay? I know, Sarah, that's kind of what I like to do, is to tease out some rationale.

ask you to look at particular factors and then make a judgment based on that instead of perhaps what you were thinking. So super, super slim. Yeah.

Um, there you go. Okay. So does that,

no, she tried to shoot it midair and missed it. Sorry, Paul, but um, Helney Stroke for JT Mall 58. Hi, by the way, have not had the pleasure to introduce yourself.

So there you go, and there you go. More congratulations from, from Simon Webb to Boo. You were awesome on Saturday. Very nice. Okay, um, Barry, what you got? Players lost control of the ball, air shot, stop, play due to hit. Contact. Okay. What I like that Barry has teased out for us here is the idea that this is not just a play on situation.

There has been a collision, and if you're going to be deeming this not to be a foul, or you're not deeming this as a foul by the attacker, the goalkeeper on the attacker, you can't simply play on here. because the physicality of this collision, it's not clear that this ball is going to, you know, be taken away by the defenders very easily and the goalkeeper is going to be able to get up.

There has been a significant collision here. Okay. So we're not just going to play on. So Paul, whatever you said before, opposite of that, pick one of the other ones.

Okay. Um,

let's see. Rachel, it looks like a significant change of direction as it passes the goalkeeper. Yeah, I just don't know which one, but however you think the goalkeeper is moving into the space. What we do every time that we see a collision Between players is we're watching what the attacker is doing.

So Paul, you're making the mistake that you're like, oh, it's an air shot It's this blah blah blah, but you haven't focused on what the goalkeeper is doing What space are they moving into how fast are they coming? Where are they closing and that is into the direction and into the path of the defender and you can see it in that full speed quite nicely Focus on the defender.

What are they doing in that moment? It's To me, this is a bang on penalty stroke. And Simon wins. Which Simon? Me? You, Simon? Who's that? Okay. And yes, the goalkeeper has lost their helmet as well. And through the, the subsequent collision. So you're, you're just not going to be playing that on. Like, look how much pressure that defender is under who's collected the ball.

There's somebody right there. So that's just not a playable situation. Okay. Robert Grafton, hello stranger. Nice to see you. By stepping and missing the ball, goalkeepers obstructed the attacker and prevented an opportunity on goal, penalty stroke. Absolutely. To, to just, Polish up that language just a little bit Robert.

What I'd suggest is that you focus on including that that is reckless as to the result of breaking down play. So why is it a penalty stroke? It's not just that it's an opportunity on goal. That is not one of the grounds on which we call penalty strokes. And with all respect to my friend Dan Barstow, he's been using this language.

The last few times that we've been, that he's been in the video booth and talked about that that was a shot on goal, therefore it's a penalty stroke, that is not it. That's not it and it's leading us down the path where we are going to see intentional fouls by defenders against attackers who have the ball or an opportunity to play the ball.

not being called as penalty strokes because it wasn't a shot on goal. That is incorrect. The rule is clear. The interpretation we're supposed to apply according to that language, very clear. Okay. So that's the little shift that I would make, Robert. I hope that makes sense to you. And if you need to know more about that, I can certainly pull up the rule.

Um, 12. 5 A and B. Nobody likes a person who can quote the number. So I think it makes me cooler that I can't quote the number. I hope that helps. Okay. So that's where we're at. Um, let's see, Paul, what have you got? If there's no contact by the keeper, could the attacker realistically be able to play the ball?

Yeah, probably,

probably. Why not?

And I'm just waiting to see if there's

any other comments that I want to take into account here. Oh, it's been an hour, you

guys. Doing pretty well. Okay.

So just to wrap that up for me, bang on penalty stroke. Could be more as well. It, and that depends on how we apply RDI, repetition, danger, and impact to a foul inside the circle.

So I, I've heard some really disturbing things here in England about how, Oh, well, if it's deliberate, it has to be a yellow card. That's bullshit. That's not a rule, not an interpretation that we apply, at least not in this century. What we look at is. Is the team penalty that's been awarded sufficient to reset the impact that the foul has had?

Would this, would a foul, would a recklessness to the result or just purely intentional foul, is it so impactful that it's not enough? Personal penalties aren't just And they really aren't messages anymore the way that we used to describe them. They are actual penalties to the team because even green cards are suspensions that cause teams to play minus a player for two minutes.

So these are actually, there's team penalties and there's other team penalties that are served by an individual player who's been suspended from the match. That's what modern hockey is. So whatever we were taught. Especially me, way back in the day, that doesn't apply anymore. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to the way that we now apply it.

So, that's the I of RDI. Do we need more on this particular play? I don't know. Hard to say. Repetition. Has the goalkeeper smoked somebody before in this game? Has there been another penalty stroke awarded for a reckless challenge inside the circle? Is this particularly dangerous? Is this a very physical play that you're like, okay, now we're going to send some actual messages?

And I don't know. I'll just say it. I don't know. Could be. I think with the physical nature that this player is willing to go at the ball, that I'd say, no, this is just. You know, it's a reckless challenge, but it's, it's a contest. So just on danger alone, I wouldn't say so. Okay. So that is RDI. That is the framework that you can apply for.

Well, the notion of applying personal penalties anywhere on the pitch, but particularly within the context of the quote unquote, so called upgrade team penalties, or just the more severe penalty or penalty corner. Reckless or intentional

fouls. Okay.

So there are technical problems. So this one, as you can tell by the little logo is hockey. nl. Again, let's make this nice and big.

And I'll let you have a look at this quite a few times.

Again, look at the defender.

Right? Everybody's going to look at the attacker, look at the defender, the goalkeeper, and make an assessment as to what they are

doing in this moment.

How we doing? Thank you for the likes,

by the way. If you're enjoying this content, you're finding it valuable, and you'd like to see more of it in your YouTube algorithm, or you think other people would enjoy this, please go ahead and give it a like, share it with a friend, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already.

I was very YouTubey. I don't like doing that. Not a fan. Oh, but I have a, I have a

sting. I just don't have the button to play it. Let's see if I can find it. Sting. Here.

Oh, always an opportunity to be a

dork. Online, on YouTube.

Alright, you've had lots of looks at it. Do you know what the umpire called in this case?

Paul, attacker willing to initiate body contact

while keep is retreating free hit to defense. Pre hit defense, attacker starts to shield the ball and runs into the goalkeeper and falls. That is what the umpire in question

calls.

Is the goalkeeper obstructed from making this tackle? Watch the goalkeeper.

Where is the goalkeeper's stick? Where are the goalkeeper's pads?

Where are their kickers?

Because just because the ball goes to the left and slightly behind the attacker's body doesn't make that

shielding.

Graham looks like he gave the

free hit defense from a poor position. Uh, yeah, it's kind of hard to say where exactly he's at. I'm not sure exactly. Simon and By extension, boo. Attacker body shields the ball with the body by turning. Attacker trips over the goalkeeper. You're all agreed there.

I'm just waiting. I'm just waiting.

Let's say you disagreed. Can you find a different argument here? Can you find a different way of looking at this? If you

watch the goalkeeper.

Thank you, Simon.

Waiting for somebody to bail me out here. Goalkeeper hand and back with the stick in the air still. They can't play the ball. It's not a legitimate attempt to play the ball. Peter looks to you, the keeper shadows the attacker, he is then tripped by the goalkeeper's foot, not shielding, clumsy from keeper at best.

Goddard's penalty stroke.

Barry, end of. You know what, Barry, whenever I say things like end of on this show, it always goes poorly for me. It's just not, it's just not good.

Now, what is absolutely correct here? Who knows? Because we've got a shit angle on it. We've got just, we've got a broad view, but it's just, it's not a good angle to see the play. So I don't want to be declarative, but what I like about this is that you should be getting questions now that you've heard the other point of view as to whether you are focusing on the defender or not.

Okay. Watch their movement. Watch their attempt to tackle. They are not in a position to tackle this ball. They are not making an attempt. And just because they're not coming running out at a great extent, the shadow, the trip, if that had been, if that had been a field player, what decision would you have made?

At the very least, you would have called a penalty, or you would have given a free hit outside the circle, at the very least. Bringing the player to ground? Don't know. Mr. Njama, if I've said that correctly. I hope I haven't mispronounced it. My apologies if I have. Is looking for a penalty stroke. Sarah, you don't agree that the attacker is body shielding.

She turns legitimated to try to go around the goalkeeper and probably looking for a reverse headed goal. I mean, there is that. And there's nothing wrong with players moving the ball in a continuous way in one direction. direction. It's when they interpose their body and repeatedly block a defender from making a legitimate tackle.

Okay, the slight turn here, I agree with Sarah, is not enough. Rob Jankerson, hello sir, doesn't seem to make any real attempt on the ball. Graham, keeper has got caught too close to the top of the circle, gets feet in a muddle and trips over trying to recover. Yeah, or trips the attacker in an attempt to recover.

Yeah. Um, JT, it looks like body shielding, but the goalkeeper hand is on the back. You don't think it's enough to call anything else.

Well, have a look at the goalkeeper stick for me.

And Sarah is there. Um, the attacker, uh, goalkeeper trips, tracks the attacker and

trips her up. Tell me stroke.

Okay.

I think this is one of those decisions that. If we were on the pitch and we had a better angle, we'd be able to make a more definitive declaration. Um, what I think is important to recognize is that there is such a thing in the world as a too clever decision. Like, ooh, I was able to see that the ball dropped a little bit behind that player's body, therefore I'm going to call that as a shield.

Be careful of those situations because what you might be ignoring is what the defender is actually doing in that moment.

That's the last time you listen to a goalkeeper. Look, I'm not the boss of you. Quentin, you change your mind, understand the point. The goalkeeper, um, whoops, didn't try to play the ball and touch two time me and with their hands. So a penalty stroke is okay.

Yeah. Okay. Good chat.

Good chat. Okay. Uh, oh, we've got 15 minutes, so we might as well.

Okay. Tackling things, because I couldn't think of a better title. I really should do better.

Okay. This is,

so this is from our friend, what now, Tim down in Australia, down in, I think he's, uh, based with the Melbourne or in Melbourne, because a lot of his stuff comes from the Melbourne hockey club, Hannah Cotter, she's, she's quite, she would be fun to umpire cause she's just, she's, she's got fire and sass and all that sort of thing.

Again, I hate this narrow angle and the only slow mo on it. Tim's doing some amazing stuff with his Instagram feed. Please go and follow his Instagram because you will see hockey in a way that you've never appreciated it from before. It is, his, his photography is beautiful and the angles that he finds for video are just beautiful.

Just exceptional. Really, really fun. And

yeah, I'm just, I'm all about that life. 3A tackle. Okay, let's see, whoops.

Now this one's really fun because I know Rhiannon and um, we all know the player that's getting sent off, don't we? We all know who that's,

it's there. Um, we have cheering for Melbourne. Okay, always a thing.

And this was shock of all shocks, quite a divisive,

uh, discussion.

And

at least, um, Paul gave me the hits or Tim gave me the hits by adding me as a collab on this post so that I could, I could get all the attention as well. Get hit with the algorithm. Look, I'm not above that kind of thing. And almost a nasty finger pinch between the two sticks there.

Yeah, definitely could

have been a thing. There

we go. Does that help?

Okay.

The difficulties do we have with the angle that we're at?

See if I can do this a little better here.

Okay. A lot of people saw this

as a back stick in this moment because the stick is above where the ball is, but. We can't see from this nice little angle very clearly whether that is contact on the ball. I don't see the ball changing direction, so I don't even know if, um, Drummond De Hota made contact with it.

Okay, what we do see is the contact that's made with the hook of the stick. We also don't see in this moment If the ball is slipped underneath, when we're talking about the round part of the stick with the handle and we're trying to gauge as to whether that is the back of the stick, you want to be really sure.

Like you want to see that the, that the, for example, here that the toe of the stick is turned up to make it very clear because otherwise you're like looking at infinite shades of gray and when we call fouls we should be sure, shouldn't we? The other problem that we have is that this is in vast slow motion, and a lot of people deemed this to be a stick block by the attacker.

And that is, I mean, that to me is a lot of a function of the slow motion here, because The player is looking to come around and then draw that ball back to the right in order to get back and away from this defender. So her stick is going to move off the ball. This is not an unnatural, in real time, I think we would see that it's not an unnatural way to play the ball.

It's not a putting the stick over the ball, holding off the stick, and then going to play the ball in the same direction again. Does that make sense, what the difference is? Um, no, you can't tackle it halfway up the stick there. That's very true. Okay. I think the more important thing to take away from this scenario is just how not clear we can see this.

And it's, you know, the aesthetics of the clip are great. The actual knowledge that we can gain from it, maybe not so much because it is so, so, so, so tight in.

Okay. Does that make sense to everybody? Let's see where we're at. Okay,

last

one. Boy, did I get a lot of this. I think about 20 people sent this to me

in my DMs, including just today from Fraser. Thanks, Fraser. Late to the

party. I'm just kidding. You're fine.

And I've now forgotten

who it is, but, oh, and this is pertaining to the last one. Godders, not a stick block for

him.

Very dangerous to look for stick blocks in slow motion. Very dangerous.

Sir, I just went through why

you can't be declarative on this one and why you can't deem that

clearly as a stick block.

Okay, let's talk about this one.

Because, oops.

Where did it go?

I think it's ready.

Um, this one was particularly interesting as well because

it'll be here in this scene. Hold please.

This is a lot easier to do when you have a stream deck to push the buttons on. This happened in the comments. So you may have heard of this guy, Kuhn Van Boga, clean tackle. Lots of likes. 199 is probably up to like a million by now. And then I simply asked a question, no problem with the arm on the back pushing the attacker, because that's what Hoosik Yoo, Yoo is a Korean FIH umpire who played for Korea as well.

So one of the few umpires that we have, lots of umpires have played at high levels domestically and continue to play at high levels. High ish levels domestically, or the very top. Loreen is not actually an exception to the rule. She is part of a very large group of umpires, especially in this current generation right now, who still play.

Um, but you played for Korea and he says, just my opinion, tackle the attacker, uh, by pushing defender's hands.

Okay. Paul wants the green.

I hope you're enjoying this.

Okay. The

question that we need to ask, which we do not have a good angle on, is the part that was sort of highlighted in those DMs, let me slow it down, is whether this contact here is enough to be declared as disadvantageous to the ball carrier, or was it simply contact?

It's a clean pick from the stick perspective, but does that contact make it easier in a way that disadvantages a defender? Is he pushed off balance? Is he distracted? Is he prevented from doing something with his body that he normally would have done but couldn't because he's got this weight on his back?

That's what we're looking at, okay? Do we have a good angle to see this?

No, we don't. But you know who does have a good angle to see this? Wait for it.

I'm hoping that our friend

here on the pitch

was

inside. If he was in the tramlines, he would have had a tough time to see this. But if he was interior positioned, if he was MCP in fact, he would have had a nice angle to see just how much force was going on and whether that changed what the ball carry was able to do with the ball.

Okay, what I do know about this particular play, this umpire got in touch with me because he's in the server, and this had been a repeated theme in this match, that players had been warned for using their arms and leaning on ball carriers prior to this. So when you look at the, the green part of it, If you look at it in isolation, you might say, Oh, that's not a Whitnell Tim video.

That's a HockeyNL video. But you could say, Ooh, that seems really harsh. First of all, you know, chill on the, on the, on the harsh part. But this had been a repeated pattern of behavior. That could mean that as an umpire, you're looking for things that aren't necessarily there because you warned, you warned, you see something that looks pretty close again, and then you give the card on that one.

And perhaps that wasn't as bad as the second one is the first one. That's why I don't like warnings. One of the many reasons why I don't like warnings, especially repeated ones, is because it gets you in a mindset where you're like, okay, well, I have to get the next one. I have to get the next one. And then when the next one comes along and it's not as bad, you're either, you're, you're either reaching for that card or you're You're looking at it going, oh, well, it's not as bad as the other one that I let go.

The one I only warned on, so I'm not going to call this one either. And then you've got five, six, seven times where things have been broken down and players do not trust you anymore. They don't believe that you're going to make the call. So think about that in this dynamic. If there had been repeated warnings, were they the right kind of warning?

Should they have been given? Because if you're warning and the play has been stopped, you have had to award the free hit for the attacker,

maybe you should step that up. And by maybe, I mean you definitely should step that up.

Okay. And yeah, I mean, I think, I think Barry, to be fair, he's not being carded for dissent.

He's being carded for the tackle. Okay. So What the most important part is that I want you to hear is the conversation we're having about the principles that you apply and how the context of this whole play is important. Getting the right position so you can see whether that push actually matters or not.

Because not every piece of physical contact is a foul. As much as I hated the way that the MPUA briefing was worded and presented and not explained very well. in which one of the points was we have to let more physical play happen in order to prepare our top players to move up to international levels.

The point about not all physical contact being disadvantageous is a valid one and if it had been expressed that way I think it would have gone a lot better but I wasn't the boss. You'd hate to see that taco not made just needs to be careful with context. So, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, Paul, about why you give warnings and why you should not give warnings and you need to do more.

Interesting clash of kit. Um, yeah, I, I think part of it is that you've got yellow socks and you've got some navy and navy socks and that sort of thing, but personally I, I struggle with navy and black so that would be a nightmare for me

as well.

Okay. Good stuff, everybody. Thank you for joining in on that.

Um, we are back to festive occasions. And, uh, I hope that this was a, uh, an interesting episode. Uh, a way to come back after, poof, four months away because I wasn't able to livestream during the Paris Olympics for obvious, uh, IOC, uh, Whatever the IOC broadcast arm is, uh, for those reasons, couldn't broadcast any live streaming there, but we did everything in the Discord server.

And just, it's just another way, think about it. If you're wondering what's going on and wanting your fix, wanting your information, that Discord server is always there for you and I'm always in it, almost kind of obsessively, and you can ask your questions, you can show and link to posts and, you know, You know, Instagram reels and Facebook posts and things like that that you want to have some more information on.

Be careful about Facebook posts being private, um, because if somebody isn't a member of a group, it's not going to show up for them. Just think about that, but that is always there for you. And we have very focused, a focused way of discussing stuff in the discord server, but you'll learn quickly because we've got a solid community and we have a culture that's built there.

That's productive, it's constructive, and it's informative, which is something that you might not see as often on the pure social medias. Just saying. Great to have you along, Godders. Sites of awkward beckon. Yeah, best wishes to you too, and I'm sure I'll chat with you before the holidays hit properly, but thank you very much.

And Paul is just wondering if, uh, are you talking about me on my travels? I have not been to Australia yet. I've barely gotten out of the UK, and it doesn't look like I'm gonna get out of the UK until next year. after March. And that's something that we can talk about more in the discord server if you want to pepper me with questions.

I'm going to go into the um, the local voice channel. Love to see you there. Thank you for joining in. All the best for your holidays. It's um, I can't believe it's, it's here. I'm going to be in Santa Barbara for them, so I'm very excited about kayaking on the Pacific Ocean on Christmas morning. It's going to be so good.

Um, Be good to yourselves, be good to the people around you, and we will see you in 2025. You're about Well, we don't know. I didn't say it did. I said we can't see from where we are, and you want to be the umpire who can see. Does that help, Andrew? We pick up on my nuances, sir. I need that from you. You might be wrong.

Yeah, you might be wrong. I might be wrong. Other people might be wrong. We don't have a good angle. That's what we're trying to learn about here. Because that's how we get better as umpires. Okay. Gotta go. Thanks for being here. And yeah, best of everything for one of one. I need to go get some wine. You're absolutely right.

Good point. Okay. Be fabulous. See you soon. Bye.

#hockeyumpiringvideos #fieldhockeyumpiringvideos #hockeyedumpiring #hockeyumpiringrules