As a career umpire, I've developed the skill of watching a match with an impartial eye. An essential skill, I believed, so I could be as accurate and fair as possible on the pitch. A few years ago, I had become so proficient at my detachment, I actually outright lost my passion for the game.
With my international career sputtering to a close and pitch performance no longer being a pressure-packed affair, I've turned my attention to coaching. My intention has resulted in genuine, jump-up-and-down-whilst-clapping excitement to see lightbulb moments, brave decisions, and happy umpires coming off the pitch. Which accidentally spilled over to the hockey itself, as the players would perform better if my umpires did. It was fun to watch players succeed again.
In this renewed love for the game, I squared up to live-tweeting the last of eight matches from Hockey World League action on Thursday (a women's competition coinciding in Brussels). The Canadian men were taking on the much higher-ranked English in the quarterfinal, and I was genuinely fan-nervous as the anthems were sung.
When the Red Cariboo bolted out to a hugely improbable 2-0 lead in the first quarter of play, I was beside myself. Analysing decision-makers had taken a back seat to the possibility of witnessing a magnificent upset.
Until Barry Middleton struck.
With two minutes left in the quarter, a raking sweep from England's Michael Hoare from outside the 23m was deflected high by Adam Frose of Canada. As it fell directly towards his goalkeeper, Middleton rushed in. As Dave Carter reached with his blocker over his head to pop the ball safely over the crossbar, Middleton beat him to the ball with the slightest of touches from his periscoping stick. He altered the ball's path oh so slightly, causing it to miss Carter's blocker, bounce off his shoulder and drop into the net behind him.
Belgian Gregory Uyttenhove called for an umpire's video referral immediately, asking whether Middleton had indeed touched the ball. In the video booth, Ayden Shrives was able to verify the contact. It's noteworthy that Uyttenhove didn't ask “is there any reason I cannot award a goal,” which is an acceptable question under the regulations. The video umpire also has the discretion to inform the referring umpire of anything they need to take into account from that passage of play in order to come to the correct decision, but Shrives didn't offer anything further. The goal was awarded.
In the broadcast booth Simon Mason, a GB Olympian goalkeeper with a remarkably nuanced understanding of the rules and how international umpires approach the modern game, called immediate attention to the issue which has fueled all of the debate as to whether this was a legal goal.
In Mason's view the deflection from Frose was a falling raised ball which triggers rule 9.10:
9.10 Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball until it has been received, controlled and is on the ground.
The initial receiver has a right to the ball. If it is not clear which player is the initial receiver, the player of the team which raised the ball must allow the opponent to receive it.
From the strict wording of the “aerial rule,” it would seem like it applies. But it doesn't. Here's why.
Ball up dangerously off CAN defender; aerials are intentional passes which trigger the 5m rule. I agree it’s a goal. #ENGvCAN @mercianhockey pic.twitter.com/GGVgpZIA3x
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
Many people disagree with this reading of the rule. For them, it's plainly captured by “a falling raised ball” specified in 9.10, and that's enough for them.
Yeah, we’ve gone over the strict wording of the rule and the spirit in which it’s written. This is another example. Imagine the alternative? https://t.co/e1eVEpgo6i
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
For me, this form of textualism isn't helpful in many instances interpreting our precious few 14 rules spanning no more than 33 small-form pages. So many aspects of decision-making aren't set out specifically in that sparse text, so we're required to look at not just the text of the rules but at the spirit of the game.
It should be entirely be subject to danger. Aerial rule is intended to promote the skill of the pass; don’t want 5m areas given when… https://t.co/EGMCliTuxB
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
…players accidentally lift the ball – either danger is created on the lift, on the drop, or not at all. #askFHU https://t.co/EGMCliTuxB
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
The aerial rule evolved in order to provide room for the aerial pass to grow as a skill in the game. Without it, every aerial would be a hospital pass, putting the receiver at immediate risk of being hammered when their head is looking skywards for the ball. In contrast, we don't give protection to players receiving the ball on the ground–the closing opponents are already in their vision. For balls deflected unintentionally into the air, we have the general rule regarding danger (9.8).
Still not convinced of the logic? Let's extend the aerial rule to other situations when the ball is off the floor.
If it had been a penalty corner or a shot a goat and the ball was in the air, there's no 5m rule so why would there be one for this? Goal!
— Jon Bray (@jonbray14) June 23, 2017
Shots taken where the ball is raised don't trigger the 5m rule. What about a gentle, knee-height scoop over a stick? Should the receiver of that lift be granted 5m of space as that ball is falling? Absurdist, but fits a literal interpretation of the rule, right?
Now, this isn't to say that once we've disposed of the aerial ball argument that the goal is automatically good.
That’s an entirely other question which is worth a thought. Was the ball made dangerous by Middleton? But not automatically so because of 5m https://t.co/x9xg4LgCMb
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
It's entirely possible that the ball should have been called back at the point of the deflection as leading to dangerous play, but I'm pretty sure that would have been met with howls of both, “it wasn't dangerous!” and “what about advantage?” So it falls to the players where the ball is landing not to massacre each other.
I want it to be a goal but if a player deflects a ball into another players shoulder / neck area. How is it not dangerous?
— Mercian Hockey (@mercianhockey) June 23, 2017
Honestly, had anything been even half a metre off here or there, I think there would have been danger. Once Uyttenhove had played on, both players, but Middleton specifically, had to be excruciatingly careful in how he played it. To the massive dismay of every Canadian fan, including this one, he played it absolutely perfectly.
The most delicate of touches, no real swing of the stick, as far away from Carter's helmet as possible. Then the ball itself is moving slowly enough that with the change of direction it only glances off Carter's shoulder before tumbling away. I just can't find any danger in the execution of the play, not at this highest level of play.
Finally, the coup de grâce.
@mercianhockey Simon Mason I think that's a great goal by Barry Middleton no danger
— John Wright (@JohnWumpire) June 22, 2017
If you didn’t think my qualifications are enough, how about a World Panel Olympian? ? #askFHU https://t.co/dipCRBncOs
— FHumpires.com (@fhumpires) June 22, 2017
So even as I stand to applaud Middleton's skill, my heart breaks all over again for the Canadian team.
