From: md@ui.org (Mark Doran)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey.field
Subject: Re: Rule Interpretation
Keywords: Rules, Interpretation, Off-sides
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:02:38 GMT
Reply-To: md@ui.org (Mark Doran)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNIX International

In article <19578@lakota.cme.nist.gov>, potts@cme.nist.gov (Micky Potts)
writes:

|> Do you know if the women of NEFHA (sectional level) are playing with
|> this experimental rule?  We in SEFHA (Southeast fha) are not right
|> now, but have discussed the possibility of doing so and the
|> possibility that this rule maybe used on an "experimental" basis at
|> the National Festival - this is just speculation.

Dunno -- I'll try and find out this weekend.  Somehow I have a feeling
it's just the men playing the offside rule at the moment.

|> I'm interested in what people (men and women) think of the new rules
|> (experimental and otherwise) this year.  The ones I know of are the
|> off-sides experimental rule, the 'offense must stop the ball outside
|> the circle on a penalty corner' experimental rule, and turning
allowed
|> but no shielding obstruction rule change.
|> 

Already posted my view on this lot...  Shan't bore everyone further ;-)

|> I am also curious about (theories or better yet, facts) why these
rule
|> changes have come about.  I have my own theory, but I am just an
|> player - definitely not "in-the-know".  My theory is that whoever
|> [whatever body] institutes these rule changes is grasping at straws
to
|> make hockey more spectator-interesting/watchable in the (misguided)
|> hope of a field hockey resurgence based on spectator interest. 
sigh.

My father umpires in the UK and works in the East and HA competitions
hierachy and his view on the "why did they do this?" questions goes 
something like this...

Obstruction change:  now that all meaningful games are played on astro
(remember the FIH thinks first of the internationals and then national
leagues and then on down to clubs playing for fun on the local cow
field :-), ball control by skilled players must be much greater.  Under
these circumstances, attackers may be able to move the ball about and
gain no _extra_ advantage over the defender even if they do "obstruct"
in
the traditional sense.  In other words, on astro, allowing the attacker
to get between ball and defender may not may not prevent the defender
playing the ball per se, unless the attacker fluffs the ball control.
The key appears to be that as a defender you will only get an
obstruction
call if the actions of the attacker deliberately or otherwise clearly
impedes you from legitimately playing the ball when it is with your
reach;
if the CF can get past you before you can react then he should be
allowed
to do just that any-which-way...

Corner change: simple -- internationals and national league teams find
it
too easy to score from a PC.  Stopping the ball outside the circle
makes
it just that bit harder to score and perhaps stops attackers from
"manufacturing" fowls (you know, just roll the ball on the nearest
foot...)
inside the D just to get a PC (the manufactured fowl is outlawed this
year too BTW). This combines with...

Offside rule: the roar of the crowd!  Open play goals are much more
entertaining.  This is an attempt to promote them being scored more
often.

Overall, it appears that the authorities are indeed trying to improve
the
spectacle of the game by encouraging open play goals and reducing
unnecessary stoppages in the game.  Since I play "up front" this
objective
has my support of course!

Any budding (or current even!) FIH umpires out there willing to
comment??

Cheers,

Mark.
--
Mark Doran                                     ATT:  +1 201 263 8400 x
265
Project Manager                                UUCP: m.doran@ui.org
UNIX International                             FAX:  +1 201 263 8401

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey.field