During the mid 1980’s through to the mid 1990’s England FIFA World Cup Winner Jack Charlton, as coach of Ireland adopted a style of play that drew criticism, in spite of its success.
He wanted the team to play a direct style out of defence and a high pressing game defensively in the opposition half. The plan was instead of slow, intricate passing through the midfield, the team played the ball forward quickly. This meant that they reduced the risk of costly mistakes in dangerous areas where stronger more experienced international teams would punish them.
Once in the opposition’s half his team relentlessly chased and closed down opponents as soon as possession was lost, forcing turnovers in areas where Ireland could punish them.
This was not some random approach whereby the team hit long balls forward and hoped for the best. Despite criticism of his long ball tactics under Charlton every player had a strict, well-practiced role on the pitch. He demanded discipline, and was quick to drop anyone who did not fit the system.
Four years after taking over the reins Charlton led Ireland to their first FIFA World Cup Finals in 1990, where they reached the quarter-finals. He then led the nation to successful qualification at Euro 1988, again their first appearance in the competition, before qualifying again for the the 1994 FIFA World Cup Finals, where they made the round of16.
In all Charlton oversaw 93 games as manager of Ireland, they won 46, drew 30 and only lost 17 games in the ten years he was in charge.
The interesting thing is while he copped heavy criticism for his tactics many have now said that it was Charlton’s methods with a heavy emphasis on out-of-possession structure, high pressing, and organized transition that laid the groundwork for today’s high-pressing game in football.
Other clubs adopted a similar system at the time, and tthey too copped criticism. This was not how the game was supposed to be played. The late great Brian Clough whose teams always played their way up the pitch and rarely resorted to a long ball came out with the following line, “If God had wanted us to play football in the clouds, he’d have put grass up there.”
Interestingly in Hockey in the 1970’s and 80’s there was no long ball but there was a similar high pressing style adopted by a number of teams, especially Australia.
In the last ten years we have started to see hockey teams use the long overhead pass more and more, and Clough’s quote is equally relevant if not more so, as in this sport the cost of laying the artificial turf on which the sport is played is around $1million, so why would you invest so much money only for the ball to be constantly thrown in the air?
Many fans are of the same opinion that this constant aerial bombardment, is not attractive to watch. The midfield in hockey has always been where the playmakers were, the players whose vision and skill could unlock the resolute defence of the opposition, so to see them bypassed completely on regular occasions makes the game all the poorer. for it.
Equally unattractive is witnessing players standing in front of a free hit waving their stick above their head.
Just as fast cars have always been claimed to be an extension of a man’s penis, one gets the feeling today that in the men’s game the constant throwing of long overhead passes is done for a similar reason. Look how far I can throw the pass!
However, the very real concern is danger, something the sport’s rule makers have always been very lax to face head on. Possibly because in the past there was a different attitude in society. Previously, it was expected that all players would accept an unwritten responsibility to prevent danger when they walked onto the field of play, it was their moral duty. Sadly, times have changed.
Rule 9.8 states: “Players must not play the ball dangerously or in a way which leads to dangerous play.
A ball is also considered dangerous when it causes legitimate evasive action by opponents.”
Surely danger needs to be clear before such a time, or before someone is struck by the ball? Maybe that evasive action comes too late.
I have been privileged to have commentated international hockey events for close to 20 years and in that time I have noticed not only the increase in aerial passing, but also the incidents of players being struck, and also players actually striking their opponents. Do the two go hand in hand? Or are the rule makers not on top of what is actually happening in the game?
At the Men’s and Women’s Junior Asia Cups in Inner Mongolia a couple of months ago I witnessed nine players struck by the ball in the upper body or the head. One was struck by a drag flick from a penalty corner that lifted their face mask off of their head! Now to be fair not all incidents were the result of overheard passes, but many were.
In addition to this there were five incidents where players struck other players, on three occasions the striking was with their stick and the player in question was suspended.
At the Asian Games in Aichi Nagoya I witnessed two more players struck in the head and two more players strike an opponent; It is important to state that this was only in the games that I was rostered to commentate.
In one game the ball ricocheted up above shoulder height inside teh circle and the attacking player took a wild swing at the ball in an attempt on goal. They missed the ball but struck the defender, – who fortunately had turned their head,- in the back of the head. The defender had to leave the field of play and have stitches in their head. The attacker received a 10 minute yellow card.
Yet in the second half following a long aerial pass, despite having struck a player in the head, that same player still attempted a wild swing at the ball as it fell.
As for the players who deliberately struck an opponent, I approached the team mate of one to try and fathom why this happened. Why a team mate? Simply because the player in question did not speak very good english.
The answere was “Frustration.” When pressed on what they meant by frustration, they expanded their answer to “Frustration at the way we were playing, the score, and the umpiring. We felt that there was inconsistency in how they were interpreting the rules.”
While this is of course no excuse for such behaviour, it is an issue that is raised regularly by players and coaches. It is even an issue that has been raised by umpires, that too many rules are left to their interpretation.
I have been concerned of late that someone is going to die on the field of play due to the aerial bombardment that has become the norm in the game. The irresponsible decision of players to take a swing at a falling ball is a recipe for disaster. I fear that I will be commentating when such an incident takes place.
What has not helped has been the glorifying of players swinging at such a ball, making contact and scoring. The decision to celebrate the spectacular has seen the rules of the game ignored as well as the safety of players on the pitch. This has only encouraged younger players to attempt the same feat. Frequently you will witness young players throwing a ball up in the air and swinging to smash it into the net, when previously they would be dribbling and shooting.
The interesting thing is the rules state that under 9.7 “Players may stop, receive and deflect or play the ball in a controlled manner in any part of the field when the ball is at any height including above the shoulder unless this is dangerous or leads to danger.”
The word ‘control’ is a key one, swiinging with the stick horizontal is rarely controlled. Secondly, the minute a player makes a backswing the whistle should sound as they are no longer ‘deflecting’ such a pass.
If there was a death on the field of play due to a player taking a wild swing and striking an opponent who would be responsible?
We consulted a lawyer to look at the legal aspect, and with most things legal they revealed that it would depend on the lawyers and how hard they wanted to pursue the matter.
In their opinion the player who struck the ball would most certainly face charges. They also believed that the umpires officiating the game would have previous games studied if available on film to try and ascertain their management of such situations. Depending upon the information gleaned they could also be viewed as being negligent.
Then there would be a very real possibility that the organisation running the tournament or competition could be held liable depending on their instruction to the officials as to how danger should be managed within a game. Our expert did state that it was “foolhardy” to have a rule in which danger was only determined if a player was struck or took evasive action. “you are opening yourself up for trouble,” was their exact comment.
What about those responsible for making the rules? In their opinion, and they were extremely frank, if it was a high profile player and a big law firm was taken on, they may well go after the rule makers. If they were considering such action they stated that they would no doubt request minutes of the rules committee meetings to be able to obtain a strong understanding of how the discussions taken regarding such rules, and who was in favour and who wasn’t. However, they said that they believed it was unlikely that they would be held accountable.
Which puts the onus back on the player, the umpire and the competition organisers. Which in turn implies that the Tournament Director and the Umpire Manager have huge roles to play to safeguard the players.
So do the rules need an overhaul, or do some of the rules of the past simply need to be restored? There are many who feel strongly that there has to be change. (Rule Changes, Changing the Game)
One that has been put forward is that we return to sticks not being allowed to be raised above shoulder height. This would eliminate the sticks waving above the head and the tennis like swings inside the circle, which are both dangerous and ugly from a spectator perspective.
Another suggestion has been that for an aerial pass to be allowed the receiving player must be in open space. In other words they are clear of any defenders when the ball comes to them, there is no five metre rule necessary then. If they are not in open space and a defender comes into that space as the ball is falling, the free hit goes back to where the aerial pass was thrown from.
Rest assured coaches will not want defenders throwing such balls forward if there is a risk of a free hit on their own 23 meter line.This will stop players throwing aimless overhead passes. It will also encourage teams to play out from the back or through the midfield.
When it comes to an aerial ball into the circle the same rule applies. If the player is not free and in open space the free hit goes back to where the pass was thrown.
It has been suggested by many ex players and former coaches that no ball inside the circle should be allowed above knee height, even a drag flick. If a ball is played higher than that level the player in question receives a five minute yellow card for creating danger. Penalty corners can be deflected into the goal, but the initial flick must be below knee height.
Despite the figures put out by the FIH on the recent World Cups Hockey is struggling. Broadcasters are not paying for tournaments. Also parents are concerned about flailing sticks, and balls being thrown in the air, which will in time impact on participation numbers if they are not already.
Seeing aerial passes and players flailing over their heads with their sticks is not a look that is going to encourage parents to let their children play the game, and they are the lifeblood of the sport. If parents are withdrawing children from sports due to the risk of concussion, when they see top flight players being struck by the ball are they really going to let their child play juniors?
Letting these wild swings, and aimless overhead passes become a part of the game at the highest level is detrimental at the lowest level. The focus needs to be more skewed to that level than the elite level, as this is where the most players are, and they need to be protected. They need to be playing in a safer environment where the rules are crystal clear and not left to an individual’s interpretation.
So would an amendment to the aerial pass rule not only make the game safer but also contribute to making the game once again more appealing to watch? If so why are we delaying making such a decision?
The sport knows that to those outside of the sport the rules are hard to comprehend, and few would disagree that there are inconsistencies when it comes to interpretation of the rules, as stated previously. (Time to Give Fans and Potential fans Clarity).
The warning signs are there. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed. It is also clear that the perceived danger is detering some parents from allowing their children to play, so it is time for those in positions to affect change to stick their head above the parapet and show some leadership.
