Danger – Beware

“If God had wanted us to play football in the clouds, he’d have put grass up there” is a famous quote from the great football coach Brian Clough, when English clubs started to resort to the long-ball game. In other words teams would hoof the ball in the air up the pitch aiming for a tall forward, who would nod the ball past the advancing keeper, or try and volley it home.

It would appear that his words are just a relevant in the sport of hockey over 40 years after he uttered them.

Whereas it takes a limited amount of skill to belt a football from one end of the pitch to the other, it does take a certain amount of skill to throw a hockey ball from one’s stick from one end of the pitch to the other. However it is just as unattractive to watch. Or is it?

There are some in the game that have opted to glorify this part of the game, even though it has eliminated a large part of what the sport was about, which was the stick skills to eliminate a player and fast accurate passing.

We have seen of late goals scored when a long overhead pass is thrown and the forward has volleyed the ball past the goalkeeper. Yes, it looks spectacular, and yes it is understandable that some have chosen to use such goals to promote the game, as they stand out as goals, but is this treading a very dangerous path?

First off all the rules of the game in relation to an aerial pass and whether danger is created have caused a great deal of confusion to players, officials, coaches and regrettably the most important people of all the spectators. There is no clear hard and fast rule. When there is not a crystal clear explanation then players at all levels will look to exploit the situation to their advantage; just as we all tend to do in our everyday lives, we push the boundaries of what is acceptable.

One of the rules that has caused a situation unlike any other in any similar team sport is rule 9.10. This reads as follows:

“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 ball may be intercepted within 5 metres but outside of playing distance provided it is done safely.

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.”

An example of players using this rule to their advantage is when a aerial pass is played into the circle. Now the defender, including the goalkeeper is not allowed to close down the player receiving the high pass until it has been “received, controlled and it is on the ground.” The player usually firing off a shot before the defending players can move within that five metres. As one viewer asked recently ‘since when has hockey given forwards a free shot at goal?’

Rule 9.8 states, “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.” So should a forward be allowed to play the ball on the volley?

Reading this rule defenders are programmed now to not advance until the player has brought the ball down controlled it and it is on the ground so does a player volleying it in the air go against the rules?

There are many who believe it is ridiculous that a goalkeeper in their area is not allowed to come out and play the aerial ball and paw it away from their goal. There are some who have stated that all it needs to change this rule is for one goalkeeper to do just that come out and claim the ball and if they happen to go through the centre forward, as in football, tough luck on the forward. Their job after all is to prevent the opposition scoring.

To show just how ludicrous this rule is, in a recent match an aerial pass was thrown into the circle. The forward was standing alone under the pass and therefore no defender was allowed within five metres, until the forward had received the ball, controlled it and it was on the ground. One of the defenders made no attempt whatsoever to go towards the said player, they were running back, possibly not five metres from the said player receiving the ball, but at least three, – so the umpire has a defence for their decision – but the player was trying to get goal-side to help their goal keeper protect their goal when the attacking player had the ball on the ground, and was going to shoot before they were closed down.

This defender made no attempt to go into the space and impede or put off the attacker. They were simply trying to put themselves in a defensive position between the attacker and their goal to try and prevent or lessen the chances of the “free shot” becoming a goal. They certainly did not create any danger to the receiving player or themselves.The umpire gave a penalty corner, from which the attacking side scored.

While one could understand why the decision was made, those who witnessed it commented that it indicated a lack of awareness as to what the defensive player was trying to do. It also highlighted how ridiculous this interpretation of the rule is. Also why the circle has become a target for aerial bombardment.

There was a goal scored by New South Wales Pride in Round 2 of Australia’s Hockey One League which like the previous goal is already being hailed as a contender for ‘goal of the season’ (Watch it here: https://www.tiktok.com/@7sportau/video/7289762864011758849), yet if one reads the rules should this goal have stood?

The rules state “Players must not approach within 5 metres of an opponent receiving a falling raised ball.” The Pride player who received the ball, Australia’s Tom Craig was not stationery under the pass as it was coming down. The pass initially looks to be falling safely to the goalkeeper. Some have argued that Craig in fact creates danger by running backwards into that space. The argument being that as per the rules, “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.”

The goal stood. The debate rages on. One feels for the umpires who have to make such a call as the rules do little to assist them, as they are to say the least ambiguous. However, once again allowing such a goal has many who look at the whole of the game extremely concerned.

There are many who have watched hockey for years who like those who followed football bemoan this aerial bombardment. “Why have a midfield if you are simply going to bypass it?” The ability to throw the ball into the air and over a long distance is becoming tiresome to watch. It is not remotely enjoyable, not when on 80% of occasions defenders simply look to throw it long. The skill of a team building from the back and playing through the midfield is being lost.

Has this come about as sports scientists opt to turn athletes into players rather than improving a natural player’s fitness and stamina? Some believe that this is very much the reason why.

The biggest problem that seems to have been overlooked is that now this style of play is creeping into the lower levels of the sport, where players are not as highly skilled.

The glorified goals where players have smashed an aerial pass on the volley past the goalkeeper, as was bound to happen, has seen young players, not as skilled trying to emulate their heroes. The outcome from such players has some key people in the sport exceptionally worried.

One of the problems with the Rules of the sport is the definition of “Danger.” 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.”

That is the closest we come to an explanation of what constitutes ‘danger.’ It has been explained to this writer that unless a player takes evasive action the play is not deemed as dangerous. This seems absurd. Surely the aim should be to prevent a player running the risk of being injured, rather than letting play continue and hope that they can avoid being struck as a result of dangerous play?

Letters have been written to National Associations and we have been advised to the FIH but at the time of going to print these remain unanswered.

John Willmott, the President of the World Grand Masters Association, who has plenty of skin the game having been one of very few Artificial Turf Pitch consultants in the UK and worked on London’s 2012 Olympic hockey event, as well as having sat on the FIH’s Equipment Committee. In his letter to the CEO of England Hockey he wrote:

“My particular concern is the now famous, Zach Wallace aerial shot on goal. It is totally clear to me that should any player have been standing in the way of his aerial shot and if it were to hit that player on the head, then it would be instant death. I believe this rule needs urgent change, before we have any more fatalities. The world-wide publicity given to this aerial goal and the FIH’s glorification of the skill involved, makes it even more likely to happen somewhere!

I would also question the liability of everyone concerned in such rule making and indeed the sports administrators for allowing such a dangerous technique. I would also make the same comment about the so called “Tomahawk” shot.”

As someone else pointed out, it is not just the players who are at risk with such shots, but also the umpires themselves.

Not the Footy Show spoke to a legal expert regarding liability, and they stated that regrettably the person who would most likely be prosecuted would be the player striking the ball. In the most serious of circumstances they could be charged with manslaughter.

When asked if those officiating the match or those on the rules committee could be held accountable, they advised that it would depend, as such a case would be extremely costly. Therefore in their opinion they believed that it would be unlikely to ever go that far. However, the player concerned would face a very unpleasant time, waiting for an outcome.

If one was to pursue the rule makers it would most likely mean taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That is why it would be such a costly case.

Page two of the FIH’s rules under the heading “Responsibility and Liability” states:

“Emphasis is placed on safety. Everyone involved in the game must act with consideration for the safety of others. Relevant national legislation must be observed.”

So despite being the creators of the rules of the sport, and having a committee that oversees the rules, the FIH in that statement alone is removing itself from any incidents that may occur as a result of those rules. As our legal expert stated ‘all care and no responsibility.’

The emphasis ultimately lies with each individual player. However our legal advisor stated that the umpires could come under the microscope in such a situation. They stated that with the streaming of games it would be far easier than in the past to be able to build an impression as to how the umpires in a match where a player was seriously or fatally injured could be assessed as to how they managed dangerous play over a period of time. They advised that to try and share the responsibility and lessen the impact on the player a good legal team would certainly look into this area to try and show that players had been playing in a dangerous manner for a while, and dangerous play had gone unpunished by the officials.

Having read the FIH’s wording stating that “national legislation must be observed,” we asked could the governing body be held accountable? The reply was that again this would be hard to prove. The only window of opportunity in that regard would be in relation to communication to clubs and in turn by them to their players as to how the rules are to be applied, and equally a record of such communication between them and the umpires that they supply.

The overall view was that the player is the one who would be held responsible, and possibly the umpires. In our legal expert’s opinion it would be very unlikely and very expensive that a legal team would pursue a case against a national association and/or the International Hockey Federation. ‘However you would hope that it would be on the conscience of those individuals and the rule makers for the rest of their own lives,” was the parting remark.

This now raises a question as to whether the rules should be adapted to protect the players?

As stated previously while we may see such play at the highest level not harming anyone, what is likely to happen in the lower grades when players try to copy such an act?

What is even more of a concern is when one looks into the insurance aspect should such an event occur.

Lisa Wilson who was a guest on Podcast 117 to talk about the Transplant Games, and how her son Tom tragically died when he was hit on the head in a freak training ground hockey accident and went on to donate his organs, shared how she discovered that there was no insurance when Tom passed away.

Various sports have differing policies of cover. When one then tries to look at the cover in individual countries it becomes even more complicated, as policies can differ considerably. The recommendation that was made was as a club at which players play, and often insurance is part of their registration fee, take the time to have someone look over the insurance policy on offer, and be aware as to what your players are covered for, but more importantly what the insurance does not cover.

If we are to continue to see this aerial bombardment and such goals highlighted to promote the game, there has to be more responsibility shown. Ultimately should the sport be promoting safety or the spectacular? One feels that those raising their concerns at this time should be listened to, as it will be a case of when rather than if before someone at a lower level of the game is seriously hurt or worse.

The warning signs are there, the question is will those with the power to protect all players take heed?