Change can be confronting, it can be difficult. Change is constant, and so we are told, it is necessary to stay relevant in today’s world. However does this really apply when it comes to sport?
If you look at most sports change can be risky. It can attract new fans, partners and players but at what cost? Can change see a sport lose its soul?
There are some sports which have always been built around the premise that they are a simple contest between athletes and are not bogged down with intricate rules. Some have seen minimal rule change sin over 100 years.
‘Cricket as explained to a foreigner visitor’ is a well known tongue-in-cheek explanation of the intricate laws of the game.
Field Hockey does not have an equivalent explanation. Which is a shame as it may go a long way to helping pull in new fans. Maybe that is a challenge for a lover of the game, to come up with an equivalent.
Field Hockey has however, like many other sports fallen into the trap of every year making changes to the Game’s rules. Is this because the rules of the game fall under an employee’s control so therefore to justify that responsibility they feel a need to repeatedly make changes? Or is it because there is a committee that has been set up to look at this area of the game, and they feel that they must make some changes each year?
As has been advocated by this writer for a number of years, one feels that the sport would be best served calling together a group of current and ex players, coaches and umpires, television producers and also some fans and sitting in a room and going through the rule book. The aim being to eliminate rules that are no longer necessary, to simplify rules that players and fans simply fail to understand, and reduce the number of rules left to Umpire interpretation.
Rugby Union did this in Stellenbosch in 2012, no doubt aided by a few glasses of Pinotage. They agreed on changes, in the main in relation to the safety of players. Some of the rules were not liked, but they have become accepted. Only one still appears to cause confusion, and that is the engagement of the front rows at scrum-time. Which overall shows it was worth the effort.
As we wrote in “Can You Put A Price On History” a former official from New South Wales, Stan Imer wrote back in the 1960’s, “Large crowds watch soccer and can enjoy it and understand it without knowing much about the rules. If they want to appreciate the finer points of what’s going on there are very few rules to understand. Can spectators watch Hockey and understand it as easily? Obviously not, because by comparison the rules are very intricate; because all too often decisions are not based on fact but on the umpire’s opinion; and because the ball is very small, moves quickly and some of the best play cannot be seen to advantage from the sideline.”
He went on to advocate “Basically there are two sides to this problem. The first is that the game must be made less technical and easier to follow.” For those interested ” The second, but related problem is to attract public interest,” according to Imer.
Despite making these comments over 50 years ago it appears no one listened and the comments are still valid. At this moment in time never has it been more important that the game be made less technical and easier to follow.
With the sport having finally negotiated television deals globally that will see the new FIH Pro League given television coverage of every single match it is crucial that the viewers at home can understand what is happening on the pitch, or can pick up the basic rules with ease.
With the FIH Pro League being launched at the end of this month many were surprised that the powers that be announced rule changes to be imposed as of the 1st of January 2019.
One of the rule changes, “Completion of a penalty corner, Rule 13.6” caused much confusion, with players, coaches and umpires reading and re-reading the wording to try and understand what was being changed. Luckily one Umpire trainer came to the rescue and wrote a clear and concise explanation for all. The problem here is if those involved in the game struggled to grasp what the new rule meant, what hope do those new to the game have? Especially the new television audience.
Yet as much as this rule change caused confusion the decision to remove the Goalkeeping privileges for substitute field player, is one that has saddened most.
This was a unique part of the game. In the past two years the scruffy appearance of a player in a training bib to differentiate them from their team mates was outlawed and players had to don a proper shirt. This was a good move and made the game look more professional.
At the Men’s Hockey World Cup in India fans witnessed teams take off their goalkeeper and use the extra outfield player with goalkeeping privileges to good effect. Australia managed to score a last minute equaliser in one of the game’s of the tournament against the Dutch, to force a shoot-out by using this tactic.
There is no doubt that such a move adds to the excitement of a match. The timing is crucial, and teams have to have the discipline to keep possession and play with that extra man. Scotland at the Hockey World League semi-finals in London did not go for this option in a must win game, because they had not practiced it. Which shows how disciplined teams have to be to play without a goalkeeper. It is a skill.
The problem, as far as the rule makers were concerned was when a team lost possession and if the team conceded a penalty corner. The official goalkeeper could not come back on. Which meant that the team had to defend with no players on the goal-line in goalkeeping protective gear as a drag-flick travelling at around 120kmh was fired towards goal. Suddenly there was a safety aspect to consider. The Game’s administrators had a duty of care to ensure that no player was seriously injured.
To exacerbate the situation, one wily coach realised that the best form of defence in this situation was to have the player with goalkeeping privileges run at the drag flicker. If the ball hit their body there would not be another penalty corner awarded and the danger of conceding had been averted. However the risk of injury was extremely high. These players were really putting their bodies on the line for their team.
Unfortunately we witnessed this too at the World Cup with the New Zealand Blacksticks player Cory Bennett running down an England Penalty corner in their crossover match. Bennett then having to leave the field of play after the blow rendered him unable to run.
The reasoning behind the subsequent rule change is understandable, but have those making the decision also taken away one of the most intriguing and exciting parts of the game?
Had, as suggested a working group sat in a room and brainstormed the rules you wonder whether we would have had a different outcome.
There is no doubt that penalty corners are one of the most dangerous parts of the modern game. Drag-flickers have become so adept at their art that the ball is flying at speeds that are remarkable. Indian Sandeep Singh was reportedly clocked at over 130kmh. On average at international level the goalkeeper has 0.6 of a second to react (a figure calculated by experts for TV).
By taking away the goalkeeping privileges of an outfield player, when a goalkeeper has been substituted, have the rule makers made the game safer? If teams still opt to pull their goalkeeper and have an extra outfield player, albeit without goalkeeping privileges they may have in fact made the game more dangerous.
Had the issue been debated one wonders whether those in the room would have instead looked at the penalty corner in isolation. As this is where the danger is being defined with an outfield player with goalkeeping privileges. It is also the most dangerous part of the game full stop.
You cannot help but wonder whether the outcome would have been different. As covered in “Sometimes the Simplest Suggestions Make The Most Sense” back in 2017, the guys from the Podcast “The Reverse Stick” suggested that the same rules should apply to drag flickers as to those who opt to hit a penalty corner. That the ball must not be lifted higher than the backboard of the goal. It can however be deflected higher. This would make the penalty corner safer, it would also mean that the player with goalkeeping privileges would not be in any extra danger. Would that have been the outcome rather than the rule change now in place?
We will never know, but it does strengthen the argument that the game needs to get a room full of people from all aspects of the game together to try and fulfil the vision of Stan Imer that “the game must be made less technical and easier to follow.”
One can’t help thinking that maybe the same suggestion made by the late Kerry Packer to the Government of Australia in 1991 when appearing before the House of Representatives Select Committee, about the creation of laws is also applicable to sports administration. (From 0.43 – 1.28). Of Course this could apply to other sports and not just Hockey.
