When it comes to sport a penalty is invariably a decision that goes against a defending team. The aim is to penalise them, and give an advantage to the attacking team.
In football a penalty often results in a goal. In fact in recent times this is even more likely with statistics showing that now 81% of penalties are scored.
While there are penalty strokes in the sport of hockey, and the success rate from these remain high, there are also penalty corners.
The penalty corner was introduced in 1908. Prior to this date, for an offence committed by a defender inside the attacking circle there would be a bully between a player from each side. The rule was changed, as ultimately there was seen to be little advantage to the attacking side. Although those were very different times, the rules of the day meant that it was in the defenders interest to deliberately break up and attack with foul play, as they stood a good chance of winning the bully.
In those days at a penalty corner the attacking team was only required to stop the ball before they took a shot at goal.
It may surprise some that in the first set of rules for the sport, players were allowed to use both their feet and hands to stop the ball. The use of the feet was outlawed in 1938. In 1982 the hand stop, which had become the preferred method of stopping the ball injected from the baseline at penalty corners was outlawed. The reason was allegedly because too many goals were being scored from penalty corners!
There have been numerous changes in the past 40 years: In 1987, the number of defenders was reduced to the current quota of five. also the attacking side was required to make sure that the first hit at goal could must cross the goal line at a height no greater than 18 inches (46cm) to score. In 1998, the location where the ball was injected was metricised to at least 10 metres from the goal post. (previously rule which stated it must be at least 10 yards). A specific mark inside the circle was introduced in 2000. Additionally, from 1995, substitutions were permitted at penalty corners. This rule saw the development of specialist penalty corner takers who just came on when a PC was awarded and was abolished three years later in 1998. In 1996, a penalty corner required that the ball be stopped outside the circle before a goal could be scored. From 2003, it did not need to be stopped, but had to travel outside the circle.
The penalty corner has been under more scrutiny in recent times for a number of reasons, and many believe that more changes may be made after the Paris Olympics.
One of the big questions is whether the attacking team still has an advantage when awarded a penalty corner. In recent times fans have witnessed the conversion rate from penalty corners in the men’s game drop to below or around just 30%. The women’s game has seen less penalty corner specialist drag flickers so the success rate has tended to be lower than in the men’s game. However, the success rate of those sides with a genuine top class drag flicker has tended to see that individual have a higher conversion rate than many of their male counterparts.
So why has the conversion rate in the men’s game dropped? Is this down to the players themselves? Is this at a level to indicate that a penalty corner is no longer an advantage for the attacking team? Not the footy show decided to ask some of the players who were great exponents of the penalty corner on how they saw the current situation.
It will probably come as no surprise that some were in agreement when it came to why the conversion rate has dropped, others did not agree that it had.
“It (the penalty corner) is still a great advantage to the attacking team. Just looking at finals on any high level, getting that 30-50% PC rate usually makes the difference in winning or not. So definitely still an advantage. 30% is high! and a great result,” was the view of former Dutch international Jeroen Hertzberger.
“The rate dropped because people just run better. This has to do with protection. People’s feet, knees, hands and face are protected, so there is no real risk in running down the barrel anymore. Where they used to cover the width of the stick, now they cover surface or nearly 30cm.” He concluded.
Former Australian drag flicker and now specialist coach Luke Doerner had a similar view to Hertzberger, “I don’t believe it has dropped significantly. 30% scoring rate was a good conversion rate for teams ranked in the top six in competition against other sides in top six. What you see now is probably some improvement from defence of corners for those teams outside the top four.”
Indian Flicker Rupinder Pal Singh agreed with Doerner, in terms of the defence of opposition teams improving. “The percentage has dropped because penalty corner defences have gotten stronger every year. Every team has good first/second runners, and the postmen as well. The first and second runners and postman have become specialised roles in modern hockey. They run so bravely to cover the ball line.”
Fellow former Indian drag flicking specialist Jugraj Singh whose career was sadly cut short due to a car crash agreed with his fellow countryman, “I believe the reason is that now every team has improved their defence for PCs, and moreover for very many years the technique of the attacking team is the same and very predictable, Until you have good variations and good combinations between players there will be no change..
One more important part is now there is so much safety equipment available for defensive players today, the rushers are fearless, and that makes it difficult for the flicker to score goals.” He concluded.
This was a point that Argentina’s Olympic gold medalist and now German international Gonzalo Peillat also saw as being the main reason for the decline in success. “The effectiveness in converting penalty corners has dropped significantly in recent times, reaching 30% or less. One of the main reasons for this decline is the advancement and improvement in the protective gear used by defenders. Nowadays, field hockey teams have more advanced and effective protective equipment, which gives defenders greater confidence and security when facing these plays. This increased confidence allows defenders to be more aggressive and effective in blocking and clearing the ball.”
Another to highlight this advancement in equipment was former Great Britain and England drag flicker Ashley Jackson. “Increased protective gear, as well as increased athleticism across the board from No1 runners, and the priority and importance on No1 running given the high levels of effectiveness,” were the main reasons he believed had resulted in less goals being scored. “Ultimately they now know they won’t be injured/hurt, and so they can get close enough for it to always hit them low (knee or below), which can now be covered in carbon fibre knee/shin/foot pads. Because of the increase in that blocking from the runner, the goal keeper can ‘cheat’ making the goal even smaller, also by utilizing a heavily padded up line man.”
Jackson went on to say “The playing surface is also a big contributor. Not all pitches are the same, for example Lee Valley in London is a very slow heavy surface that holds a large amount of water, which makes it difficult to flick on at the best of times, let alone with runners and a goalkeeper to beat. Other pitches around Europe, for example for Belgium home Pro League games it is the opposite, with a surface, that is very fast and easy to flick off. It is also easier to inject the ball much faster, making it harder all round for the defenders.”
“I think nowadays those players who are taking Penalty Corners are not as good and experienced as the penalty corner takers in previous years when I was playing,” was the view of Pakistan’s Sohail Abbas, regarded by many as one the greatest drag flickers of all time. “If you see the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, India, and Pakistan, I mean you name the country, they have drag flickers but I think the quality has decreased. As far as the defensive structure of penalty corners is concerned they have improved a lot, especially goalkeepers, the first runner and the player standing in the goal. It’s the improvement in defence and also the equipment of the defence for safety reasons, and the quality of corner takers that are the reason for less success. They’re (the drag flickers) not taking as much risk as old penalty corner takers were taking. They were pushing high, low and everywhere, but nowadays I think lots of players that I’ve seen are trying to push low, by not taking risks it’s easy for the defence to stop and easy to predict.”
So if the defensive gear has made it easier for the defending side who have infringed, hence the penalty corner has been given against them, is the Penalty Corner still an advantage to the attacking team? Some believe that it is not, and like the bully in time we will see it disappear as we know it. To traditionalists this would be more than a great shame, as it is one component of the game that is unique to hockey.
Luke Doerner was adamant that the Penalty Corner is indeed still an advantage. “It is pretty clear it is still a significant advantage, outside of London Olympics, sides with highest conversion rates on penalty corners have won the tournament. This is especially evident on men’s side of the game. I suggest 70% of the men’s games are still decided by corners; I am not sure exact percentage of recent years.”
Rupinder Pal Singh shared a similar view, “Yes, absolutely, it is an advantage to an attacking team. Top six teams have great dragflickers and they score in every game, which puts score board pressure on the opposition. Every team works so hard to get PCs, and dragflickers have a plan to execute even in high pressure situations.”
Fellow Indian Jugraj Singh was also a strong believer that it must remain. “Of course penalty corner is key part of game and it’s an exciting part of the game for viewers to make the game popular. It also puts pressure on the other team.”
“I believe that the penalty corner is still an essential aspect of our sport, deeply rooted in the origins of hockey. It remains a moment where there is a higher probability of scoring a goal, especially if it is not defended correctly,” was Gonzalo Peillat’s opinion. “For spectators or those watching on television, it creates a lot of emotions, more attention, nerves, and various other feelings that make that moment special.”
Sohail Abbas had a similar view “Of course it is still an advantage, and it’s a beauty of hockey. Everyone who’s watching hockey they love to see PCs being taken, and scoring the goals on penalty corners. It’s unfortunate that the percentage of Penalty Corner goals is getting lesser and lesser, but it’s just a matter of the quality of the drag flickers. I believe it’s still an advantage, and it’s part of the game. Every game has its own beauty and in field hockey Penalty corners are the beauty and everyone loves it…”
Ashley Jackson agreed with everyone else when he said, “It is still an advantage or at least it feels like it is.” He then added “however, I think the reality is that’s now probably only true for the elite flickers in the world – maybe three or four flickers, – and even for some of them it depends on the playing surface.”
So one thing is very clear the players certainly do not want to see the penalty corner no longer a part of the game.
Is there any way we can try and restore that advantage to the attacking side?
“I don’t believe any changes need to be made to ensure it is advantageous to the attacking team,” Gonzalo Peillat said, “but rather, it’s important to stay updated and continually discover the best protective gear for the players.”
“I still think it’s advantageous to the attacking team, was also the view of Jeroen Hertzberger. “To see the results rise you would have to take out protection. Then if people run like morons they actually will get hurt. People will not risk that, and it allows the drag flicker to convert more.
You don’t want to take away the PC. It’s part of our game. What you could do is say you hit the runners foot twice, then the PC becomes a shoot-out or a stroke. Then you wont have people making suicide runs five times in row.”
Most fans would agree that five penalty corners in succession is not always the most riveting viewing.
Sohail Abbas put forward a suggestion that no doubt will not go down well with some but will with others. “Everyone wants to see a lot of goals, There are now shoot-outs after the game is a draw. If you want to change something what we can do is during the game when the Penalty Corner is awarded there should be a time limit like in shootouts. Let’s suppose two seconds or three seconds, not much more than that, and there must be only four people involved. Only one goalkeeper for the defending side, one injector, one stopper and one drag flicker, and that’s it. No indirect drills, only a drag flicker and a goalkeeper and a time of two to three seconds. So it’s a match between drag flicker and a goalkeeper.”
Ashley Jackson also put forward an interesting suggestion. “My change would be very simple, and I think would solve many issues as well as bring back some excitement for the crowds again. I would adopt the indoor rule where everyone in defence has to start outside the goal. This will take the No1 runner out the direct line of the initial shot, leaving it as flicker v goalkeeper (and postman), gee we may even see a flick fly into a top corner again!” He said “It will still allow time for all defenders to get into positions to play all routines/rebounds, but the punishment for the PC in the first place is you’ll have to make a save on first shot.
This will also hopefully remove the endless re-awards where it keeps getting charged down over and over again which makes for terrible viewing even for someone involved! I would also say the knee if covered by padding is for the attacker not for the defender.” In other words if the flick strikes the knee in this situation the decision goes to the attacking side. “I think PCs should always be apart of the game, they have been forever, and it just is part of the game, Jackson concluded.
This would not be a major change as in 1961 a restriction was put on the number of defenders behind the goal line, which was six. In 1987, that number was reduced to the current quota of five. Is it time to reduce it to four or adopt the suggestion put forward by Jackson or Abbas?
Luke Doerner who works as a specialist penalty corner coach not surprisingly focussed on the aspect of trying to restore an advantage to the attacking side. “The higher skilled teams in all aspects of the corners are getting better shots, and having higher conversion rates. Teams are spending money on specialist goal keeper coaches, the same attention to detail needs to be given to the pusher, trapper and flickers.” He suggested. “The same is also important on defence. Teams are spending more time learning how to better defend corners, which is also contributing to better outcomes for these teams. This is very evident on women’s teams as well as the men’s game.. I know our sport is not as flush with money like American sports, but we need to take leaf out of their book and pay the attention to detail they put into each specialist skill a player requires.”
This is a very valid point. The problem as Doerner identified is that while appearing to be a fully professional elite sport Hockey is caught somewhere in the middle between being fully amateur and semi-professional, so where would the money come from to raise the bar when many players, umpires and coaches are paid a pittance, if at all?
As to whether penalty corners should be eradicated from the game Doerner again was very clear on where he stood. “From my point of view it’s a significant part of our game and has been since hitting corners was the fashion. Corners give us a break in the game, and spectators, a chance to talk and build atmosphere. It creates hero’s and villains. It’s exciting to see a powerful flick in the top of the net, or equally exciting to see a goal keeper’s diving save. If corners were removed it would allow teams to defend the circle differently and could lead to dour boring hockey which no one wants. Infringements currently in the circle create consequences and chances which is what players and spectators want. We want to see shots whether they are field shots or corners.”
While few would argue with that sentiment, one has to remember that penalty corners were created to stop defenders deliberating breaking up play in the circle. So should a defending team be penalised by a penalty corner if an attacking player opts to play the ball onto their foot rather than shoot?
This has become a regular occurrence in the game, teams opting to run along the baseline, and if there is not a player free in front of goal to simply win a penalty corner by playing the ball onto the defender’s foot. The attacking player has limited their shooting options by making such a run, so should they be rewarded for such a play? After all the defender has not “deliberately” broken up play? Again more room for debate.
In August last year it was announced that the FIH was looking to bring in a trial change to the rules for penalty corners based on the safety aspect. (Rule Changes, Changing The Game). It was then quickly withdrawn.
“I actually don’t find it that dangerous,” was Jeroen Hertzberger’s view. “I have only seen someone get hurt badly once in 20 years. A runners foot that was broken, but not anything else., Maybe in lower leagues where there is not protection, but in the premier leagues and international hockey there are hardy ever injuries because of protection, and people know what they are doing.”
“There is zero data supporting this argument that I have seen,” was Luke Doerner’s response. “We have players using great safety gear now which allows players to defend corners better than they ever have, and safely. There are always risks in any sport, I believe we have a good balance currently on penalty corners.”
Ashley Jackson took a similar view. “Safety…an interesting word, I’d love someone to put some data together, if we look at international/top level club game I’d guess more runners have been hit by a direct shot than ever before, but they have more protection, and are more willing to run towards danger. How many injuries do they end up with given the amount of times they are hit? Who is making it dangerous? The benefit of running those lines with all extra padding has promoted No1 runners to be the most valuable players for the coaching staff and any team. We can’t be finishing top matches in world hockey, where some of the best players to have played the game have produced some fantastic moments and at the end of the game we are talking about No1 runners being the deciding factor.
With regards to safety, my guess would be the most dangerous part is the ability to be able to hit the second shot high at goal. If this is the case then just add any hit must be at backboard height until the PC is over; once ball has left the D after the first shot has been taken.”
Gonzalo Peillat also focussed on the issue of statistics when he said “It is important to consider the level at which these statistics will be collected, as analyzing injuries in 10-year-old players is not the same as analyzing injuries in experienced players. Additionally, it is essential to have reliable verification of these statistics, as debates have arisen in recent years about the reliability of certain reports.”
This was clearly a topic on which he had very strong feelings as he went on to state “While there are many theories that the penalty corner is dangerous, I believe that hockey itself is more dangerous than the penalty corner, where players are fully protected. There are far more chances of getting injured during the entire match, where balls fly directly into the area with multiple players and their sticks in the way, deflections during play, lifted hits, and various actions that make hockey dangerous. Therefore, it surprises me that the penalty corner is often singled out as dangerous when the four defenders and the goalkeeper are fully protected. The key is to ensure that the protection is adequate, correct, and used at all ages. Just as mouthguards and shin guards became mandatory over time, this should be the same for all age groups.
In Formula 1, the federation and teams have made notable advances in improving the safety of cars to protect drivers in case of accidents, and not reducing the speed of the cars which is the essence or racing. Ice Hockey has also taken significant steps in terms of protection. The implementation of more advanced and modern protective equipment, such as visor helmets, neck guards, and padded shoulder pads, has been essential in reducing the risk of serious injuries to players. These improvements have allowed players to face dangerous situations with greater confidence and safety, without compromising the essence and excitement of the game.
Instead of building upon a history and tradition in hockey, we change rules every 1 or 2 years, wanting to innovate year after year without maintaining a sense of history and the essentials. We should focus on the essence of our sport, and really think about what the penalty corner entails. It is about the tactical part of teams defending their areas/goals, it is a critical moment in matches, and a genuine spectacle for the fans. This is where the magic of hockey lies, where strategy, skill, and excitement come together to provide a unique spectacle. By drastically modifying the penalty corner, we risk losing this distinctive and thrilling aspect that has captivated players and spectators for decades.”
Once again he makes some very valid points, and many have stated that most of the serious injuries at all levels of the game have in fact come from players using the reverse stick or tomahawk. So if safety is truly an issue that this play should be looked at and possibly outlawed.
Having a group of former international players who all excelled at the highest level, who care passionately about the game, and who are also intelligent individuals and deep thinkers when it comes to hockey it seemed the ideal time to discuss these issues regarding penalty corners, as no doubt the FIH Rules committee will be meeting after the Olympic Games and will put forward amendments as Peillat stated
The FIH Rules committee is made up of eight individuals. One of those is a player’s representative, one is an FIH Staffer who has experience on the technical side of the game, and five of the remaining six are or were umpires; one individual we could not ascertain their expertise in the game. Five of the six represent the international confederations.
Should there be more input from players and coaches and not just those at the highest level, but also those involved at grassroots? It is important that the rules work across all levels of the game.
In this piece every confederation was represented with the exception of Africa. The questions that need to be asked is do these representatives consult with the players in the regions that they represent? Do they sit down with the likes of those we have spoken to in order to hear their thoughts and ideas and take them to their meetings?
These seven pillars of the game all willingly shared their thoughts, and all have given fans of the game food for thought, one feels that such input should be happening more often and across many aspects of the game so that any changes that are made are made in the best interests of preserving the uniqueness of the sport, and its history moving forward.
For now it is clear that the Penalty Corner has to stay. Whether the advantage needs to sway back to the attacking side, that is what is up for discussion.
.
