Be it a favourite sweater or any number of things in our lives, you can only patch them up for so long, before you realise that whether you like it or not you have to get a new one.
In the past week there has been much debate in Hockey circles over a partially leaked document regarding changes to the penalty corner. This document spread like a wildfire, and in the end over the weekend the FIH put out a tweet which stated:
We have seen some of the debate on social media following the publication of a genuine but unfortunately incomplete document from FIH about the current status of the Penalty Corner review which FIH has initiated. Therefore, here is a link to a document prepared by FIH Sport Director Jon Wyatt, of the complete information that was sent by the FIH to all National Associations 2 weeks ago, and includes the background and rationale behind the rule trial and how the data gathered will be used to inform future discussions and decisions on the PC. This document therefore also answers some of the questions that have been raised.
There was no press release on the issue from what we can find, which is odd, as these are pretty radical changes to the game. The document referred to can be opened here https://bit.ly/3qq2Xjw
As stated by the FIH, there has been much debate on the issue.
One thing that needs to be remembered here is that the rules of the game need to be interpreted throughout all levels of the sport. This is where Hockey faces unique challenges. Sports like Football have a far easier job when making rule changes as theirs is a far simpler game.
While much of the attention is focussed on the elite side of the game one has to remember that the majority of players do not play at the elite level. So it is often wise to consider the lowest form of the game first, and the impact that a rule change will have at that level rather than at the highest level.
The Penalty Corner is a distinct element in the game of hockey. Just as the Bully-off was. So long has that part of the game been absent it is truly embarrassing watching players try and execute it on the rare occasion that an umpire has been forced to stop play. There are many who passionately regret the loss of the bully.
To take away the penalty corner would be to lose another very unique aspect to the sport. Which would change it dramatically, and see the game lose another unique thing that made it stand out.
The rationale behind the proposed changes are laid out in the link shared by the FIH. The key reasons are to “reduce the danger by removing the direct shot and therefore no need for defenders to run towards an attacker shooting at goal.”
To remove “the need for additional protective equipment to be worn by field players, which reduces the barrier to entry of having to purchase further equipment and significantly improves the safety, and the safe appearance, of hockey.”
Also to speed up the game. This refers primarily to the elite level as the document states, “at International level, the time permitted for the teams to set up once a PC is awarded can be reduced from 40 seconds (to c20 seconds) speeding up the game and reducing delays.”
When it comes to danger it would be good to have some hard and fast facts about the number of players at all levels of the game who have been seriously injured from a direct flick at a penalty corner. This is surely one of the most important pieces of information, as it will determine the true seriousness of the situation across all levels. It may also highlight at which level this is the biggest problem.
For example one can imagine that in an under 18 match, in which there will be players aged 15 or possibly 16 playing, those at the top end of this age group are going to be physically more mature and stronger. Therefore a 17 year old drag flicking against a 16 year old goalkeeper is going to have an advantage. There may also be a considerably higher risk of danger.
Some have advocated that the sport should not allow drag flicking from penalty corners until players are playing in open age competitions. There is merit in this suggestion, however it does mean that it will take some players longer to develop into a top class drag flicker if they have to wait until that time. Once again a benefit to waiting until that time is the players will put less stress on their young bodies, which could in fact reduce the possibility of injuries later in their careers.
The key component that should be shared with all is the data on the incidence of injury, the frequency of injuries across all levels of the game. In addition the actual injury and its seriousness. As several individuals have commented in the past week, how many of these injuries actually happen at training, and not in fact in games? That is also something that needs to be taken into account.
There is another reason that has not been mentioned in the FIH document, but was a key factor in the Hockey India League experimenting by increasing the value of a field goal to two, and that was that almost without fail in every international tournament the top goalscorers were the players who took penalty corners. In India where for decades the emphasis had been on field play as opposed to set-piece play, it was understandable that they would put forward such an idea, as there is nothing more glorious than a well crafted field goal.
The FIH has said that over 4,300 people completed the survey regarding the Penalty Corner. Back in 2020 when the FIH announced its partnership with NAGRA to set up a “multi-faceted digital platform” the Hockey community was told that there were “two billion fans (and 30 million active participants).” To be honest these were figures that were questioned by many, but they were those promoted. So if we take 4300 people out of 30 million active participants – and we do not know if the 4300 were all players – that is just 0.0143% of those playing. So is it right to make decisions based on such minority feedback?
This experimental rule is not new. This was tried in the late 1990’s in the lead up to the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Those who were part of that trial have stated that at the elite level it created far more danger, as now players were allowed to hit the ball at any height when it was played into the circle. This is the same as being proposed this time around. The FIH states “the intention is to remove the need to wear any additional protective equipment for a PC.” With no protective gear being worn it will essentially put players at greater risk of serious injury, not just at elite level, but at all levels.
If a player were to be struck in the head, and in a worst case scenario facially disfigured, left with permanent brain damage or killed, who will be held responsible? Ultimately it has to be those who have changed the laws if they are putting players in greater danger. It cannot be the unfortunate player whose shot has struck an opponent, as they have only been playing by the laws as they have been laid down.
This has to be a serious consideration, and talking to those who were part of that experiment 25 years ago they have made it quite clear that this move albeit an experimental one is putting the sport in a very risky position.
While the information that was leaked last week was not the full document that had been prepared the backlash speaks volumes.
Former Pakistan goalkeeper and now coach Salman Akbar wrote on Facebook “Kindly rethink. This will limit the influence of goalkeepers in winning the tournaments.” Which is something that has possibly not been taken into consideration. He went on to say “Drag flick is an art and has equal influence in wining tournaments. Eliminating this battle between PC defense and attack will not bring any attraction or benefit to this beautiful sport.” How many people considered this from a goalkeeper’s perspective?
Outspoken Scotland goalkeeper Tommy Alexander commented in relation to the safety aspect that many people were talking about. “I’ve seen more injuries from open play than PCs. Especially with the lack of control/ technique/ decision making of field players when it comes goalscoring in the circle. If the FIH are happy to remove one of the most iconic parts of our game, I fear what’s next, plastic sticks and tennis balls?”
The answer to this is to improve the skill acquisition in young players.
You only have to look at cricket and how many players today are being struck on the helmet. The reason for this is twofold, with a helmet on players think they are safe, so take more risks. However the biggest issue is that young players are not getting into the right position to play certain high-risk shots, but worse than that they are forgetting the golden rule in any ball sport, which is to keep your eye on the ball at all times.
Administrators cannot guard against that. They can however try and improve the coaching of basic skills to limit the risks.
Tommy Alexander raises an important issue. The Penalty corner has evolved from the old hand stop on grass and a strong hit from the top of the circle, to a stick stop and a lightening fast flick. To lose something that has been such a key part of the game for so long would be a great shame. To many, it would not be hockey.
There are many around the world who have said that the simplest way of eliminating the danger is to have the same rules apply with a flick as exists for a hit, that the shot must not be higher than the back board. Which seems reasonable, and may also eliminate the need for anything other than knee guards. Some have gone so far as to suggest that if the flicker does indeed lift it higher than the backboard they receive a yellow card, and five minutes on the side. This too has merit as it would certainly see flickers refrain from lifting if such a penalty existed.
The FIH has offered Continental Federations and National Associations the opportunity to trial these new rules over the next 12 months. It is fair to say that in a number of key countries those playing the game, or involved at the highest level have little faith in those administering it. The reason being that like many sports hockey is being used as a stepping stone to move onto the next sport. Those in key positions have come to the sport from other sports and have little or no feel for the traditions or the history. For example how many would have known that what is being proposed was already trialled?
The very real fear is that they will simply give it the stamp of approval, as that is easier than coming up with an alternative. If it goes to an international vote there is an even greater possibility of the change being approved, as the traditional top nations have lost the balance of power, with smaller nations, some without even a national league competition, have been given the same voting rights.
The biggest issue for many is that once again we are seeing the laws of the game being patched up and changes made to cover up the errors of the past. These errors are what has brought the game to the current situation. Hockey in recent years has seen a constant changing of the rules, allegedly to make the game more appealing to a wider audience. Yet at what cost? The sport is losing its existing audience and its identity, its uniqueness.
As covered previously, there are already too many interpretative rules in the game. (Destiny Rules) Rules which as you travel lower down the game become a nightmare to interpret.
The conversation at the bar of a local club at the weekend when this topic was raised turned to the aerial or overhead pass. It was unanimous from all present that this is indeed more dangerous than the penalty corner, and needs urgent attention. It is a rule that few spectators understand. Interpretation is left to the Umpires, and many are not consistent with that interpretation. Week-in-week out we are witnessing players launch a ball into the air to ease pressure, rather than play their way out of trouble. It is far from attractive to watch, and also often creates danger when the ball is thrown to the air as well as when it comes down.
The problem is there are too many rules that are not being applied as they were intended.
Rule 9.12 states: Players must not obstruct an opponent who is attempting to play the ball.
Players obstruct if they:
– back into an opponent
– physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent
– shield the ball from a legitimate tackle with their stick or any part of their body.
At every level, possibly because the elite players have been allowed to back into opponents, we have seen this creep into the game. A defender can stand their ground, the attacker backs into them, and the defender is penalised.
Similarly, when it comes to one-on-ones in a shoot-out, how often does the attacking player advance into the circle, only to turn with their back to the goalkeeper?
Equally in a shoot-out we are now seeing more and more goalkeepers place their mitt on the back of the attacking player when they do back into them, Yet rule 9.3 clearly states: “Players must not touch, handle or interfere with other players or their sticks or clothing.”
While the intent of the experimental rule change is understandable, one feels that as mentioned there needs to be more information to warrant such a change. It would be a great shame to take another component out of the game that is intrinsically linked to the sport.
There are too many rules that are now being regularly tinkered with, or as someone said ‘being fixed with a bandaid.’ One feels that it is time that the FIH had a panel of past players, current players, coaches, umpires from varying levels come together and go through the rule book to come up with versions that are more universally acceptable at all levels, which in turn will make it easier for all to understand and adhere to. Crucially they need to no longer be interpretative.
Equally important in that meeting would be representatives from the Broadcasting world who know what makes for good television. As viewers need to be able to understand the game, in order to stick with it. Sadly non-hockey people are left floundering when it comes to the rules.. This in turn harms its growth and appeal.
There are plenty of great ideas out there, it is just a case of listening to all of them and working through those ideas to see if the solutions offered will work at all levels. The fear at present is that what has been proposed, albeit as a trial is not going to deliver the best outcomes.
Is it time to invest once and for all in fixing everything properly, to safeguard the game’s future and stop trying to find short term solutions? Surely as the FIH prepares to celebrate 100 years of existence in 2024, this is the perfect time to take such an approach? IT would certainly set the sport up perfectly for the next 100 years.
Agreed.
Thank goodness!!!
https://sportstar.thehindu.com/hockey/penalty-corner-trial-new-rule-change-abandoned-fih-president-tayyab-ikram/article67184546.ece
I keep thinking about viewers and spectators from outside the hockey fraternity. They’d perhaps appreciate the sport as an exercise to brush up their Mathematics rather than viewing a spectacle. Good suggestions here but would they do much to win more fans for the sport?
Leo,
Thank you for your comment. I have to say I have not heard mention of increasing the height of the backboard but it is another suggestion that has merit.
The crux of the whole issue in my view is your penultimate paragraph. As I stated in my reply to George, the rules need to be re-written, not necessarily changed but written so that there are no grey areas and less rules are open to interpretation.
Errol, Thank you for your comment. YOU are not alone in this view. I know Astro Arena in Malaysia who of all the broadcasters I worked with on hockey were the most innovative, was looking to do this. It is a shame that they will not be providing the coverage for the Junior World Cup, or you may have had your wish.
George,
Thank you for commenting. I agree 100% with all that you say.
I too do not think most rules need to be changed, but I do think that they need to be reworded, and made clearer for all, players, coaches, umpires, commentators and spectators to understand and interpret. I also believe we need to help the officials by making some of the rules more black and white, and not a case of in this situation its ok but in this one it is not.
I think that you fear the same as me that someone is going to be seriously hurt and the umpire or the rule makers are going to be sued and this will drastically harm the game. To me your first and last paragraphs are on the money.
The key to reducing danger during a penalty corner is the same now as it was when the first hit shot could be played towards the goal in an unrestricted way. The (severe) height limit that was placed on the first hit shot, after several tweaks, eventually solved that problem, but in the meantime team coaches had moved onto develop the remaining unrestricted stroke, the flick (to circumvent the restriction).
Thus the drag flick was developed, and became very dangerous in inconsiderate hands (post players targeted at head height).
For some reason the FIH have been unable to see that a similar solution is called for – a height limit – but not the same height limit applied to the first hit – 480mm – because that led to the ‘logging’ goalkeeper and to untidy ‘scrambles’ in the goalmouth as player fought for rebounds or a ball trapped against the goalkeeper.
A height limit of 120cms has long been suggested – this would be about sternum height on a senior male player (lesser sternum heights could be used in Women’s and Junior hockey e.g. 110cms and 100cms respectively)
An elasticated tape stretched from post to post around the back of goals could be employed as a guide for players and umpires (cheap and simple)
A height limit on the drag flick should be part of a wider introduction of height limits to describe and control dangerous play.
1 No raising of the ball at all toward an opponent within 2m.
A knee height of above (480mm) limit on a ball raised at a velocity that could injure towards an opponent within 5m (beyond 2m)
and a stermun height limit when the ball is propelled at a velocity that could injure, an opponent within 15m.
Deflections, mentioned in the article, are a separate problem, especially during a penalty corner. One solution is to declare that a first shot at the goal which is subsequently deflected or redirected (with any stroke) be treated as a pass (it converts from a shot to a pass because of the subsequent attacking action) and the resulting deflection or redirected shot is then height limited as if it was a first hit shot.
This is a not a difficult problem to resolve but there has been a strange reluctance on the part of he FIH to introduce height controls, despite calls for them going back over forty years and despite an declared emphasis on player safety.
Players have been instructed by Rule (MUST) to play with consideration for the safety of other players but umpires have not been given the means to ensure that they do so. Rules tend to be applied at a low common denominator level because nearly everything (except 480mm) is entirely subjective and because men have gone to some lengths to ensure that hockey is seen in the sports world at large as a man’s game.
Why a game as dangerous as hockey should generally be seen as a “girl’s game” and soccer with it’s big soft ball and unarmed players, as a man’s game, is something of a mystery.
As one commentator at an international match put it “if you get in the way of the ball in this game, that’s your tough luck”
I am of the opinion that the Rules do not need to be changed in any way at all to make the Penalty Corner safer. What does need to be changed is how they get blown and the absurdity of “a shot at goal cannot be dangerous” must be eradicated from the game. It must be recognised that a shot at goal can be blown as dangerous if it hits a player’s body between the strike and the goal. A Penalty Stroke should never be given for a ball striking a defender’s body or his head.
At the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014 on 28 July RSA v AUS (M) South African player Tim Drummond was struck in the head in front of goal from a drag flick by Australian Chris Cirello even though he had ducked and taken legitimate evasive action and a Stroke was awarded and scored. Later in the same game Andrew Cronje was also struck on the head by a shot from Kieran Govers that was wide and again Cronje was taking legitimate evasive action ducking to his left and into the path of the ball. He later spent the night in hospital. Note the wording legitimate evasive action because it is the very wording the FIH uses to define what constitutes dangerous play in Rule 9.8.
Why is this critically important? Although no Hockey injury cases have come to Court, to the best of my knowledge, several Rugby cases have been brought against the Referee and in each and every case it was accepted that although Rugby is a dangerous sport, but players accept that danger IF THE GAME IS PLAYED TO THE LETTER OF THE RULES. In each case the written Rules of Rugby were not followed and the referees have been held liable (Smoldan v Whitworth and Nolan is one https://www.independent.co.uk/news/rugby-case-changes-rules-of-game-1305736.html).
What if Drummond or Cronje had taken the umpire to court? The Rules defined the shots as being dangerous, yet Drummond (who had done nothing wrong by the Rules prior to being hit while Cirello had broken most dangerous play rules) was penalised by a penalty stroke. Critically the Rules AS WRITTEN were not followed and an unwritten (erroneous) interpretation was followed by the umpire. If that had gone to Court using the Smoldan case as a precedent in the absence of hockey cases, the judge would most likely rule against the umpire. “A shot at goal cannot be dangerous” is not written into the Rules.
Would penalising the Drummond or Cronje shot have stopped the shot from being taken. No, but by not rewarding it, coaches are not going to coach drag flickers to aim at the player on the post “because if you hit him you get a stroke and if you don’t you get a goal” as I have heard an international drag flick specialist coach say. If they are not going to get a stroke, I think drag flick specialist are going to take a lot more care in their shot selection and aim. This would be intensified if a personal penalty were attached to hitting a player.
I have absolutely no doubt if a player unleashed a drag flick directly at a player anywhere else on the pitch they would be penalised and receive a personal penalty instantly.
Remember there are no Rules suspending the definition of danger for a shot on goal. The only difference is you may deliberately raise a hit for a shot on goal, but the Rules on safety are NOT suspended.
I once umpired a Premier League game in Johannesburg where an attacker (an international player) hit a reverse hit at goal which hit a defender in the chest on the way towards the goal. At the time the Rules stated a reverse hit at goal may be lifted subject to there being no danger (a phrase that has since being removed thus making the game more dangerous). I called the attacking captain over while the defender was receiving treatment and said I would be restarting with a free hit as the shot had been dangerous. He immediatly declared it shoud be a stroke, so I asked if if we should go over to the injured player on the ground and ask him if he thought the shot was dangerous or not and if he said yes I would issue a yellow card. All talk of a stroke stopped immediately and he accepted my decision.
I think it is time to blow the Rules as they are written not as they are played ignoring the safety of the defenders (before someone takes an umpire and the FIH to Court).
Excellent piece. I’ll focus, however, on one aspect — broadcasting. I would like cameras behind the goal to beam pictures in REAL TIME especially during key moments like the PC, or open play goal mouth action. With the area in and around the circle being congested it’s tough or impossible for viewers to spot the ball or action through a maze of legs and sticks especially in small stadia where the lens are lower down.
A nice analysis of the facts of PC in a game of Hockey. Especially with regards to injuries and the basic game changing due to rule changes. Would like to add that over the last few decades the game has had so many rule changes that I feel Field Hockey is a totally new game compared to what was first played. Doing away with the PC is another stupid experiment. Are the FIH blind don’t they see Injuries to the first rusher in all games. Thanks to protective gear the I juries are less. Why the need for face masks, knee caps, and guards when these are to protect you from unwanted danger. I say eliminate the danger: Allow the PC to continue and remove the direct aerial ball whether a hit or drag. Maybe increase the height of the board by 6 inches or Max 12 inches. Remove the stupid monkey act of lifting the stick above the head and dancing at a free hit. It also is dangerous to allow the hitting from above the shoulder at goal.
The rules need to be simple and understandable to a common man. Here too, too much is left to the perception of the umpire for interpretation of the rule.
Do we want to play Field Hockey or just give the sport a new name. FIH has anyway made it a totally new sport.