Time To Give The Fans And Potential Fans Clarity

It was the former mayor of Carmel, movie star, and Hollywood director Clint Eastwood who said, “opinions are like assholes, everyone has got one.”

There are many who will tell you that often assholes are the ones with opinions. That may well also be true.

For close on ten years this writer along with others has advocated that the sport of Hockey needs to sit down and review its rules.

Every year the sport appoints a rules committee and their role is “to manage the current rules (interpretation, application, development), to make the game more easier to understand and enjoyable.” They are also there to “co-ordinate the collection of match and tournament statistics related to Rules and to contribute to the development of the game (equipment, player welfare).”

Without casting aspersions on those who have served on this committee and those currently on the committee, one has to ask first of all if the sport has the right mix of people on the committee and then whether the sport has achieved the outcomes stated as being the Committee’s mission?

Surely a meeting that involves present and past players, present and past coaches, umpires and broadcasters needs to be facilitated. Some would say that there would also be a huge benefit in having representatives from club hockey, who would be able to give their input on how rules developed for the International matches translate at club level.

Ask any player, coach or fan what they want in terms of officials and it is clarity and consistency. Clarity in terms of how a rule is going to be officiated and consistency that the rules will be applied the same way throughout the game and to both teams.

One of the reasons for football/soccer’s popularity is the simplicity of its laws. One of the key factors turning people away from that game at present is the interpretation of those laws, in particular by the video officials. They have gone away from their key aim, which was to simply confirm that a goal was legitimate or not.

In Hockey if we take the USA as an example, – and a representative from the USA is the new Chair of the FIH Rules committee, – they have three sets of rules under which the game is played. Does that not immediately highlight the problem facing the sport?

Once again following the Olympic Games in Tokyo, as happens almost every four years non-hockey fans tune into the game and start talking about it. Yet how many of these people are being asked for their views?

As reported in The Hockey Paper, Hootsuite, the social media management platform, conducted research into the most talked-about Olympic sports amongst women and men in the UK during the Olympic Games. Men’s Hockey it was reported received 76% of mentions. Which sounds impressive. However any statistic can give you what you are looking to hear.

The report revealed “analysing data from Twitter in the UK across the Olympic period, Hootsuite found a total of 475,592 mentions about various sports at this year’s Games in Tokyo.” This is a remarkably low figure, and the International Olympic Committee and the various Olympic sports should be worried, as there are 16 million Twitter users in the United Kingdom!

If Hootsuite’s figures are accurate that means that only 2.9% of Twitter users in the UK were tweeting about the Olympic Games over 16 days of competition. It also means that the 76% quoted is in fact not as great as it at first appeared.

It is interesting how social media has become a measuring stick for whether a sport has been successful or not. Unfortunately in most cases the sport has no idea whether those who have engaged are the market they were hoping to attract. In some cases the sports themselves have no idea if they are trying to attract new junior players, male or female players or sponsors, all they are judging their success on is the number of engagements and impressions.

Can you remember all the posts that you have liked in a day? What were they about? So how genuine and long-lasting is that engagement?

Post Tokyo so many non-hockey people have commented about how exciting the sport was at the Olympic Games, that they had never realized how fast it was. Yet for all these positive comments many carry a rider, ‘but I could not understand the rules.’

If the game is going to tap into that interest and pull in those new fans, or even encourage them to take up the game, the rules and their interpretation has to be addressed.

Television and the media are crucial in helping grown the reach of the sport and also to attract sponsorship, so the media should be involved in such a process.

One example springs to mind where they were not, and what appeared a good idea ended on the scrapheap.

Penalty Corner goals have become a key part of the sport, many would say far too important. In the last two FIH Men’s World Cups the top scorer has been a drag flicker, Gonzalo Peillat in 2014 and Alexander Hendrickx and Blake Govers in 2018; Govers however scored three field goals. In fact this goes back a lot further than the last two world cups. The same has been the case in relation to top scorers at the past two Olympic Games.

To try and combat this it was decided in the Hockey India League of 2016 to reward teams who scored a field goal from open play, and dilute the value of a penalty corner goal. It was announced that a Field Goal was worth two goals.

This was a concept that was hard for fans to understand, a player had scored a goal, yet suddenly their team and them individually had two goals.

Had there been more discussion, making the goals worth points may well have been a new concept, but it would have been easier to comprehend. A field Goal suddenly is worth two points and a penalty corner worth one. A scoreboard could have been created showing the field goals, penalty strokes and penalty corners scored, and a total number of points.

Australia tried to create a “Pump Play” which was thankfully abandoned after one season. Here a team could nominate following the toss of a coin which period their goals were worth double. Not surprisingly most opted for the last quarter when they won the toss. Also not surprisingly when the opposition had the infamous “Pump Play” teams tended to drop back into a defensive formation.

It is great to throw ideas around such as these but they are adding another layer onto an already hard-to-comprehend game. Surely the key is to simplify what already exists?

Yet one of the key decisions the sport has to make is whether it wishes to stay an essentially amateur sport or try and step into a professional era. If it is to be the latter, there must be prize money put up for the various competitions. As touched on in Is Anyone Paying the Piper, maybe the IOC needs to start giving prize money, if not the IOC then maybe the FIH should allocate funds received from the IOC?

Ironically, it was the money from the Olympic Games and television that helped create the problem that the sport faces today. As the injection of money post the 1984 and 1988 Olympic Games saw the FIH not only set up a Trust located in Switzerland, but also shift their focus from the broad development of the game, to constantly making changes to the rules which former international player and FIH committee member Mike Howells explained as ‘the overall effect was to make the game even less intelligible to the ordinary spectator and less attractive for T.V.”

So the issue has been a longstanding one.

In fact it was after the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 1984 when the way the game was viewed shifted onto how the matches were umpired. The FIH created an Umpires Committee, and from that spawned the Umpires Manager who was responsible for the standard of umpiring at these showcase International events.

Hindsight they say is perfect vision. Was it really fair to put so much responsibility onto the shoulders of officials who were essentially volunteers?

Now there is the added responsibility of video referral for umpires to contend with.

The following are put forward to try and generate discussion, which may hopefully lead to change. Some of these suggestions are focused primarily on the showcase level of the game, but some will have an impact on the game at all levels.

The first is the sport should abandon video referral unless it is going to invest in the process properly. What is worrying is that now that the investment in this technology has been reduced, and the number of cameras being used at a game have also been reduced the end result is that the decision process is taking far too long, and often glaring mistakes are being made.

If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly. Having video referral the way it has been in recent times is doing more harm than good. Fans at home and in the stadium want a quick decision so that the game to continue. That is not happening, and many umpires have lost faith in the system.

At the stadium it is essential that the fans are shown what the video umpire is looking for. Leaving them in the dark and not showing the replays means they have no idea what is happening and it is therefore no surprise that people walk away from watching the game live.

If video referral is going to remain the sport needs to have specialist video umpires; possibly those who have retired from active service on the pitch, as they have in many cases the expertise and the knowledge to read body language as well as the play. Tap into that experience.

On the subject of umpires, hockey has to find a way to make the top officials professionals. To have them on a salary.

No doubt many players will be up in arms at that comment. Why should they be paid before the players?

The view here is we know that the players are the best advertisement for the game. Yet the rules and their interpretation are the stumbling block. So if the sport can improve the public’s understanding of the rules and make the game simpler to understand that will attract more spectators and viewers, which in turn will attract more sponsors.

We already know people love the pace and skill of the sport, we just have to make it simpler to understand, and ultimately that comes down to the officials.

Currently International Umpires only receive a per diem, along with board and lodge for their work at tournaments. Which means that there are no guarantees that the best umpires are officiating at the top tournaments. Instead you have the best of those who are available.

Imagine if the top 12 men’s and/or women’s umpires were paid a salary of USD$30,000 a year (A hypothetical sum). On top of this there could be a match or tournament fee. Such pay will probably still mean that they still require another job, however it would give them a greater incentive to commit to the sport for a period of time.

However, with that salary would come an obligation that they must be available for a set number of tournaments and events in that year. The remaining positions at those tournaments would be taken up by aspiring umpires who would be paid on a per game or tournament basis.

Each year those paid positions would come under review. Poor performances could see an individual dropped from the list. It could also see an umpire promoted.

Suddenly with that financial support umpires could be more dedicated to their role within the game, and the aspiring ones would work harder to climb into the select group, which in turn would improve the level of umpiring in the levels below International hockey. It is important to state here that the umpires today are dedicated, they must be to do the job for what they receive, but most would admit if they had the financial security to dedicate more time to the task they would be able improve their performances.

The goal would be as the fan-base and sponsorship grew the sport could move to full time officials on a full time salary.

Where is the money coming from? The wages could be covered with sponsorship, and once the levels rise and the understanding of the decisions becomes clearer the sponsors will gain more positive exposure. In fact a sponsor of the referral in a live game both on the scoreboard and on television would easily cover such costs.

One key thing that must happen is the Rules Committee must protect the umpires. Rules that are interpretive need to be eliminated where possible. This is vital if you are not going to pay umpires; as not only are they copping abuse from players and coaches, but also now from fans. How many umpires are there in the stands sharing their opinions? Why should they have to endure this simply because a certain rule has not been set in stone by a committee?

While we ask about players’ mental health, does anyone ask about the mental health of an umpire?

When it comes to the rules that cause consternation, the aerial pass has become one that has everyone in a tizzy.

While it is great to see the skill of a player throwing a ball into the air and the length of the pitch, it is not good for the game. It also makes one wonder why National Associations and clubs are paying millions of dollars to lay turf pitches if the ball is going to be thrown in the air every few minutes. The first quarter of the men’s Grand Final in Western Australia saw 12 aerial passes thrown in 15 minutes!

Sadly to some players, mainly outside the International scene, it has become thoughtless. Just as in football the defenders of old would simply lump the ball forward and hope for the best, so too are some defenders in hockey.

Rule 9.10 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.

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.”

Where this has now become bad for the game is that an attacking team can throw an aerial pass into the opposition’s circle, and the defender has to let that attacker bring the ball down and effectively shoot before they can close them down.

This is one rule that has non-hockey players totally baffled. Why is the defender not doing everything to stop a goal? Why did they not close them down?

There are a number of solutions to this that have been tabled, and many have merit. The Rules committee need to make this easier for all and set something in stone, not only for the look of the game, but also the safety of the players playing below international level.

When it comes to safety, the penalty corner is another area that has to be looked at. The speed at which the ball is now travelling is likely to cause serious damage at some point in time. Also because even though the defender is not supposed to run directly at the drag-flicker many are. As one international coach asked, “is it going to take the death of a player before the sport addresses this issue?”

Again, respected players and coaches have put forward some very sensible options these have fallen on deaf ears and no changes have been put in place. Image the trauma an umpire would suffer if a player was to die in such circumstances? In boxing referees have ended up taking their own lives over the guilt of not stopping a bout early enough.

One of the major issues facing officiating today is something that was highlighted back in the 1990’s and that is the matter of “delegated authority.” This is where the officials are left to interpret the situation in the game, and the rule. At the time it was stressed how it was vital that not only the pair of umpires were consistent with their interpretations, but also all umpires participating in that tournament.

In an era where there are so many eyes on the officials this “delegated authority” is one feels no longer the way to go. The officials need to be protected by the rules that they are enforcing. The rules must be black and white.

Some of the problem today is that the rules are there, but they are simply not being applied as written. Which again adds to the confusion amongst those watching and playing.

There is no intention here to go through the rules one-by-one, but Rule 9.12 on obstruction states: “Players obstruct if they: – back into an opponent physically interfere with the stick or body of an opponent.”

Yet week-in week-out at every level you will witness players backing into opponents. If a game goes to a shoot-out, it has almost become de rigueur. Why is this basic rule not applied?

The self-pass rule is one that most fans like as it means that the game continues to flow, however the rules surrounding the self pass are again an area that causes consternation to those not familiar with the game. Why? For the simple reason that the rules are not always applied.

Rule 13.1.a states: “a free hit is taken close to where the offence occurred ‘Close to’ means within playing distance of where the offence occurred and with no significant advantage gained.” Who determines “close” and “playing distance” and what is “a significant advantage?” The latter is clearly open to interpretation and that interpretation will depend on so many other factors, but most importantly whether you are attacking or defending.

Rule 13.2 a states under the procedures for taking a free hit that “a the ball must be stationary.” Almost every player, and every team is guilty of not stopping the ball dead before playing on. Umpires in the interest of letting the play flow frequently let this go. Although they will at times blow their whistle and take the play back, especially if an advantage has in their opinion been gained. This causes confusion amongst those not used to the game. “Why was that blown up then, but it wasn’t when player B did it?”

This may seem petty, but the impact of the rules not being followed is far greater than many realise. It’s one of the reasons why every four years Hockey attracts new viewers who are enthusiastic about the sport, and just as quickly as they find them, they lose them.

Rules and Laws in sport are there to give us structure, to give the game a foundation on which to build. If you ignore those rules you lose that structure. Structure gives the game organisation, take that away and mayhem ensues.

Of course there are other issues that could be looked at to try and improve the game’s public appeal. One that has been floated with teams happy to sit back and pass the ball between defenders has been that defending teams should have a requirement to have crossed the half way line by a set time. Similar to the use of a shot clock in basketball.

What is worrying though is that the rules, or the interpretation of the rules, or even the application of the rules has led to a homogenised style of play that is creeping into the game. One of the great things about International hockey was to see the clashing of styles and how the various nations coped with those differing styles. That has almost become a thing of the past.

Yet despite that, there is an audience out there that loves what they see, all they want to do is understand the rules. Which means that if the sport wishes to grow and tap into those new fans, they need to listen to them and adapt. Yes, people are afraid of change but it appears that the changes needed are not big ones.

As Clint Eastwood said everyone has an opinion, this is just one.