Talkinghockey.net

It somehow seems like they are saying that everyone who is hit by a ball on the foot should be assumed to be placing themselves in the way on purpose...

In reality though isn't Kaiwawao right?  Particularly in the D, at all levels and in particular international, 99% of the time the ball hits a foot a PC is given.  Taking away those where it is deliberate (and not a PS) the only conclusion that you can reach is that on every other occasion the umpire deems the defender to have placed himself in the position with the intent of stopping the ball in that way.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with both what I thought and what you think I thought!

I absolutely agree with your third  paragraph.
And completely fail to understand how you get to this:

It somehow seems like they are saying that everyone who is hit by a ball on the foot should be assumed to be placing themselves in the way on purpose...

But this rule (  without the now deleted guidance about gaining benefit) would eliminate the old ball on foot=PC trick.
I took a look back in history and up to about 2000 the rule was very clear.. the player should not be penalised for involuntary ball/body contact, and there were nice clear guidelines.
This is a return to it. I have no  trouble with it.
I also saw the FIH champions Trophy 1999 ( both men 's and women's) in Brisbane where the rule was initially applied as now written.
It worked, but the problem they had was it was applied to a collection of the world's most skilful cheats, and the umpires of course were not used to the " correct" application.
But it certainly reduced the number of PCs.

I have just been watching the highlights of the Eng v Aus game at the World Cup........ I lost count of the number of PCs which were 'won', and the number of feet that were 'looked-for' and 'found' in the circle .... the forced foul rule is simply ignored by most umpires.
(PS I won't dwell on the final score )

As a preliminary to any discussion about 'gains benefit' it is necessary to understand the difference between. 'Advantage'; 'Disadvantaged Opponents'; and 'Gains Benefit'. First though, how the term 'gains benefit ' arose.
In a major rewrite of the Rules of Hockey, undertaken with the aid of the Rules Advisory Panel after “wide ranging consultation” Rule and Guidance on Advantage and body contact with the ball, was produced in 1995 in a new format of rulebook. The previous rule, the precursor of 'gains benefit' 

  12.1.(f) A player shall not deliberately stop, propel or deflect the ball on the ground or in the air with any part of the body TO HIS OR HIS TEAM'S ADVANTAGE (save as provided for goalkeepers in Rule 12.11(c)).

was removed. As yet there was no ''gains benefit'' clause to replace the advantage mentioned .

  Advantage: a penalty shall be awarded only when a player or team has been clearly disadvantaged by an opponent's offence.

13.1.2    Use of body, hands, feet
A player shall not:

a.    stop the ball with the hand or catch it

There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from dangerously raised balls.

b.    intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies

    It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player:

       -has moved into the path of the ball, or

       -made no effort to avoid being hit, or

       -was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball.

Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.

Almost immediately this rule was put to use it was realized there was at very least a need for a method to disallow a goal unfairly scored if the intention to play the ball with the body was not obvious  – so 'gains benefit' was created. A method of 'creating' an offence in these exceptional circumstances: 

or gains undue benefit
                                                                 was added


By 1997  it was realized that positioning with the clear intention of stopping the ball is not an offence if a player uses or intends/attempts to use the stick so that clause was adjusted and we were given:.

Use of body, hands, fee.                A player shall not:

a.     stop or catch the ball with the hand

    There is nothing to prevent players using their hands to protect themselves from     dangerously raised balls.

b.     intentionally stop, kick, propel, pick up, throw or carry the ball with any part of their bodies

    It is not an offence if the ball hits the foot or body of a player unless that player :

         - has moved into the path of the ball, or
         - made no effort to avoid being hit or
         - was positioned with the clear intention of stopping the ball with the foot or body or
         - gains benefit.

Players should not be penalised when the ball is played at them from a short distance.

The word 'undue' was deleted – I don't know why. There was another major rewrite in 2004, with significant alterations:

Rule.9.9. Field players must not stop, kick, propel, pick up,  throw or  carry  the  ball  with any  part of  their body.

It  is not an  offence if  the  ball  hits  the foot, hand or body of a field  player, unless that player or their team benefits from this.

A wording, if 'benefit 'is replaced with 'advantage', this is remarkably similar to the wording used in 1994 – almost full circle –  any change  is an illusion. There have since been minor adjustments and , we go to-and -fro.

As reference to 'benefit' has recently been deleted for a second (or is it a third?) time, (a common feature giving the appearance of many rule changes where few have actually occurred) the stage is set for the question “Do we need a 'gains benefit ' clause?”

in conclusion....


Some umpires will (do) insist that any contact with the foot/body is always of benefit to the player making such contact and therefore is an offence  (these umpires may not penalise if this happens in mid-field with opponents at distance – using 'no disadvantage' -, but they will certainly award a penalty corner on every occasion there is a defenders foot contact in the circle and opponents are close). The problem in these cases is that when 'forcing' occurs they usually see the result of that but not the intent to do it and the innocent party is penalised.

Other umpires have demanded a more closely defined 'benefit gained' seeing the vague 'catch all' as a liability to flowing hockey and to fairness. These umpire seem to have 'won the day' at present (as least as far as the written rules are concerned) but there is now a vacuum in application and it is being filled with the equally vague 'disadvantaged opponents' as a direct replacement for 'gained benefit' – but following  the reasoning  given above ( to recap, 'disadvantaged' occurs when there has been an offence which requires a penalty be awarded; 'gains benefit' when technically there has been no offence but one is 'created' by the umpire for the sake of fair play or a fair outcome) therefore these two terms are not always completely interchangeable.

I believe that there is a case to be made for including a 'gained benefit' clause in the Rules of Hockey, in fact I consider it essential, but the appropriate application must be precisely defined and very limited in scope – much as referral to a video umpire originally was.

The first reason for including 'gained benefit is the prevention of a certain goal  by means of an unintentional rule breach – say the ball deflects off the stick of a team-mate at the last moment and hits the foot of a defender on the goal-line. To penalize is not exactly fair, the defender has not committed an offence, but it has long been accepted that there is justification for a penalty stroke in these cases (presumably, in the absence of a gains benefit clause, and (semantically, technically) incorrectly because there is no offence, 'disadvantaged opponents' is used at the moment) , so the rules  'bent' in favour of the attack. Where an attacker with the entire goal to shoot at manages to hit the foot of a solitary defender on the goal-line penalty seems even more unjust, but that is the way it is – a goal prevented with unintentional rule breach is reason to award a penalty stroke – that is set out clearly enough in the Penalties section of the rulebook – and the only justification available is 'unfair gaining of a benefit from an illicit action'.

The second reason is my own suggestion. It is not possible to define it as closely as the first but it is limited. It is the propelling of the ball, by rebound, deflection etc. to the advantage of the team of the player hit with the ball (provided there has not been previous dangerous or forcing play by opponents). The ball would have to be propelled beyond the playing reach of the player hit and the result of the travel of the ball must effectively be a pass to a team-mate or to where it can be collected unopposed by a team-mate OR to cause the ball to evade a closing opponent who would otherwise have been in a position to challenge for it i.e. propelled to a position behind him or beyond his reach. (Such a rebound/deflection, when there was no closing or other immediately disadvantaged opponent, would not attract penalty and be 'play-on situations).

Merely stopping the ball or gaining or retaining possession of it would not be considered an undue benefit – after all the ball should not be propelled in any direction where the result is an unavoidable or accidental foot/body contact by an opponent – that is just bad (unskilled) play and should not be rewarded. Forcing a contact should obviously be penalised; not rewarded.

That's it, that's the framework: Unintentional foot/body contacts are a rule breach but not an offence that should be penalised except in the two circumstances given. Gains benefit to be a Rule exception with two defining clauses .