Talkinghockey.net

What strikes me is the number of PC's being awarded for players "getting a foot" inside the circle. This is a very contentious issue as to whether the attacker is manufacturing a foul or not. It seems to be a very European thing as the matches not involving European teams don't seem to have the same problem (ARG v NZL springs to mind which was agreat game to watch).

I wonder what would happen if feet inside the circle became a hit from the dotted line unless the feet prevented a goal from being scored or were deliberate - both instance still being covered by the PS rules. My guess iis it would make games far more exciting to watch as players actually tried to score goals rather than play destructive hockey in the circle..

Old Fool. Regardless of intent, players expect a PC following any foot in the circle. The rules may say otherwise but this has been going on for years, and as the PC is so important to teams, umpires and umpire managers aren't going to change the way they blow it or want it blown.

It is because that it is such an important area that umpires should strive to get it right. There is a general principle about penalizing - an action is not penalized unless the umpire is sure an offense has occurred - with the foot contact this principle ( despite all the guidance to the contrary that has been given in the rulebook in various ways over the years) seems to have been ignored.

When the TV commentator is saying, because it is so obvious,  "Looked for a foot, found a foot", and penalty corners are being given for what are obviously unintentional or unavoidable contacts or the ball would just have run off the field but for the contact, the umpire is not using the first principle - don't penalize if there has been no clear offense. Does anyone know what an offense is?

Where there has been an offense the whistle should be 'held' to see if an advantage accrues to the attack. This has happened a few times during this World Cup but not once did I see a foot contact by a defender that did not continue into an advantage for the attackers result in a "Play on" call from the umpire. This is either abject skill level from world class defenders or abject umpiring from what are supposed to be the best umpires in the world, - and it is cheating - generally by attackers in the opponent's circle.

The two main tasks of the umpire? 1) To see fair play i.e. discourage cheating and 2) try to ensure a reasonable level of safety in conduct of play.

Most unintentional foot contacts anywhere on the pitch should  be play-on situations - we don't have a "gained benefit" 'catch-all' clause to be misused any more (although I think we do still need a gains benefit exception, it should not be for simple foot/body contact alone).

At the moment umpires are using "disadvantaged" as a basis for penalizing, simply replacing the words 'gained benefit' with 'disadvantaged opponents'  and carrying on just as before as if nothing changed in the 2009 Rules. This is simply wrong, the term 'disadvantage' is derived from 'no disadvantage' which is a justification for not stopping play when an offense has occurred but there is an advantage to the side offended against - 'no disadvantage' in this context means 'advantage'. It was never intended that this should 'morph'  into 'a substitute for 'gained benefit' and be used as a reason to stop the game and penalize.

Weekend League games in the season we can usually  forgive the not infrequent mistakes of umpires acting without assistance but at a World Cup, with what are the best umpires in the world, proper application should be 'showcased' - sadly, too often, it was not, and even the commentator could see that live without the benefit of a replay.

Does it need to be tattooed onto their right arm, so that they see it when indicating the inevitable  penalty  corner. Foot/body contacts with the ball are NOT an offense unless the contact is intentional ?  'Intentional' for foot contact should use the same criteria  as when judging a lifted hit in the outfield or the playing of the ball into an opponents body by a ball holder  - clearly and unmistakeably intentional - or there is no intent and therefore no offense and no need to stop play. It should be unusual for a foot contact to be a cause to stop play, not unusual for it not to.

There was a time when the number of stoppages for 'obstruction' was seen as a concern, now we don't have an obstruction rule (other than third party) so we need to be careful that accidental foot contact does not, in much the same way, erode to become deliberate blocking or kicking of the ball with the foot, but at the moment we are at the opposite pole from that.

I am very surprised that this incident has not caused more debate- well any debate about the crucial elements..
The commentator was spluttering "I can't believe he's let that through" as the ball was dropping towards the two players in the circle (one of whom was closing on the other). He then 'lost the plot' and made comments about high sticks and danger to the defender - completely overlooking the defender's raised stick and his 'encroachment'.

The ball was deflected up from the stick of a Pakistan player - so no question of a ball lifted dangerously into the circle by an England player. Tindal was in the clear and the obvious initial receiver because the ball went beyond the position of the defender - who had to close on Tindal to get to within playing distance of it. Tindal would have been better advised to contrive to be impeded enough to be unable to play the ball instead of displaying the composure and skill under pressure to volley it spectacularly into the goal (even if there has some debate about the height of the ball when he hit it - and about nothing else) and then appeal to the umpire for video referral - but he is not quite that cynical and tends to be impetuous, as we saw at the Olympics. 

Elsewhere being critical of an umpire is tantamount to a crime but this had to to be a penalty corner before the encroachment and stick-waving occurred or a penalty-stroke afterwards. The umpire Blasch  seems to have suffered what we term 'brain fade' - standing there with a whistle in your hand wondering why 'the umpire' does not blow his whistle - we have all done it: but not at this level.

I think this incident demonstrates why Mani's suggestion that players be allowed to compete for a falling  aerial ball - which is what I understand he has proposed - is not a good idea : players do swing sticks at the head level of close opponents - at every ability level - and international players if hit with a stick are prone to the same type of injuries as club social  players.

I think that the video umpire ought to have picked up on the run towards the goal with the attacker not looking where he was going but back at the ball - but nonetheless aware of Mantel's position because just as the ball is propelled he swerves across Mantel, which prevents Mantel playing the ball, and throws himself in a dive to deflect the ball just as it got level with Mantel - I don't believe that was a slip, that was a move planned on the knowledge of where Mantel would position. With a defender running out at full speed the attacker would have been risking a broken neck  It was sight blocking akin to third-party obstruction. Clever because there is no way the on pitch umpire would have picked up on the late change of direction across Mantel.

I think it probable that he makes contact with Mantel before he makes contact with the ball, but with the size and quality of picture I was looking at I could not swear to that. In any event it looks to me as if Mantel realized that the attacker was going to run into him and he twists away to avoid a head on contact (he would probably have been injured less then the attacker if he had held his ground). The timing of that contact is something the on pitch umpire should have picked up on. His remark that he was watching the ball makes no sense - that was where the ball was at the time.

Was it a tackle from a position where physical contact would be made - difficult call, as Mantel did not have possession of the ball - it was more of an interference than a tackle.

I think the thing that annoys me about this sort of tactic - running across or in front of the ball - especially in the way this was done, was that when defenders run out and throw themselves at someone about to stop the ball they are (quite rightly) penalized - we even had a new rule and a mandatory penalty corner introduced if such a player is hit below the knee with the ball - as well as a new term "Suicide runner". These runs from attackers in front of the ball at a penalty corner have only one purpose - to give the defenders no time to see and react to a ball lifted at their position - in the knowledge that if a defender is hit with the ball the outcome is almost certainly going to be a penalty stroke. I have seen other video clips (one by Don Prior comes to mind), where the in runners are actually running backwards towards the goal so that they can watch the ball and duck out of the way at the last moment.

I think we are at the stage where it is necessary to say to attackers "You don't enter the circle until the ball has left it" or "You don't run across the ball as a shot is being taken" or maybe both.

What is clear is that the Pakistani player with his back to Mantell had no idea of what was heading his way. Mantell on the other hand had a clear view of what was in front of him. The Pakistani player sidestepped at the last moment to open up a deflection/aided stike towards goal and there was a disasterous crash.

At international level it is quite possible that with video analysis that the move was completely planned. You would have had to be privy to team discussions with the team that got the wooden spoon to determine this. I don't believe that Pakistan woud have come last if this was the level of sophistication their PC planning had gone to.

I feel really sorry for Richard Mantell that he got seriously injured, but that is the nature of the game that unintentional serious injuries can happen. This was one of those.