Any current hockey umpires out there?

Manxman_in_exile

This isn't a money saving question - I just hope somebody can answer a couple of questions or point me in the right direction.

Just as background, I am a former keen hockey player but haven't played for 30 years and haven't been involved with a club in all that time, although I am still an avid viewer of hockey whenever it's on TV.  (I'm currently watching GB women versus NL women).  The current game is, of course, completely unrecognisable from the game I used to play but - I must say - all the better for being a different game.  It's much quicker, much more exciting and the levels of skill are unbelievable.  I'm not interested in knowing about any rules changes other than ones that relate directly to the following two questions:

1.  How is what I believe is called a "tomahawk" hit legal?  When I played hockey, you were not allowed to hit the ball with the back of the stick, which I think I always implicitly understood to mean that the ball had to be hit with the face of the stick.  The "tomahawk" hit is played with a reverse stick action, with the stick almost parallel with the ground, and the ball is (I think) hit with the top "edge" or top inner surface of the hook of the head of the stick.  Apart from not being hit with the face of the stick, the hit seems to me to be blatantly dangerous (also see question 2) because the player hitting the ball appears to have very little control over the height of the subsequent ball flight.

2.  What are the current rules regarding dangerous play in respect of hitting the ball in the air?  I've seen many full-blooded hits on goal from open play where the ball is flying well above knee height, but this never seems to be penalised.  I'm sure when I played that that would not have been allowed and I also seem to recollect that shots on goal were meant to hit the backboard and that goals were disallowed if they went into the net above backboard level.  Has this all changed or is my recollection wrong?

And I suppose a related question is that when a shot on goal is drag-flicked from a penalty corner, the drag-flick is allowed to hit above the backboard?

I've searched around the internet, on Wikipedia and the current hockey laws, but I don't seem to be able to find satisfactory answers to my questions.  (eg I can find discussions on hockey forums about the dangerousness of the "tomahawk", but not why it is allowed in the first place).

Thanks

Loo_man

Hi Manxman,
Yes the game has changed a lot in 30 years!
Re your questions. Firstly the skills at international level are higher than those in normal leagues and so there are some differences in how the safety aspects are interpreted. You will see controlled shots on goal from above waist height in top class hockey because the players can execute the skill safely, but the same shots would be discouraged lower down the leagues because the players don't have the skills do execute the shot in a safe manner.
Re: the tomahawk.
The rule is (and always was) that players must not play the ball with the back of the stick as opposed to only being allowed to play it with the face of the stick. Hence being allowed to use the edge of the stick.
The tomahawk tends to be discouraged lower down the leagues but is OK when players have the skill.
It is only allowed on the reverse because there is a greater risk of the ball being lifted on the open side. There is a fair amount of discussion regarding the safety of the shot, but there are many players who execute very well.

Shots on goal.
Back in the day the first hit on goal from short corners had to hit the back board, all other shots could go in at any height subject to safety.
This hasn't really changed except that the drag flick has come into play. A drag flick is not interpreted as a hit, hence it can go in at any height. If you're the person on the line defending a short corner and the ball goes passed your head at 70 mph you might think that's dangerous (I certainly do) but it is allowed. This is why you will see the defenders wearing masks.

Hope this helps.

Manxman_in_exile

Thank you very much!  Yes - that is very helpful.  

I'd actually forgotten that I'd asked this question (as nobody had replied!) so I carried out my own research.  What you have posted above pretty much confirms exactly what I found.

Yes - it is a completely different game and - on balance - all the better for it.  But...

I'd have to say that, having read the current FIH rules and having looked at some Youtube videos, both players and umpires seem to be engaged in a different game from that defined by the rules.  I particularly do not understand on what basis the rules relating to dangerous play are interpreted and put into effect, and I'm not too certain either about the interpretation of obstruction and "feet".  Having completed my "research" I was more confused than before and spent most of the latter stages of the hockey tournaments shouting at the TV "Why did they blow up for that?" and "Why didn't they blow up for that?"   

Regarding dangerous play and shooting at goal, I saw the video of the pre-Olympics injury to Sam Ward.  Notwithstanding your comments about the skill levels of international players, I completely fail to understand how anything like that could ever have happened?  I appreciate that there is an explanation to the dangerous play rule saying that if the ball is lifted at someone within 5m then that is dangerous, but this seems to have been turned on its head to mean that if anyone is hit is more than 5m away, then it isn't dangerous.  (Apologies if I've got that interpretation wrong in some way, but it's daft!).  I simply can't comprehend what interpretation of the rules could lead to that injury to Sam Ward.  Did the opponents get a free hit from that do you know, or wasn't it penalised?

I most certainly agree 100% with your comment here:

Loo_man said:

...
This hasn't really changed except that the drag flick has come into play. A drag flick is not interpreted as a hit, hence it can go in at any height. If you're the person on the line defending a short corner and the ball goes passed your head at 70 mph you might think that's dangerous (I certainly do) but it is allowed. This is why you will see the defenders wearing masks...

Too right it's dangerous and I can't see any justification in the rules to allow it!

Talking about facemasks, that reminds me of another thing - referrals to the video umpire.  I think it was the Argentina -v- India semifinal and India were awarded another PC (very) shortly after an earlier one when one of the Argentinian defenders played the ball without having removed her mask after the earlier PC.  Argentina asked for a video referral which Matt Chilton(?) commentating on BBC basically rubbished as a complete waste of time and a waste of a referral.  After a five minute delay what happened?  The referral was upheld...

And on another occasion a referral was made regarding the first of two almost simultaneous offences.  The player making the referral made this quite clear as did the referring umpire - but the video umpire came back with a decision on the second offence - which the referring umpire accepted!

I'm afraid as a TV viewer I found a lot of the umpiring decisions difficult to follow and sometimes decisions seemed a bit arbitrary and non-transparent.

I enjoyed watching hockey at the Olympics despite all that, but it's no longer a game I would want to play if I were younger and I wouldn't be happy about any of my kids playing it either.  I think any game that decides that a player is consenting to being hit by a hard plastic projectile travelling at 70mph just because they (defender or attacker) is standing bewteen the ball and the goal, is not a game that deserves to be played. 

Thanks again for your input.  As I said - it pretty much confirms what I thought.