The Obstruction Rule in part (reads) A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it.Now a lot of people apparently don't read beyond the first fifteen words - so let's leave them to one side (because it is not necessary to tell a player in possession of the ball that he or she can move in any direction with it) and look at what the Rule specifically prohibits :-A player with the ball is NOT permitted to move off with it bodily into an opponent or (and this following part is missed in this instructional video)into a position between the ball and an opponent who is withinplaying distance of the ball and attempting to play it.So the stationary demonstrations, although unrealistic, are not obstruction because the opponent is just standing still and not trying to play at the ball - but the turning movement to position between the opponent and the ball after the ball is moved off the line are obstructive offences, because there is each time attempt/s made by an opponent to play at the ball, but these attempts are prevented by illegal shielding of the ball (an action which is also separately specifically prohibited within the Rule Explanation)Just because some crazy at the FIH who does not understand Plain English is ordering FIH Umpires to ignore obstructive offences, does not mean coaches elsewhere should be bending over backwards following and compounding what is happening. 'Interpretations' which are clearly and obviously contrary to what is given in the Rules of Hockey should be challenged not accepted and no attempt should be made to comply with this subversion by coaching it and pretending it is correct.
first example obstruction, all of them are technically obstruction as 9.12 states 'A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it' so therefore all offences are technically obstruction
The apparently illegal one happens so much? and never gets penalized? I do it all the time, including backing into the tackler deliberately while moving the ball, and then they get penalized for a tackle from the back
Cris Maloney, the author of this video, defends his coaching in it, which is obviously incorrect, by pointing out he is coaching to what FIH Umpires are doing - so he is setting up a vicious circle which will result in players demanding that the Rule be applied incorrectly and also having no idea how to play the game of field hockey properly. Why are FIH Umpires applying the Rule incorrectly? The answer to that is contained in Rules Interpretations devised between 1993 and 1995 and entirely deleted from the rule-book after 2003, but still applied as if they are extant. Some of the Senior Umpire Managers learned their 'Rules' before or during that period and have not revised what they then learned, they still just pass it on as it once was. FIH Umpire Coaches like Jan Hadfield have actually produced coaching videos in which they advise umpires to throw their Rule books away. The rot comes from the top. I have written several articles about the Obstruction Rule in my web-blog at martinzigzag.com the history of the Rule is set out in more than one of them.
The Obstruction Rule in part (reads) A player with the ball is permitted to move off
with it in any direction except bodily into an
opponent or into a position between the ball and
an opponent who is within playing distance of the
ball and attempting to play it.Now a lot of people apparently don't read beyond the first fifteen words - so let's leave them to one side (because it is not necessary to tell a player in possession of the ball that he or she can move in any direction with it) and look at what the Rule specifically prohibits :-A player with the ball is NOT permitted to move off with it bodily into an opponent or (and this following part is missed in this instructional video)into a position between the ball and an opponent who is withinplaying distance of the ball and attempting to play it.So the stationary demonstrations, although unrealistic, are not obstruction because the opponent is just standing still and not trying to play at the ball - but the turning movement to position between the opponent and the ball after the ball is moved off the line are obstructive offences, because there is each time attempt/s made by an opponent to play at the ball, but these attempts are prevented by illegal shielding of the ball (an action which is also separately specifically prohibited within the Rule Explanation)Just because some crazy at the FIH who does not understand Plain English is ordering FIH Umpires to ignore obstructive offences, does not mean coaches elsewhere should be bending over backwards following and compounding what is happening. 'Interpretations' which are clearly and obviously contrary to what is given in the Rules of Hockey should be challenged not accepted and no attempt should be made to comply with this subversion by coaching it and pretending it is correct.
first example obstruction, all of them are technically obstruction as 9.12 states 'A player with the ball is permitted to move off
with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it' so therefore all offences are technically obstruction
The apparently illegal one happens so much? and never gets penalized? I do it all the time, including backing into the tackler deliberately while moving the ball, and then they get penalized for a tackle from the back
so im guessing that obstruction is basically nudging someone out of the way with ur body?
Yes, it looks like it.
No, that is at least two offences. Physical contact is a separate offence.
Cris Maloney, the author of this video, defends his coaching in it, which is obviously incorrect, by pointing out he is coaching to what FIH Umpires are doing - so he is setting up a vicious circle which will result in players demanding that the Rule be applied incorrectly and also having no idea how to play the game of field hockey properly.
Why are FIH Umpires applying the Rule incorrectly? The answer to that is contained in Rules Interpretations devised between 1993 and 1995 and entirely deleted from the rule-book after 2003, but still applied as if they are extant. Some of the Senior Umpire Managers learned their 'Rules' before or during that period and have not revised what they then learned, they still just pass it on as it once was. FIH Umpire Coaches like Jan Hadfield have actually produced coaching videos in which they advise umpires to throw their Rule books away. The rot comes from the top.
I have written several articles about the Obstruction Rule in my web-blog at martinzigzag.com the history of the Rule is set out in more than one of them.
Yes ZZH - when I was playing and umpiring in the USA some years ago, coaches were teaching players to do this obstruction and claiming it was legal