Join your #thirdteam community on Discord: fhumpires.com/ds
FHumpires is an amazing community where field hockey 🏑 umpires at every level are growing in serving the game.
➡️ #RuleyTuesday videos explaining hockey rules for not just umpires but players and coaches too, ➡️ #WhatUpWednesday live streams on umpiring techniques and tactics ➡️ #UmpireAtHome interviews with top #hockeyfamily folks and deconstructed clips with lots of analysis ➡️ #HotTips #Shorts with 59s or less of bite-sized advice you can put in place today
Led by Keely Dunn, a global field hockey umpire educator convincing you umpiring is in fact fun!
🧙🏻♀️#UmpireWhisperer 🌎 Retired FIH Gr. 1 Outdoor & Indoor Umpire 🌎 FIH Academy Trainer 🇨🇦 Umpire Manager 📣 #thirdteam
In the last PS senario, if the goalie was to recieve a card and was replaced in goal by a field player, is the field player allowed to wear protection that would be allowed for a field player during a PC? Gloves, Knee protecction, mask etc?
They're permitted a facemask, but honestly I've not seen the other pieces of equipment ever be optioned by a defending field player so I'm not sure. The rules are unclear. I'll check and get back to you.
Another great video. This had exactly what I asked about two months ago on your 5m on the free hit #RuleyTuesday. Your comment then was "Running alongside involves distance, body shape (reaching with stick or not), which side of the attacker they're on, and more" with regards to whether it is influencing play. For me, as soon as the defender (2a) shadows the attackers change of direction there is no doubt it is a PC. From this video though, do I take it that you are inferring that if a defender stays in the hotline path and does not move out of the way upon recognising the attacker is trying to go straight it is an infringement? To put it another way, is running straight back considered not enough of an attempt to not influence play even though the attacker is free to go either side (and going straight back is a predictable motion that we all do as soon as a whistle goes).
23:45 - I think the GC to YC for attacker comes from the fact she then went to argue with the umpire instead of leaving the pitch but maybe a bit of empathy for confusion e.g. if a language barrier explaining the decision and she wasn't particularly animated and did leave Edit just to clarify without NEEDING TO TYPE IN CAPS - the YC to defender is moot, it's the correct decision. At the time stamp I mentioned, Keely argues against the YC for the attacker for dissent. I was simply explaining why 2 people thought the attacker *also* should have had a YC - first for the card waving, secondly for not leaving the pitch and arguing. Hopefully that avoids the need to TYPING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
@@FHumpires What I meant was in your stream (at the time stamp I mentioned) - you mentioned poll option E (PC, 2 YC). I was explaining the logic of why 2 people were talking about the GC being upgraded to a YC for the attacker, *completely separate from the YC for the defender* - hope that is clear without needing to type in caps? Might be worth following the time stamp link before replying so it's not confusing you as I didn't say anything about the YC to the defender being wrong. IS THAT CLEAR NOW OR DO I NEED TO TYPE IN CAPS? Time stamps are there to make it clear what was being talked about - hope that helps?
38:03 - my only question, is the slide into the back of the striker not itching towards YC given he took the player to ground from behind so he had no warning?
That's not the only criterion we take into account when deciding whether to add a personal penalty to a team penalty. A PS is a massive hammer, so as we move up floors on the control elevator we can start lower with the cards unless there's high impact or high danger (or both) on the first intentional/reckless as to the result foul inside the circle.Was it physical? Yes. Was it so dangerous that it warranted a card straight off? No.
First one I could see the argument for 16 and card (dangerous play and intentional foul on the player but no disadvantage) or PC and card for the keeper (intentional foul against a player who does not have the opportunity to play the ball). Is she trying to take the player down - that's the question - hard to see clearly but looks like she flicks the right pad out after she plants to ensure player went down - she didn't see where the ball was going or the speed, she was only concerned with the player not getting to it. My first thought though was that the ball was gone so cannot be a PS
Not entirely your point, but: I (controlling umpire) give a long corner for a ball going over the back line behind a wood of players; look over to my colleague to double check I'm correct; he gives me a double thumbs up, but I mistake it for him signalling (ancient history, pre-radio era) a PC, which I obviously follow up on. He burst out laughing, shaking his head wildly. Restart was a long corner🙈🏑💚💛❤️
I have rewatched my own games where the commentators have said I was wrong, and other unnecessary comments about me. When commentators explain the call to viewers they are educating people, setting a positive conversation standard towards officials which in turn creates a better culture in both understanding the rules as well as umpire-team relationships. I really love that you bring in these other components into your discussions, thank you Keely😊
First scenario. I get the first initial receiver is the black defender who misses the ball. But to me, there is nothing to stop the 2nd defender from moving within 5m of the attacker while the ball is in the air. Who's going to leave an attacker unmarked in the circle just in case the first defender misses like he did? Then, because the ball bounces into an area where there are 3 players within 5m or even within playing dustance of the balls position, the onus is on the white players, as the team who lifted the ball, to allow the 2nd defender 5m to bring the ball down safely. Ball has become dangerous as a result and FHD. Maybe thar video skews the distance between players, but that's my opinion.
@@cymonhewitt9122 The video does skew the distance, and you’re not seeing that the black defender was the one who came in late where the second white attacker was.
Thank you for the last incident comments. To date, I am less experienced than my female colleagues, so tap into their experience. However, thank you for the enlightenment.
Thank you for tackling the issues raised by the last example. Appreciate it isn’t easy but I thought you handled it really well. I have experienced exactly this issue. It’s so demoralising as a female umpire and it teaches the male players not to respect our umpiring. We need to talk about this as I don’t think the men always realise what they are doing so we need to highlight it and get the message out there. Thank you and keep going!
@@FHumpires Keely, I love that you addressed the issue of male umpire dominance. In my experience, when this has happened, to have a colleague swoop in and take over (for whatever reason, which I won’t psychoanalyse), I have been left so taken aback and angry. It’s hard to be anything other than speechless when our ability and credibility to be undermined by a the team you walk on the pitch having trust in to have your back and be cut off at the knees - there would have been no words that would match the value of professionalism in this situation. I could see Rachael beginning to engage her skill in empathy that probably would have de-escalated the situation, and was not allowed the opportunity, which I imagine affected her own game and her standing on the pitch. I have been umpiring high level men’s club hockey only for a short time and am empowered by it! I wish there were more of us to bring an equal standing as umpires - men are well accepted umpiring women’s hockey.
@@kathyfirth7946 thank you SO much for sharing your experience. You articulated it better than I could! I feel the same way, empowerment means we have to step into our power and sometimes we’re held back, sometimes we step over someone else, and sometimes it works perfectly.
Wow, as much as I love Jonas's overall demeanor as an umpire, I'm in complete agreement that this was very inappropriate. I try to live up to always support my colleagues, whether in an individual game, or as a group, and this has seriously harmed my idea of Jonas. I do think Rachel was so overwhelmed Jonas was right to take over, but dead wrong to discuss the 2💛 and then not giving that. I'd love to hear from Rachel and Jonas.
The big danger I faced in confronting this issue is exactly what your post has illustrated: the intense personalization of the event. My segment was not to demonize Jonas. He made a mistake. All of us are human, all of us are capable of errors in judgment and practice under pressure. So give him and everyone some grace. And when it comes to Rachel and Jonas' reactions, we need to respect the process they have to go through to move forward. It's only our business if they choose to share, but they owe us nothing in the way of explanations. Their duty is to the game, and the game only.
As to the 2nd part: I absolutely detest starting my "card ladder", so whenever a rather significant, deliberate offence occurs by the defender in the 23, I silently thank them for halting the ladder progression to cards. I will also tell the subsequent, actually carded offender "that's the xth time this happened, and remember it led to that upgraded PC back then"
I understand carding can be hard, but “detest” is a strong word! I try to focus on how I’m serving the game and all of those other players better by doing it. Especially when I have the opportunity earlier in a game, that means the lines are clearly drawn and everyone can get on with playing great hockey! 😊
we're in complete agreement. In my defence, umpiring only club based games lately, 99 players out of a hundred don't understand the idea of the ladder. I "detest" using a tool that doesn't mean anything to the players. I remember an U14 girl leaving the pitch crying over a 💚, even when my ladder should have been clear to a toddler. Related: I remember discussing at half time (that prehistoric age of 2x35 games 😅) that we'd have to see whether we'd be "able to 💚 a player" to regain the players' attention. Accidentally we were overheard by a person without that technical understanding of umpiring you display here....
@@maartendekroon267 I have seen the same in club hockey, bringing in higher level umpiring - classic example was player knocking the ball away - big warning, low impact sort of thing, top level, probably go straight to green first time; second time - player gets green; third time (different) player gets yellow - was more high impact as it stopped a possible break by defence. Captain going crazy it was not another green as that player hadn't been carded yet. Poor team management by captain, but also... green for every player before yellow? Don't be silly!
@FHumpires again fully agreed. Umpiring club games doesn't fully allow for being that positive influence, as the standard I set this weekend be matched by the umpires next weekend because of the vastly different skill sets. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm regularly the single best umpire a team encounters all season. But doing what I must in those 1, 2 maybe 3 games out of their 20 makes that difficult. I do penalise more than my brethren, and educate players why it's happening, and sometimes (post-game) even in-depth analyses of the rules as applied to their game.
Taking nothing away from what happened between the two umpires at the end, as I agree that the interaction was entirely incorrect. I have a question regarding the potential issuing of what Felix said was 2 cards. I fully understand the Hendrikx card, as he runs from distance and engages with unnecessary aggressive and combative behaviour which we do not wish to see in our game, however I've watched the raised hit several times (both from the original coverage, the highlights of the game, and on here and at 1/4 speed) and I cannot differentiate from the time of the whistle and his connection with the ball, so a card for it being "late" after the whistle would seem very harsh in this case? No?
Do you think if there was ambiguity on the pitch that's how they all would have reacted? The player who hit the ball showed immediately in his body language "I'm gonna get it...". It was late.
Love the example for the good tackle by the defender from the attacker using 3d skills driblling in the air. Rhetorical question remains very much a rhetorical question! :)
In the last scenario, in my opinion, the supporting umpire should have had each captain withdraw their team away from the other to diffuse the situation,while the contolling umpire checked the welfare of the injured player. The supporting umpire should have then discussed what they had seen with the controlling umpire, away from the players, and made a recommendation on any appropriate penalties for the controlling umpire to consider, before the controlling umpire made the final decision.
How did the decision on 3b remain as a long corner? That's pretty much the only decision it couldn't be. It was either fhd for the first stick obstruction outside the circle, PC for the 2nd stick obstruction insude, or a 15m for the german player being the last in contact before it went over the back line.
Sometimes we get the third thing wrong after getting 2 right. Technically, the issue of possession is NOT in the remit of the VU so in a sense they couldn't change that award, but I don't think it would have ended the world either in this case...
In the scenario of case 2, why should 9.9 " A flick or scoop towards an opponent within 5 metres is considered dangerous." Not be applied to the attacking player? It seems to me that she has deliberately lifted the ball into the defender.
There was no danger. The defender went to ground to create a long barrier and stopped the ball from going through at a height that would not have been above the knee if she were standing up.
After awarding a pc for an offense inside the circle or an intentional offense inside the 23 can you give a green card as a personal pentely or is a 5min yellow the lowest card you can give?
Aerial 1b, The defender hasn't made an attempt to close down the receiver and only plays the ball after the mistrap. That's essentially how I apply this rule in my local comp. #ReplaySquad
Question on the final one. Agree that it is the back of the stick at that point of the handle, but why is 9.11 "It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick« not applied where the hand has stopped the ball hitting the back of the stick?
Because the hand is nowhere near where the ball hits the handle 😉 Don't take the guidance of 9.11 out of context of the rule itself, which is whether it's an offence to play the ball with the body.
@@cymonhewitt9122 If it hits the back of the player's right hand with a normal grip on the stick, that means the back side of the stick and the handle of the back stick are being used to play the ball, which would be a foul. Can't say I've ever seen it happen though!
You just answered it yourself. 7.4(c) "When the ball is played over the back-line and no goal is scored: if played intentionally by a defender, unless deflected by a goalkeeper, play is re-started with a penalty corner." 10.2(a): "Goalkeepers are permitted to use their stick, feet, kickers, legs or leg guards or any other part of their body to deflect the ball over the back-line or to play the ball in any other direction." 12.3(d) "A penalty corner is awarded: for intentionally playing the ball over the back-line by a defender. Goalkeepers are permitted to deflect the ball with their stick, protective equipment or any part of their body in any direction including over the back-line." Any method of the GK playing the ball that isn't a deflection that is intentionally playing ball over the back line results in play restarted with a PC.
Hey, I was recently umpire in a game where the attacker was on the top of the circle and she flicked the ball high towards the goal. There was already a defender standing in that line and she got hit in the face. I gave a free hit for the defenders but I was wondering how danger should be assessed within the circle?
Hi Niet, unfortunately I don't have nearly enough details to be able to tell you more about your particular scenario. I'd suggest you look at a few of the segments from previous shows about dangerous shots at goal as I always go through the principles of what constitutes danger, and then you'll see examples of it being applied in a number of fact scenarios: www.youtube.com/@FHumpires/search?query=danger%20shot
To me, on the PS, the defender, "line stop", deflects the ball with her stick first and the ball is going off target from that deflection and then hits her body (arm I think), so why not say it's a PC ?
so i do like the format of this episode where there is limited but lead discussion about the video and clear thoughts about the calls, and onto the next, no polling. nice to have the occasional episode like this from time to time!
Not sure what "sth" means, but the advantage is played from that foot so if AUS fouls afterwards, you don't go back to the PC. That gives AUS two bites at the cherry as they say.
1. What if they shoot & hit someone below the knee, It's another PC? 2. They shoot & it deflects off a defender body or stick into the goal_It's still No Goal? 3. They shoot & a defender deflects the ball with their stick but another attacker shoots the loose ball into the goal_It's still No Goal?
1. Yes, a shot that hits below the knee will almost always be another PC 2. 3. Am I missing something from your question? Please explain the full scenario, i.e. what kind of shot (flick or hit) and what height, please.
I’ve been at hockey for more than 35 years, and I disagree. The rules have always been confusing without making an effort, but I consider that a feature not a bug!
question for Keeley: at international levels, with such speed of the game, and so much going on, especially at corners, do you think there's a case to be made for 3 umpires?
I've just discovered this channel and I'm amazed at how little subs you have. The quality is on point, passion on the topic and professional finish on everything, yet somehow only 3k subs?!?!
I've got an amazingly engaged community who participate in the live streams and watch replays like crazy. Most content creators would give their left arms for my AVDs and return viewers. I appreciate the folks I serve, everything else is gravy! ❤
Thanks for another great video. I would love some more elaboration on 'stepping off the line' such as at the 5:00 mark. In local league its pretty common for the defender to end up running beside the attacker trying to get 5/wait until the ball has been played 5 then tackling (some umpires allow it while others give cards). While the defender may have allowed the MOST 'desirable' line/atractive space would the running beside still be counted as INTERFERING with taking of the free (philosophically, once the self pass has started is the free still 'being taken' before the ball has moved 5?) Alternatively, as per the last line, is this INFLUENCING play and therefore taking of the free needs to be delayed/reset but is not worthy of a card depedning on how intential the movement beside/running with the attacker is?
Great questions, and tough to answer quickly (I think I may need to do a WUW segment on this next week!). Everything is contextual. "Running alongside" involves distance, body shape (reaching with stick or not), which side of the attacker they're on, and more. That said, taking the free hit should *never* be delayed or reset because of the fault of the defender. Resetting is for attacker taking the FH from the wrong spot or without showing clearly where it's taken from (i.e. stopping the ball). Judging "how intentional is a breakdown" is an unhelpful framework because players will always argue they didn't intend to commit a foul. Rather, as long as the defender is in control of their body, they are "intentionally" doing that action. So, look at the *impact* of the breakdown, along with *repetition* and *danger* in order to make your decision on cards (*Repetition+ Danger + Impact*). Hope that helps a bit, and hope to see you live soon!
I'll be on the lookout for new scenarios, but here are a few past WUW segments to fill the gap: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vPPaxYtutkY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ORokm1wiNWY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LFmffLIyF2E.html
1:24:00 The Grambusch brothers have a track record of running their mouths with officials. The level of discipline particularly in the men's Pro League is dropping. I've got tickets for all the London games and GB vs IND is likely to be a flash point based on previous encounters
Does the rule on pushing state along the ground? And so then 13.7i the “or” could be interpreted that push is along the ground; flick has to be pushed up off the ground. Agree with you that a drag has to come from behind the back foot.
