#onegoalisonegoal

6 Comments

1. Martin Conlon
   2018-04-04 @ 18:05

   I believe the impulse to award one point only for a penalty corner goal came from three flaws.

   The first is the trivia for which penalty corners are awarded. Second and worse, ‘offences’ for which penalty corners are awarded are commonly ‘manufactured’ and these incidents should, more often than not, have been dealt with by the award of a free ball to the team against whom the penalty corner was awarded.

   Third, the unregulated drag flick (compare it with the regulation of the first hit shot) is undoubtedly dangerous and is also used in a dangerous way, defenders are deliberately targeted. Worse, targeted defenders who are hit with a high ball – chest high or above – are often penalised even if they have tried to take evasive action (evasive action is often very difficult or even impossible because the ball has been flicked ‘through’ an out-runner (at above 480mm) who has evaded the ball and the second defender in line is sight blocked (this is also a tactic that is used deliberately). The second defender, usually on the goal-line is often hit with the ball and injured and then a penalty stroke awarded.

   Although nearly everybody has steadfastly either ignored or denied the existence of these problems, and the authorities have done nothing to address them, all are nonetheless aware (even if only subconsciously) that they exist and their near dormant sense of fair play disturbs their conscience. Hence the introduction of one point for a penalty goal but two for a field goal and the ambivalence of the players asked. No one likes the change, but few declare outright disapproval.

   A better way to proceed would be to reintroduce the Forcing Rule (but this time actually apply it) and also to remove from reasons to award a penalty corner some incidents which were at one time dealt with by the award of a bully outside the circle. Accidental straight up deflections, ball trapped in equipment etc. It is also senseless to punish the playing of the ball out of play over the baseline by a defender with a penalty corner. An alternative penalty, a free ball to opponents on the 23m line would be a suitable replacement for all of these incidents.

   Then the drag-flick needs to be regulated – any flick propelled towards a defending player, more than 5m from the flicker, at above sternum (elbow) height, should be penalised as dangerous play: the present within 5m height limits to remain in place. This proposal does not effect shots not propelled at opposing players, so it is not as severe as the present restrictions on the first hit shot.

   Once our sense of fairness has been appeased – and facing a penalty corner is not a life threatening ordeal for defenders (although I am told some people enjoy that aspect of it) – we should not need to worry about teams trying to ‘win’ penalty corners in preference to trying to score field goals and our consciences should be clear.

   Reply

   • Ernst Baart
     2018-04-04 @ 18:43

     Hi Martin,
     Thanks for your insights. As you know I do not agree on most of your arguments.
     I believe the impulse to introduce was first to make our sport seem (!) more spectacular and secondly to diminish the impact on results from a specialty skill which not all countries seem to be willing to master.
     I doubt very much the danger aspect of a drag flick was a consideration.
     I also do not agree the drag flick has become too dangerous and would challenge you to prove your point, not with assumptions but with numbers of casualties caused by the drag flick compared to other “regular” sport injuries… I think that would be quite a challenge and most likely impossible 😉
     And rest assured…. 9/10 players or coaches asked during the EHL about the new goal rule were quite outspoken in rejecting the test. We chose to also show some of the players less outspoken to not be considered too biased 🙂

     Reply

2. Martin Conlon
   2018-04-05 @ 10:38

   No doubt you are right Ernst, the danger of the drag-flick was not considered when introducing one point for a penalty corner goal, but it certainly should have been. I am astounded that you don’t agree that it is a dangerous stroke as it is presently used. Who is alone in their view of this, perhaps another poll should be conducted?

   You don’t say whether or not you would be opposed to any of the measures that I suggested are necessary for fair play either in the awarding or taking of a penalty corner.

   Of course I cannot prove, by comparison with other sources of injury within hockey or with other sports, that the drag flick is unnecessarily or significantly more dangerous than other game features , because as far as I am aware, no one has complied stats from hockey injuries. But I can provide a significant number of videos in which a defender was obliged to try to evade a flick shot (made deliberately) towards his or her head head or was actually hit on the head with the ball. I consider these incidents to prima facie evidence of dangerous play by the shooter (I don’t believe it a coincidence that international level players repeatedly flick the ball at head height towards the defender on the right hand post) and I have yet to be given a reasonable (or even legal) counter-argument for the assertion that this is dangerous play.

   Will you deny that defenders are ‘targeted’ or that a flick shot made towards the head of an opponent should be considered dangerous play? Before you reply consider that a first hit shot made during a penalty corner is penalised if it is raised above 480mm – even if it is not directed towards an opponent. And the present Rules of Hockey (13.3.l) demand that no flick shot made during a penalty corner be made in a dangerous way. At present that Rule is being ignored because it depends on opinion and not on objective criteria.

   Reply

   • Ernst Baart
     2018-04-11 @ 10:00

     Hey Martin,
     In my opinion the drag flick is not so dangerous it should be banned. Is there a risk to it? Obviously! As in most parts of the game (and in lots of other sports) there is a certain risk of things going wrong. After all, its all about 22 guys on adrenaline and swinging large sticks, chasing a small but hard ball which can fly at considerable speed. But in all of my years of hockey, the number of injuries due to dragflicking is very low and most of the serious injuries I’ve seen, or know about, came from open play: mishits, deviated hits, swinging sticks,… I honestly think the measures with protective gear when defending a PC as well as the forbidden high shot are sufficient today. I think the numbers on this would agree with me here…
     By the way, any dragflicker targeting a defender must be pretty stupid. The purpose is to score a goal, not hit a player. So they would target the multiple spaces between defenders and goal posts that would be most difficult to defend.
     Of course you’re entitled to your opinion about this but I don’t think it would make much sense for me to continue discussing this unless you can bring some new stats and facts to the table proving the dragflick has become too dangerous. Until then, let’s agree to disagree 😉

     Reply

3. Martin Conlon
   2018-04-16 @ 00:19

   I am happy to disagree with you. I have not written anything that could be construed as suggesting a ban on the use of the drag-flick. I want it to be height controlled, but only when it is directed towards another player, which I believe is a reasonable approach to the danger problem.

   I have suggested elsewhere that the height control be 120 cms which is about sternum height on a standing male player and about head height when that player adopts a dribbling crouch.. This height could be marked on goals with an elasticated tape run across the front of each post (from the back of each post) and around the back of the goal – (the height could easily be adjusted to 110cms in women’s matches and be 100cms in junior games). Such a limit avoids the possibility of the return of the ‘logging’ goalkeeper.

   Shooters who target defenders are not stupid they are doing what umpire have trained them to do because of the expected outcome. They expect to be awarded a penalty stroke if the ball hits the defender and a goal if the defender succeeds in evading the ball (that is stupid but it is what usually happens when a defender is hit with the ball). There will be no figures available of course but if there were I would expect them (despite the Rules of the game) to show the percentage of free balls awarded against a shooter who hit a defender on the goal-line, to be close to zero and the number of penalty strokes awarded to be close to 100%.

   I don’t understand how anyone could be against a height control for the drag-flick and at the same time accept the height limit on the first hit shot taken during a penalty corner. The ball velocity is the same on average.

   I will continue to promote the abolishment of the penalty corner and the replacement of it with a power play in the 23m area unless a height limit is imposed on the drag-flick. There is not much difference in the initial set up. An inject to outside the 23m line rather than the shooting circle, but then a much more varied and interesting continuation can take place. I think the power play to have the potential to be far more entertaining than the penalty corner and just as productive for the attacking side with passing and shooting skills.

   Reply

4. Martin Conlon
   2018-04-28 @ 22:40

   I recently watched a video of a 9 v 9 trial conducted in Australia in which not only was one point awarded for a goal scored during a penalty corner and two for an open play field goal, there were selected quarters in the matches (each match was 4 x 10 min), referred to as a power play where any score counted double. They also ‘threw in’ a shoot-out with the goalkeeper when a goal was scored. Therefore a field goal in a power play period had the potential to earn six points for the scoring team. The commentators could talk of little else but how the scoring method would or could effect the way in which the game was played. This link to an article I wrote about the experience of watching this concoction also contains a video of the games played. I am now opposed to the idea of one point for a penalty corner goal and two for a field goal because it looks as if it could be ‘the thin edge of a wedge’ of unnecessary change, which might distract from much needed changes.

   https://martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/trial-of-9-v-9-i…ten-minutes-each/

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.