Umpire declared shot could not be dangerous - on target.avi

Penalty corner awarded because according to the umpire (said to the protesting defender) a shot that is clearly at the goal - on target - cannot be dangerous and (by inference) the defender fouled by intentionally playing the ball with her body, because unintentional ball/body contact is not an offence.

In effect there is no such thing as a dangerously played shot at the goal. ???

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• Field
• Hockey

[ZigZagHockey]

@Volleymaster2 I think that this Level 3 Umpire is 'pulling your leg'. There is a prohibition on hitting the ball hard with an edge on the forehand side (whatever 'hard' means) but not on on the reverse side.

Generally speaking any shot from with 5m of an opponent that hits that opponent above knee height may be considered dangerous - below knee height not so.

My astonishment was at the "on target cannot be dangerous" statement by the umpire. It's a pity the video a blur.

[Volleymaster2]

@ZigZagHockey - looking again, it's really hard to see how high the ball is when it hits the defender, but i have been told by a Level 3 (UK) umpire that any shot on the reverse stick needs to be along the ground, if it rises, that is dangerous play if a defender is in front as it is "not a controlled shot" due to it being on the backhand ?

[ZigZagHockey]

@Volleymaster2 The other side is reckless or dangerous play by the attacker. Reckless play would be play without consideration for the safety of others. If the umpires decided that the shot was legitimate, then play should have been allowed to continue (unless the defender was injured, when play should be stopped for safety reasons), there should be no 'automatic' penalty corner just because a defender who was attempting legitimate defence was hit with the ball.

[ZigZagHockey]

@Volleymaster2 The defender has moved towards the ball not laterally into the path of it after it has been propelled there is a difference. There is also intention to consider, there is no evidence that the defender intended to play the ball with her body rather than her stick, without such intent there is no offence by the defender. An attempt to play at the ball with the stick was made. The other side is reckless or dangerous play by the attacker ........continued

[Volleymaster2]

i agree with the umpires decision here. the defender has run into the path of the shot deliberately, hence it can not be a dangerous shot at the goal. if the defender was stationary and within 5 yards of the shot, that would have been dangerous. we discussed these scenarios last week at umpire training. it all happens so fast it's difficult to guage what is dangerous sometimes, but i think that the umpire here is in very good position to see that the defender was not stationary during the shot