x51

Ric Charlesworth

By Ric Charlesworth.
http://www.riccharlesworth.com.au

Ric's new book entitled "Shakespeare the Coach" will be released in August, 2004

At the Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Spain defenders in some teams wore protective equipment (face masks) while defending penalty corners. This, I was informed, was contrary to the rules but sensibly umpires looked the other way.

In the mid 70's as a medical student in training I went to the operating theatre on a Monday morning and was surprised to see one of my cricket friends on the operating table. His fractured skull was the result of being struck by a cricket ball on the weekend. As an opening batsman for Western Australia, facing the world's fastest bowlers on a regular basis, I became one of the first cricketers to wear a protective helmet while batting in first class cricket. At the time criticised; such practice is now the standard at every level of cricket. It is mandatory for players to wear protection at practice and in games. Failure to do so could lead to punitive actions for damages when injury occurs.

It is interesting to compare the speeds and distances in cricket with hockey. The ball is the same size and weight. The batsman at cricket stands 20 yards from the bowler, wears leg pads, chest, body and abdominal protectors, gloves, arm guards and helmet and has a bat twice the width of a hockey stick. The fastest bowlers deliver the ball between 130-155 km/hr. The batsman has a clear uninterrupted view of the ball after delivery and sightscreens in place to assist with vision

In hockey the defending players - not the goalkeeper who is well protected - are without any protection besides their stick and some lower abdominal guards ("a box"). The ball is hit at 120-145 km/hr or drag flicked at 100-120 km/hr and they are 12 yards from the striker or flicker. There are often many players between the shooter and defender, especially now without offside. They are attempting to deflect the ball, distract and unsight defenders and goalkeeper and be in place for rebound opportunities.

I would argue that the likelihood of serious injury is much greater in hockey than cricket where the distance is much greater, view uninterrupted and protection substantial. This situation is absurdly dangerous and ought not be countenanced by any responsible international federation on the grounds of safety.

However, there are other disturbing aspects as to how this present rule has come about and there is a disturbing impact on the development of a game of great skill that I dearly love.

In the early 80s, in order to better defend against power hitting, goalkeepers began to "log" or fall to the ground. Initially, some were badly injured but eventually with the use of high-density foam and better helmets to protect them this method proved successful.

By the end of the 80s the flicked ball was allowed to counter this tactic and by the mid 90s this had become a most potent weapon for scoring. Indeed, the Dutch tactic of blocking the goalkeeper's vision in 1996 proved difficult to counter in the final matches of that Olympic Games. Still the ball speed seldom exceeded 100km/hr as the technique and tools were yet to be perfected.

Now, with composite materials of low elasticity and highly 'bowed' sticks used by flickers, the best reach speeds in excess of 120km/hr.The bow allows for more power as the ball can be more easily caught and kept on the stick in a 'sling shot' manner in the act of the drag flick - less technique is required with these sticks - not more! Technology and stick design have allowed these gains.

When I first played hockey as a junior I remember rules being invoked that prohibited undercutting on penalty corners - now practically 40 years later the same dangers are now being permitted.

When I heard the FIH ruling would improve safely on corners I expected that perhaps protective equipment would be allowed at least until this rule was fixed. I hoped that high shots might be ruled out. I never anticipated that the defenders would be rendered unable to defend by pressuring the shot.

The new "interpretation" or "direction" diminishes the defending team's ability to defend corners. It practically says that every penalty corner ought be a free shot and this exaggerates the importance of one closed skill that it has already been greatly enhanced by the march of to technical changes in hockey sticks and the FIH's acquiesce to such changes. Interestingly a game such as baseball only allows wooden bats at the highest level of the game. Had they not done so every man and his dog would be hitting balls out of their grounds.

As one correspondent to a hockey website recently demurred "perhaps we should call the game "drag flickey' rather than hockey" Clearly this one skill has gained such importance that it distorts the rewards available for other traditional ball skills.

In every other situation on the field playing the ball high into an opponent is dangerous. Why should not it be the responsibility of the shooter on a penalty corner to do the same as any other player who shoots at goal in field play or indeed on a subsequent shot on a corner.

Running down the line need not reflect an attempt to use the body defending. Indeed players doing this do so with their sticks in front of their legs It is the best way to cover all options particularly if the ball is to be played to the right of the rushing player. It is only dangerous if the attacking team shoots at the runner! What it ought initiate is the need for goal shooters to make safe shots. Certainly that was the intention of past rule changes that required low shots.

Also this interpretation assumes a drag flick! The runner must alter his line even if the attacking team uses another option such as a hit or bunt to the runner's right for a subsequent shot.

Most penalty corners result from a manufactured foul. A simple trapping error or a ball played onto a foot. These things are much easier than trying to take a goal shot and now they will be further rewarded with a free shot at goal which presently is so difficult to get in field play. Equally the field shot, should it be attempted, would be designated dangerous if it was played high into the body of a defender!!

We are rewarding the wrong things and more and more emphasis is being given to this very narrow range of skills that are so crucial in deciding tournaments. I can hear the old voices saying " it has always been thus"…my retort is that may be true but it has always been a problem that we still aren't rewarded the really attractive and interesting skills of our game. This is notwithstanding my first argument about safety, which I believe by itself ought be sufficient to require a rethink of these situations.

The other issue is of course that of simplicity as this rule will prove very difficult to oversee given the already incredible number of things happening on a corner. It will require the sort of split-second assessment that most umpires will not be able to make with consistency

My views on the way to go with the penalty corner is that we should have a 'power play' that requires players to break from midfield with passing against an outnumbered defence (maybe a GK and 2 defenders) who would not be frozen on the goal line as is presently the case. This would still contain the moment and excitement of the present penalty corner and allow time for an 'advert break' as TV requires.

The corner would be preserved in the form of the present penalty corner except the ball would be injected from the sideline as at present and the attackers would have to be outside the 25 while the rest of the defence team would be at the half line. Certainly giving the corner some teeth would further discourage teams that now play 'over the back-line' without fear of the consequences

With respect to hockey stick design we should only allow a tolerance of 1-2 cm 'bow' to outlaw these new weapons. Also high flicks in field play should be illegal if an opponent is within 5m. That would not allow high balls to be thrown in 'dead ball' situations. This present practice mimics the 'chip' which those of us who played in the 80s would remember.

Earlier this year I was asked to comment on the Olympic prospects of the various teams. This decision, in my view, changes the odds as Pakistan, Netherlands and Germany will benefit most. Such a decision, so close to the Olympics is yet another layer of ad hockery and it still does not embellish our game or provide the safety, simplicity or reward the great skills that our game has to offer.

Rate This Article

Select Here  5 Stars  (Best Rating)   4 Stars   3 Stars   2 Stars   1 Star  (Worst Rating)

Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.