Fri 4 Jul, 2008
|
|
|
|
USA: Opinion: Goggles Mandate Needs to be Scrapped  x37
 |
| Top of the Circle |
January 11, 2005 
TopOfTheCircle.com
> Page Views 6924
By Al Mattei
Founder, TopOfTheCircle.com
It seems almost a fait accompli that the National Federation of State High School Associations will mandate eyewear for field hockey, perhaps for as early as the 2005 season.
In a sport fighting for its very relevance in the international level, and demanding of a high level of performance for players as young as the age of 14, this is the dumbest thing that the National Federation could do.
Why?
First of all, there is a rapid improvement and spread of artificial competition surfaces from New England to California to Illinois. Coaches and athletic directors, from small towns to moneyed preparatory schools, realize that artificial grass and turf are good investments not only in the physical plant, but in their athletes.
And as a result of the smoother surfaces, you do not have the ball jumping off knots in the grass, creating the potential for injury.
Two, there is a lot more "skill" play being emphasized across America. Hundreds of players, not only a few dozen, now have those "pool table" skills which can usually be only seen in Tests. Where there may have been resistance to the enhancement of individual skill a few years ago (as opposed to teambuilding), coaches are realizing that having players with gifted hands and game sense only enhance teambuilding.
Third, there is the beginning of a movement in the United States towards more pragmatic and safe tackling on the ball. Tackling from the left of a ballcarrier creates more injuries in the game than just about any other action. But in 2005, USA Field Hockey hired Terry Walsh, the former coach of the Australian and Dutch men's sides, as U.S. Director of High Performance. His philosophy on tackling is to match the right shoulder of the tackler with that of the possessor of the ball -- no tackling from the left, in other words.
The final reason that goggles are not a good idea is that metallic eyewear such as worn in lacrosse is not allowed at the highest level of field hockey -- international Test rules. And, given the fact that all universities, plus a handful of high schools, play international rules, any NFHS ruling will have no bearing on them.
But significant damage could be done to player development if eyewear were to be made mandatory. Players would lose peripheral vision -- especially downward. The goggles, meant to be used for a sport where the ball is at eye level for lacrosse, are in no way meant for a sport where the ball is on the ground.
In addition, players from states where goggles were mandatory may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when they get to the next level of play because they would have been taught how to tackle properly, strike the ball low and flat, and, in general, would not have learned how to play the game safely.
The impending goggle mandate is a little like banning the dunk in basketball or eliminating bodychecking in the offensive zone in ice hockey -- two ideas which were tried until their effects on the competitive level of the athletes in these particular sports were questioned.
The proof is in the results; was it any wonder that the United States Olympic men's basketball team lost the 1972 gold medal in the middle of the ban on the dunk in the college game? Was it any wonder that Canada was able to win the Summit Series with the Soviet Union after the international ban on offensive checking was lifted in 1968?
In order to dramatize the level of opposition to the rule, coaches' associations in the 26 states that sanction the sport (plus the various multi-state leagues such as WNEPSAA, MAPL, ISL, SPL and MWAA) need to call on their rulesmakers to switch from National Federation rules to FIH rules.
Mind you, it's not because goggles aren't a good idea; indeed, they are great for people recovering from a head injury and for protection for high-risk duties such as corner flying. But they should not be made mandatory, by fiat of the Federation; a "strongly recommended" phrase would suffice.
Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
Glasses
01-11-2005 8:23 pm
|
Report this post
|
To those pushing for goggles.....
1 - who is driving this in New England?
2 - isn't it really "facial injuries" that are going up?
3 - a field hockey ball doesn't fit in an eye socket - lacrosse balls do. So don't compare the two (that's a parallel you'll hear).
4 - if you support this, I wonder why you aren't asking for helmets and cages
Bad skill is causing FACIAL injuries. Eye goggles won't stop the nasty scar on the cheek.
How many eyes have been lost in the past five years? That'll help start the discussion.
|
|
bella
01-11-2005 10:40 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
ridiculous....the world will just keep laughing at america - just let it be, and put the energy into something else!! I mean, it is the same as telling the gks to wear mouthguards and a helmet....HOW about for all those out there pushing this - try protecting your gks better, it is ridiculous that hs football teams are outfitted better than fh - goggles will not solve anything, and if anything what happens when they get to the intl level and DONT wear them - setting a HYPER motive for young people - if you think you will get hurt - you will. So lets teach our kids to be paranoid....hey, I know lets not allow tackling in football as someone may get hurt. COME ON FOLKS!
|
|
Tom Harris
01-11-2005 11:24 pm
|
Report this post
|
In our local Field Hockey Federation in Southern California, we have children as young as five playing hockey. We have never had a facial injury to a child. (I know we could have one tomorrow.) It seems to me the critical elements are good coaching and a good playing surface. (Not necessarily artificial.) I must admit, I was nervous when my granddaugters played against some, not-so-well-coached players. However, my effort was not to get eye-guards but to get better coaches.
Hockey, like every sport, involves a certain element of risk. It seems to me the rules are written with the saftey of the players in mind. With this thought, the coaches should remind their players not defend from the left until they are coached in this technique by the highest level coaches.
At my advanced age, I attempt to direct the opposing player to my right. If, somehow they get to my left, I wish them well, tell my goaltender to beware and look for another player to defend.
|
|
Law suit society
01-12-2005 2:29 am
|
Report this post
|
Eye protection should be worn voluntarily by those paranoid enough and those recovering from, or susceptible to, eye injury. Mouth guards are a must because teeth can be damaged quite easily and permanently.
It just seems ridiculous to make this eye protection mandatory when, as noted above, in the USA many GKs are not properly protected. GKs throw themselves in front of the ball, outfielders dont. I think eye protection misses the point entirely. Eye damage is caused by dangerous play, either intentional or not, and accidents. In years of playing in Europe i have never actually seen an eye injury in hockey, but a few fat lips, swollen cheeks and broken teeth.
USA are missing the point. Players need to be taught more individual skill and team movement and not to be worried about protecting themselves against freak accidents. If the game is played properly, nobody will get hurt.
USA has a great chance as a 'developing nation' in terms of hockey, to take the best parts from Australia, Europe and India and Pakistan and create an effective hockey side. Maybe the new director can facilitate that for them.
|
|
AZ Player
01-12-2005 11:13 am
|
Report this post
|
What stupidity!!!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for safety, but like some people have mentioned, educate your players on how to tackle. And have better playing surface. I did a coaching stint in IN and I was sick to my stomack to see the playing surface those girls had to play on. You couldn't see the ball if you were 25M away, the ball was hidded in the grass. It was so long.
Stop this, and teach the kids how and when to tackle.
|
|
Cali
01-13-2005 2:51 pm
|
Report this post
|
not this argument again
Sigh. While I hate goggles in general, at least for girls' lacrosse it makes more sense: sticks swinging around the head and face. In hockey, though, not so much of that. In hurling we have a common saying: If you get hit, it's your fault; you are either too close or not close enough (to avoid being hit by a stick). I have my own version: if you get hit (by a ball or stick), you simply are not paying attention - whether it is paying attention to what you are doing or paying attention to what others are doing near you. Goggles will do nothing but hinder the game.
As for Bella's comments about goalkeepers and mouthguards, goalkeepers are not required to wear mouthguards to protect their teeth. Mouthguards are worn to protect against concussions. As a goalkeeper myself, I have had several concussions while wearing a helmet and a mouthguard. The mouthguard has saved me from having really bad concussions, for which I am very thankful. Thank you Shock Doctor!
|
|
Observer
01-13-2005 4:54 pm
|
Report this post
|
Add helmets and pads as well
Then high jack the game and call it American Hockey. Just like you fools did with Rugby and turned AMERICAN FOOTBALL in to the worlds most boring sport!
|
|
namelessderro
01-14-2005 12:44 am
|
Report this post
|
goggles?
why on earth would you wear goggles while playing hockey? i mean cum on there are sum things that take safety to the extreme and sum things that are just stupid, all they do is giv the players worse vision so there is more chance of them gettin hit.
and also i have one question? how sturdy are these goggles, cause i know if a ball hit me in the eye i wud rather have the black eye that have the goggles burst and cut the **** out of my eye with all the shards of glass flying at it
|
|
Irish Hockey
01-14-2005 6:02 am
|
Report this post
|
goggles
we people over here can say it, it could only happen in america! I have been playing hockey for nearly 15 years and have not once been hit anywhere around the head, because as someone pointed out earlier, i have been vigilent on the pitch and watch the ball not the player. Goggles on the pitch, i ask you, what next men wearing skirts and women wearing jock straps!!??
|
|
foreigner in USA
01-14-2005 8:31 am
|
Report this post
|
|
This issue was brought up because of some collegiate players who have been hit in the head and there have been some near fatal accidents. I am completely against the idea, and think it should be a choice. If someone feels that much better wearing them then so be it, but then there is a difference of opinion through the officials. So, there needs to be a standard pair of goggles that an athlete can choose to wear if desired. Making them mandatory is stupid.
|
|
huh?
01-14-2005 7:01 pm
|
Report this post
|
Re: Foreigner in USA
You've shown how idiotic this proposal is. Near fatal head injuries (in the NCAA) won't be stopped by wearing goggles. IF this is the argument people are making then please change it to helmets and face shields. Goggles won't help when a ball rattles off your forehead while playing post or you tackle from the wrong side and get a stick to the head.
This is beyond assinine.
|
|
Ping Pong
01-14-2005 10:05 pm
|
Report this post
|
The REAL Reason for Goggles!
Quite simply - the reason is that the company who makes these goggles stand to make a small fortune from sales.
They are in on the thick side with the NFHS...whoever said high school sports didn't have have the potential to make money?!
This is how America works, everyone must make a buck; while the athletes slowly become the laughing stock of the world.
|
|
referee
01-15-2005 9:17 am
|
Report this post
|
Goggles
I totally agree with all that is being said,the US will be made to look ridiculous!! It should be an option for players on the high school level, not a REQUIREMENT or MANDATE!! The skills, coaching, and playing sufaces are improving and the old school "protect the delicate female athlete psyche" still exists in America along with corporate greed at the Federation level . The umpiring at the high school level should also keep pace with the improving skills, this alone would improve the players chances of executing a skill correctly and not dangerously. I think it is both ridiculous and an insult to the field hockey community to require such equipment as goggles, in a sport that is so very beautiful to both watch and play at the highest levels...
|
|
foreigner in USA
01-15-2005 6:57 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I am just stating where this came from...i agree that the standard of hockey needs to improved in this country, and by doing so the whole argument for goggles would not be an issue. People here think goggles will solve the problems, i didnt say i agree with it. Hockey should not require face guards...but some people feel safer wearing it, i dont know, i have never worn one and never plan to.
|
|
yknot?
01-15-2005 8:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
head gear
look at the progression of football, ice hockey, lacrosse...it is a no brainer. why are we so stuck in the past an dnot advancing to head gear? it will improve our game!!! enuff about the lack of vision, or making it more dangerous. it is a sign of progression not regression. gear up and express our game the way it will be..its now or our game will be never.
|
|
Stiches
01-15-2005 11:03 pm
|
Report this post
|
improvements yes, goggles no
As a player currently recovering from a significant head injury caused by a chip shot directly to the forehead, I don't agree that protective eyewear is the right direction to be heading. Younger players are becoming stonger and more skilled using powerful equipment (composite sticks). Injuries, and serious ones, are bound to occur. Everyone in the game is responsible for dangerous play. Coaches need to teach and refine skills to keep players safe, players need to be responsible for their play at all times, and finally umpires too must be given direction as to what is dangerous play and to penalise it consistantly and effectively. Players wearing goggles are more dangerous in my mind than the peaked caps that are already forbidden in the game. I've bumped heads with players in tackles and have never been as seriously injured as I am now -- dealing with the post concussion aftermath of a careless shot in practice with a new composite stick.
Players are making excellent use of the new technologies in the game. We just need to make sure that the equipment does not exceed the capabilities of a player's current skill level. Adding protective gear is a reaction to and not an address of the potential for head injuries in hockey.
|
|
shinpads
01-16-2005 12:08 am
|
Report this post
|
No Brains
Hockey is not a contact sport. Hockey has rules to limit the amount of physical and dangerous contact. This sport is predominantly played with the ball on the ground and if not, any sense of danger is usually policed... (not well enough or often enough at the lower level though)
To compare this sport with what I presume is American football is like comparing a straw house to a brick one. Besides there are a lot more dangerous football related sports than Gridiron that do not use any protection at all. The same goes for Ice Hockey.
It may be interesting to the thought police in the US to see a few games of Rugby, Rugby League or Australian Rules or even Soccer to see how soft the Mc. Donalds and Mickey Mouse Society has become.
So, if you feel threatened by the little white ball and people with big sticks, go and put all the padding on and play the sports that need head and eye protection so you will feel safer.
It is good to remember that more people are seriously injured with eye and facial injuries playing Netball than there are in our sport. Do we stop netballers from enjoying themselves and put full body armour on them too?
The P.C. society is on the way out and reality life experience (not rubbish "Reality" TV) is coming back thank goodness
|
|
namelessderro
01-16-2005 2:28 am
|
Report this post
|
head gear a progression?
yknot, i actually did what you said and had a look at american football, ice hockey and lacrosse and you know what i realised? that in their progression they have not grown outside the USA apart from maybe ice hockey and then i looked at some other sports, namely soccer, cricket and rugby. I noticed that none of them involve large amounts of padding and all three are very popular around the world.
We already have people complaining about how much it costs to buy hockey gear, a helmet will not help that situation, as well as the fact that wearing a face guard will only impare vision making the game a lot less skilled as well as encouraging dangerous tackles ('thats why we wear a helmet' psychie)
ok it really is not a progression, its jsut a quick fire way to avoid sum idiots going and trying to make a quick buck after they get hit playing the game.
|
|
Hockey Player
01-16-2005 6:12 am
|
Report this post
|
yknot get a brain
yknot - have you actually ever played hockey?
Hockey or field hockey as you call it, is a non-contact sport. It is a fast and skillful game with no room for the heavy padded physicalities of American Football or Ice Hockey. It will in no way make the sport any better and do you actually believe this is a progression? Why not take those few no brain ideas and start your own sport. Call it American Hockey, pad everyone up, include players who can come on the field just to fight and split the game up with countless adverts. Leave those who want to play the game properly to get on with it. Ever wondered why no other country has ever considered this farcical idea? It's because it is ridiculous. In my 20 years of playing and coaching the sport, I have never seen or heard of an injury that would have been prevented by the wearing of goggles. If kids are coached properly and tackle from the correct side, they will not put themselves in the dangerous position to be hit.
People on this site so desperately want hockey in the US to develop, but things like this will just make you a laughing stock.
|
|
Please No!
01-16-2005 3:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
just an opinion and some "info"
The only people required to wear googles at the moment from my understanding are the young women playing high school hockey in Massachusetts. If it have reached into other new england states than I apologize for my error.
From hear say, I believe the reason the goggles mandate began was because of an overzealous father who's daughter or daughter's friend got hit in the eye area...this father apparently thought it would be a great safety device (i also believe he had never played the game to really understand) and appealed to the MIAA for the requirement. Also after hearing from various sources and I say this knowing that is may very well be conspiracy chatter in the hockey world, that this man has made a profit off his great idea.
Personally, I have been hit while playing a "higher level" game in the lower forehead with a shot (fyi - I was in the proper positioning, it was the shooters error) and honestly can say it would have been worse if I had been wearing these ridiculous goggles. These things are a hinder to the game and poor judgement by the MIAA to make them a requirement.
I hope that this mandate never occurs! US hockey may be completely damned if it does...even without the USFHA having anything to do with it...imagine that!
|
|
what the...?
01-17-2005 11:16 pm
|
Report this post
|
USA = U Sue Alot
"Please No!" has got the history right. The CIAC, Connecticut h.s. sport's ruling authority, also issued the goggle mandate for all players and it was put into effect this past fall. It seems the driving force is the great American Fear: lawsuits. It doesn't matter that they probably cause more injury because the players periferal vision is practically erased. The fact that high schools are now more protected from all the sue-at-the-drop-of-blood parents is apparently far more important.
|
|
Lucky Phil downunder
01-18-2005 10:45 pm
|
Report this post
|
Can't see with goggles
In my 25 to 30 years of playing (and more recently, umpiring as well), i recall only 2 instances of hits to the eyes.
1 : deliberate undercut (chip) from outside the circle on a penalty corner into the defender who was first runner.
2 : i don't recall the circumstances
both of these players wear eye glasses.
the first player went to hospital to have glass removed from his eye.
the 2nd player complained of her glasses FOGGING UP during a match which had heavy rain during December, in a summer mixed comp. she could NOT see the ball until it was ALMOST AT HER FEET !!!!!!
i have had 3 injuries in my time:
1. hit in the MOUTH, tackling from the RIGHT side & collecting the backswing. note that no teeth were lost due to the wearing of a mouthguard, but stiches inside my cheek were required. this was while playing under 12's.
2. tore ligaments in one knee due to NOT warming up (seniors summer)
3. light concussion / headache from a colision with another player (while keeping).
as a keeper, i always wear a mouthguard under the helmet (i feel safer doing so). i know that there are a lot of keepers who don't, and some play international level.
goggles would reduce sand getting in my eyes on the artifical sand based grounds, but would be very likely to fog up due to the heat given off by an active keeper.
other protective gear worn is a box by players on the post for a penalty corner. this is more at top club level and above, and the box is left behind in the goal after the PC has finished
the rules cover players' clothing :
4.2 Players must not wear anything which is dangerous to other players.
with the comment :
Field players are permitted to wear gloves for protection which do not increase the natural size of the hands significantly. It is recommended that field players wear shin, ankle and mouth protection.
helmets on field players are dangerous to those who are not wearing them, and can cut vision if not properly fitted.
goggles are dangerous when they cut vision or fog up.
as a summary:
1. mouthguards and shinpads are more important than goggles.
2. goggles can FOG UP, leaving the player WITHOUT visibility. this also happens when diving, snorkling and swimming. i have had this happen to me while diving and snorkling.
those who wear safety goggles will also be able to relate to this.
3. note also rule 9.2 : Players on the field must hold their stick and not use it in a dangerous way.
with the comment :
Players must not lift their stick over the heads of other players.
Rule quotes are from the NEW 2005 rule book available at : http://www.fihockey.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,1181-116516-117783-nav-list,00.html
|
|
curious
01-19-2005 5:22 am
|
Report this post
|
|
i myself play at international level and infact guard the post for team and country, and i would never even consider putting on a mask to play. all you need to play this wonderfull game is shin pads, mouthguard and if you guard the line then a box!! i have been hit several times in the head and has been serious i actuall suffered a broken cheekbone and detached retina but would still not contemplate a mask pureley as long as you make sure you concentrate on where the ball is likely to go you can avoid being hurt..... the reason i was hit was because of a drag flick specialist joining a team before i had a chance to do my homework on him( i.e watching him and figuring out where he likes to shoot at the goal to let me a. stop him scoring all the time and . let me get my head out of the road of it!!!!) as long as you ar carefull you can almost gurantee you will not be hit sseriously.....
|
|
Not Surprised
01-19-2005 9:13 am
|
Report this post
|
Enough already
There you go again !
I am currently a foreign hockey player living in the US and i have avoided the hockey scene over here, a desicion that is proving to be a very sensible one.
I find it so "american" that ruling bodies over here see fit to implement rule changes to a game played by everyone else around the world. NCAA is already not the same game as played everywhere else in the world so why not change it some more and make everyone wear goggles. In fact how about we change the name to american hockey (as previously suggested) then the rest of the world could relax and let the americans run their own world series for american hockey with only american teams. Perhaps the americans would like to relinquish thier FIH connections and compete their isolation bubble.
Or maybe they will simply attempt to force the rest of the world to follow their rules.....maybe they could send their home guard to FIH headquarters to "talk" with the dutch (who currently run the FIH) ?
Hmmmmm american bashing....no...simply being realistic ! the americans will never be a success on the world stage as long as they continue to ignore the world community. eg USA basketball in the olympics ?? they put a professional team in their and came out with 3rd.........3rd !!! with a bunch of NBA players ? they played multiple warm up games and seem happy to play as a disparte group for the all star game and pro bowl game ?
If they dont require goggles to face Sohail Abbas then i am sure the school girls of america will be safe ....until they have to walk around a large american city that is ....!
|
|
Al Mattei
01-20-2005 5:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
The meeting is scheduled!
According to the Mount Vernon (Va.) Gazzette, quoting the Virginia High School League, the meeting is scheduled to be held Jan. 23-24.
|
|
Al Mattei
01-26-2005 10:24 am
|
Report this post
|
unofficially ...
Sourced from third-hand knowledge, the goggle rule was voted down. More will be known soon.
|
|
what the...?
01-27-2005 9:21 pm
|
Report this post
|
Al M. unoffically
that's surprisingly good news. can you post when you find out more on this? thanks.
|
|
gbear
01-31-2005 3:17 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
unfortunately eye wear will come..... no matter how against it we all are.... unfortunately, insurance and lawsuits are forcing this issue, because if you can save just one person then that is all that matters.... that and being able to stay out of court and not be sued.... unfortunately, because there is some sort of eye protection available and it was chosen not to wear it coaches and the federation can be sued, even though we all understand that the current product is not perfect and it is not made for field hockey, and the testing certification is for a lacross ball not a field hockey ball. Untill a better product and testing becomes available most/all coaches and players will be against goggles
|
|
Floris
02-02-2005 4:57 am
|
Report this post
|
What Madness!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the craziest idea I have heard of in quite some time.
From personnal experience - I am short sighted so need some kind of correction to play hockey. I was never a fan of contact lens, so I bought some sports goggles with perscription lens. The first problem I encountered was they steam up with annoying regularity. However the most worrying concensce of wearing these goggles was a broken nose.
If you get a glancing blow to the goggles the pressure is directly transferred to the bridge of your nose. The goggles I used to wear were designed for sport so this was the best design you could get, and still I got a broken nose.
No one will be suprised that I now wear contact lens, and have not had any serious facial injures since.
It is inevitable that occasionally somebody will get injured playing hockey, however if this is to big a risk for you do not play. It is better for players to learn the skills to minimise injury than to rely on protective kit and end up with a worst injure as a result.
Get a grip, for heavens sake
|
|
|
|
hockey ref
04-19-2005 11:16 am
|
Report this post
|
Goggles solve nothing
As a high school coach for nine years, and a referee for ten more, I have NEVER seen an injury that goggles would have prevented. I have, however, seen play get very sloppy and dangerous when players could not see the ball due to fogging of goggles on a humid day, and players struggling to see when it rained and their goggles had water on them.
To prevent the fogging problems, some teams have gone to the wire mesh masks. I have seen these cause cuts to opposing players when heads bumped.
In short, let the kids play!! The risk of injury is inherent in life. To try to legislate away a problem that doesn't really exist is to create more problems than are solved. If a child doesn't want a ball or stick near their face, let them try swimming or track.
|
|
George
04-20-2005 11:39 pm
|
Report this post
|
Prevention, not Cure
IMHO, there should be no need for goggles provided the kids have been coached correctly AND the umpires umpire correctly. Tackling from the left and behind should be very strongly policed by umpires particularly at junior levels. Coaches should be emphasising correct tackling techniques from the very first day a child picks up a hockey stick.
Here in Australia we commence hockey coaching with 5-6 year olds in modified rules competitions (MINKEY), using a very small field (less than 1/16 of a full-sized pitch), 6-player per side, an on-field coach (usually a parent) and one umpire. Tackling is allowed but strictly controlled. The game can be quickly stopped to demonstrate poor skills and correct techniques.
As an accredited umpire, I have long used all my avalaible resources (voice, whistle, cards) in varying grades (minkey, juniors, seniors, veterans) to "set the tone" of the tackling standards I wish to see in games that I am controlling. Set the standards early in the game and the players generally adjust their style of play accordingly. Our hockey association constantly emphasises this in our bi-annual umpires briefings.
From a personal viewpoint, I use the "four-quadrant" or "clock-face" approach to setting my tackling standards. I visualise a circle around the player with the ball and divide it into four quandrants; right-front (12o'clock-3o'clock), right- rear (3-6), left-rear (6-9), and left-front (9-12o'clock). Any tackle coming from the first quandrant (right-front) I deem that the tackler has made good position to make a 'legitimate' tackle. If there is a clash of sticks during this legitimate tackle then it's play-on. This is equivalent to Terry Walsh's right shoulder to right shoulder position for good tackling.
In minkey, and most junior grades, any tackle from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th quandrants should be blown against the tackler and maybe a quick word to the players. It helps if you have spoken to the coaches before hand to set the scene. Most of these kids don't tackle from these "bad" positions deliberately; it's generally just a skill error issue.
In the higher junior (15-17 year olds), seniors and vets grades - provided the skill levels are good - then intentional tackles from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quandrant are allowable but under strict control. The tackler must get the ball only, not the player's stick. He/She must not touch, push or impede the player's body. If the player in possesion of the ball before the tackle goes to the ground as a result of a tackle from the left or behind (we call it a splat tackle), then the umpires have been instructed to find reasons why the tackler should NOT be yellow-carded.
The umpire must adapt to the standard of the players. Umpires have a duty of care to protect the players on the field. Coaches have a greater responsibility; to teach the player how to play the game in a fair, safe and fun manner. Us coaches and umpires must always remember that we're there for the kids. Kids play hockey because they enjoy it. Parents come to see the kids play, not to see us coach or umpire.
I support the use of mouthguards but believe that googles are not necessary.
|
|
hockeydad
09-12-2005 10:30 am
|
Report this post
|
Goggles SHOULDN'T be required, but they NEED to be required.
Field Hockey at the grade school and high school level should require eye protection. The severe loss of skill development, that may hold a child back from eventually winning the all too common mutli-million dollar spot on a professional field hockey team is a small price to pay for preserving the sight, or avoiding a significant injury to that child. In the last three years of watching high school field hockey, I have seen fairly significant injuries that would have been avoiding had the child been wearing goggles. These injuries included several severe lacerations of the brow, and/or bridge of the nose caused by both ball and stick strikes. In some cases the strikes also caused concussions. Purists will claim that these incidents shouldn't happen, & the children aren't being coached, or officiated properly. In a perfect world they would be correct. Welcome to the real world. There aren't enough proficient and experienced coachs and referees to go around. The typical high school surface is still a second class grass field. The typical player at the high school level picked up a stick for the first time in freshman year. Their perception of the game at that point is ice hockey on grass. These facts render discussions of proper technique, skilled officiating, & some of the other inane requests for statistics on mutilations, moot. These incidents do happen and the players in this case are our children. Our children need to be protected.
|
|
namelessderro
09-12-2005 8:14 pm
|
Report this post
|
no use
goggles arent are a use in field hockey, first off hockeydad, these abrasions to the eyebrow that you say happened, well with goggles on that would have hit right on the edge of the goggles, which by my guess would have just jammed the goggles into your eyebrow and created worse bruising.
Secondly the problem with goggles, is that they will fog up in about 30 seconds on a hockey field, which will only create more problems.
Now you say welcome to the real world, the real world is that all it takes to prevent half those injuries is to teach kids only to tackle from the forstick side, and to keep your head away from the ball when the other players are swinging.
Finally you say that most of the players in your league have only just picked up a stick, we have a division here for players like that were there would be about 3 players with a couple of years experience and nearly all the other are beginners. However in that division i have watched more than half the games for the last 3 years and the worst injury i have seen is some guy got hit shin smashed in, and that was cause the guy he was tackling was wearing goggles which had fogged up and he didnt realise the ball had gone and a leg was there.
|
|
hockeydad
09-14-2005 8:26 am
|
Report this post
|
read the post again & reconsider
Sorry you don't agree. I think you should reconsider. I will clarify that I meant wire cage eye masks rather than goggles, so the fogging discussion is moot. I will also clarify that I was refering to scholastic sports rather than "club, or "travel" play. There are no skill based divisions where inexperienced players can move along at their own pace so a dramatic mix of skill & experience levels will always be there. I am very pleased that you have never seen anyone seriously hurt, but I fear it contrbutes to your somewhat cavalier tone relative to the severity of injuries that can occur. Your inference that the injuries that I witnessed may not have occured is puzzling, but it takes all kinds to spin the world. Incidently, I was refering to girls scholastic field hockey in the U.S.A. When you started to talk about guys, I realized that this is an international forum & there may have been some misunderstanding about the conditions under which I believe eye protection should be mandatory.
|
|
namelessderro
09-15-2005 2:43 am
|
Report this post
|
no i wasnt trying to insinuate that u never saw the injuries take place, i was showing you how face masks dont help the situation.
Now you may call me a cavelier, and that could be true, but i dont think that putting face masks on players will really help them in any way,your right this is an international forum with respresentatives from many countries, and yet you only see a small number of people saying they have seen injuries to the eyes. they just dont happen in hockey.
And by the way you never answered, how hard is it to teach girls to tackle from the proper side. cause that seems to be the only occasion in which any substantial injuries could be caused in female hockey, as they wouldnt be hitting the ball at enough speeds to be doing anything other than a bit of bruising.
|
|
hockeydad
09-15-2005 11:34 am
|
Report this post
|
We agree to disagree
Some differences of opinion will never be resolved. Based on some of your comments I feel that you have been exposed to a level of the game that is far higher than the levels at which I believe eye protection should be mandatory.
I do sense a bit of a combative tone in your comments which suggests that you probably would never concede that the possibility exists that under certain circumstances eye protection should be required.
I get this sense from your repeated inferences that the substantial injuries that I have witnessed never happen, couldn't happen because girls aren't strong enough to hit the ball fast enough to make them happen, and if they did happen that somehow the players deserved the injuries because thay aren't very skilled at the game. That's a tough sell in anyone's book..............
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
