Comments on this article
|
Goals
04-30-2001 4:37 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I like the game and do not think it needs to be changed. Although the 25yd line rule sounds fun. I would like to see it tried.
|
|
Mr. Reality
04-30-2001 11:33 pm
|
Report this post
|
I'm with Mr. Kahlon. What point is there in the score-from-inside-the-25 rule? I cannot imagine it leading to more goals, and it is bound to increase the danger of the game. I admit, I'm not an FIH certified rules expert, but this one seems pretty obviously pointless. ************
[B]Editor:[/B]
This comment has been edited.
|
|
S.D.
05-01-2001 9:21 am
|
Report this post
|
I think scoring within the 25 yard-line will make the game much more interesting. That way you will not have defense packing the circle. The game will become more exciting with more shots on net. Afterall, most North Americans find the sport too slow and not exciting. The only reason it is boring is because they cannot see the ball!! Look at Fox Sports, they had to put a flashing red light on the Ice Hockey puck so their viewers could find it on the TV screen.
Consider Ice Hockey, you can score from any where. Most shots on net occur just within the blue-line.
By allowing scoring from the 25 yard-line will force goalies to keep the ball in play which keeps the flow of the game, possibly reducing the number of stoppages & 16 yard (meter) hits. However, you do address a key concern regarding safety of players with this rule. But we will never know how effective it is until we try it (Just like the NBA and increasing the distance for the 3-point line)!!!
As for the 2nd & 3rd rules, I completely agree with you. I think the Board has to revisit them, you would more than likely require an additional umpire to enforce the rules!!!
|
|
Ian Jessup
05-01-2001 9:43 am
|
Report this post
|
|
The Australian national leagues this year trialled a rule whereby 3 defenders must remain forward of the 22m line. It made for much more attacking hockey, is easily policed by the trailing umpire, and should be brought in at FIH level. There are too many 3rd rate teams earning points by simply stacking defences and hoping to score on the counterattack. The Sydney Olympics was one of the worst hockey tournaments ever in terms of quality of the games and it showed in the tables. Whiles the semi-finalists weren't determined until the last 80 seconds of pool play, the paying public deserves better than. Scoring from inside the 25 is so stupid and dangerous the person who dreamt it up must be a moron. A good fast game comes from playing a big advantage rule and harshly penalising crude tackles. Cheers, Ian
|
|
Denise
05-01-2001 3:16 pm
|
Report this post
|
Ravi,
I'm in complete agreement with you on this... maybe because I'm both a defender and an umpire.
The 25 rule, which seems inevitable. The bloody thrist public wants scoring... it's happened in rugby as well. I guess there's no money in being a good defender, hey Ravi?
Goals are all well and good, but why are we changing the fundamental nature of the sport? The scoring circle is a unique part of the game field hockey. I think this experiment violates part of what makes field hockey challenging.
|
|
Inquirer
05-01-2001 7:30 pm
|
Report this post
|
Just curious:
Are these rules being enforced in the BC Super League ?
Will they be enforced at the Canadian Senior Nationals ?
Does anyone know ?
|
|
Camillo
05-01-2001 8:10 pm
|
Report this post
|
Ravi,
Are the rules going to be tried at a tournament? And if so, how can we speak our mind to the board on telling them not to do this?
|
|
Bob
05-02-2001 3:36 am
|
Report this post
|
Ian is right,
I heard that one of the coaches wanted 5 defenders not allowed behind the 25 yard line. From the results in the NHL this year it is obvious this produces higher scoring hockey. The scoring outside the circle is dangerous and stupid. We are a different game from soccer.
As far as promoting our game for viewing the televising needs to improve. Providing one camera angle from 400 metres is hopeless, surely something better could be done in this area. The game doesn't looks so much better live. I know almost all sports look better live, but not to such an extent.
|
|
Ravi.K
05-02-2001 1:06 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I believe that rules are being tested in other places. FIH will observe. I am not sure how we can put our say in. I will look into it.
|
|
dac dang
05-02-2001 5:50 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
How would the public understand this game if some people keep changing the rules? The game is fine as it is, perhaps the only necessary change is to extend the half to 45 minutes, just like soccer. Reason: it is a deterrent for some teams to run up and down the whole field for offense and defence, and limit the substitutions for that purpose in the international games (besides if soccer players are fit enough to play the whole 90-minutes, why can't we?). But the real issue here is to make the game more attractive. Why not extol the virtues of the game of hockey? It is the only team sport where a guy of my size (1.60 m) can challenge Ravi K. without being elbowed, pushed, stepped on etc. This is the only game where size discrimination is almost eradicated, where speed and skill are the main factors, where you can actually sense the true feeling of fair play. Eventually muscular strength, endurance become involved but at the amateur level, we can still look the earlier definition of gentleman's sport. The North American public tends to glorify size, muscle power, height (most of these lead to performance drugs), but there are a lot of people nowadays who are well aware violence and bullying tactics. We can show to them that with a ball travelling that fast we can still have a game devoid of violence and injury. If you think that it is being naive to look at the game that way, just look at other team sports. Even in competitive soccer, it is rare now to find players of great skill less than 1.80 m tall. There is no Michel Platini anymore. If you try out for basketball and volleyball and you are less than 1.80 m, they will laugh at you. If you are small but excellent in ice hockey, the other coach will send out goons to get you. In our game of hockey, the players with less skill will suffer. That is what we have to sell, not making more complicated in order to have more goals.
|
|
carol
05-02-2001 6:37 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
The rule limiting the defence to a maximum of 8 players has just been successfully trialled in the Australian Men's and Women's National Leagues. It opened up spaces in the circle and 25 for more creative attacking play, more goalmouth action, less infringements and much easier to see for the umpires. The trail umpire can easily count three out. Having 3 players out meant that once the defence gained possession they could counter attack quickly and led to some great flowing attacks - very attractive for spectators! This rule keeps the shooting circle as a unique element of hockey, but removes the negative defensive tactic of stacking the circle which was a dreadful aspect of hockey at the Olympics.
|
|
Md Ashraf Baig
05-02-2001 6:57 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I just think that all these new rules are ill thought out moves. I agree all above about how unpractical and ridiculous the rules are. If anybody thinks that they can play rink-hockey on a 100yard X50 yard field they are day-dreaming.
|
|
Scott
05-03-2001 10:49 am
|
Report this post
|
I think that scoring inside the 25 is a good idea. In fact I think that players should be allowed to score from anywhere. **However, I think that they should only be allowed to raise the ball at goal inside the circle** This will avoid the misunderstandings of the first time viewer when the ball goes in the goal from outside the D. Also, it will keep the danger level to a minimum.
I am also for the 3 players in the attacking half at all times. I agree that it does add another issue for umpires to deal with but I do believe it will open up the game and create more excitement by stopping teams from packing the D.
The third rule change is definitely not a good move. I agree with you 100% on this one Rav.
|
|
Kieran
05-03-2001 12:02 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
As a keeper shooting from the 25 is not the problem as it would give you more time to react. However watching your defence being knocked likr bowling pins is another matter and if putting the viewing figures in N. America ahead of players safety is going to be FIH's priority eventually our glourious game will go the way of American sports with commercial interests ahead of spotsmanship. How many collegiate sports persons give up their sport when they don't make it to pro leagues? The glory of hockey is that all ages can play and at times 2/3 generations of the one family can take to the field together, this is the sport I want to play!
|
|
Junior Hockey
05-03-2001 1:32 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I agree with Ravi and I believe that the game should stay as it is. Field hockey is already an intense sport and takes plenty of thinking but if u enforce these rules it is making the game way to easy. The 25 rule makes no sense, why would you want to change a game to make it eaier. Plus we are not playing for the spectators we are playing for ourselves and if they don't like the fact that there aren't enough goals then to bad, they can go find another sport. The real field hockey fans know the game and liek it the way it is. I know as a player I would not like this new 25 rule, I think it takes more skill to get it in to the defensive circle then to shoot in the 25, I hpe they don't do anything stupid
|
|
JC
05-03-2001 2:41 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Our state played the 25 yard rule for years with no problems!! The circle was certainly a lot less crowded! We went to the circle scoring to conform with everyone else. I vote to go back to it!!
|
|
Jon
05-03-2001 4:08 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Some very good comments. I feel that we are changing the rules that we might aswell change the name of the game. We are changing the game so much so that it is like other games. Why?? I think more time has to be put into Marketing the sport rather then changing the rules. For example the games never get aired on TV here in Canada. During the Olympics the showed 3 games on TV and they were played a t3 in the morning. The very few people who were awake and watched the games enjoyed them. The rules are not the big problem. We need to show people the game.
|
|
Peter, Australia
05-03-2001 7:12 pm
|
Report this post
|
I didn't get out to see any of the Australian National League games but it sounds like those who watched or played are in favour of the 8 defenders inside the 25 yard line and the policing is easily taken care of by the trailing umpiring counting to three. Maybe we should listen to them as they have done it.
With regard to scoring from inside the 25, perhaps it could be worth different points. EG 1 point for inside the 25 yard line and 2 points for inside the circle. This then puts more pressure on the defence inside the 25 but still encourages the attacking side to enter the circle to score. Remember guys, these are trials to try to help our game survive and grow and it's hard to CONSRUCTIVELY criticise without having tried something.
As far as getting media coverage it really is a chicken or the egg situation. Will making the game more viewable bring the media or will more media coverage make the game more viewable??
|
|
Tom
05-03-2001 7:47 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I am going to say this again. In speaking to my friends who do not play the game, and do not really understand the game, the problem is not scoring. The problem is lack of flow. If the game flows nicely without millions of breaks it is good to watch, regardless of how many goals are scored. Here we have a game that relies on brilliant individual stick skills (Pillay, Shahbaz etc). Any adjustments to the rules should, in my opinion, lean more to interpretation changes that would allow play to flow better in the field and allow the skill to be shown off. Who cares if we can score 15 goals a game.
|
|
Deb
05-04-2001 2:09 am
|
Report this post
|
|
I agree with Ravi, the new rules sound like a bad idea. I don't really see how they would make the game any more interesting to watch, and I like the game the way it is!
|
|
Pool Boy
05-04-2001 2:24 am
|
Report this post
|
|
What would happen to the short corner? It is a part of the game that makes it so unique. Also if you wanted to score more goals, why would you give a goalie more reaction time from a shot further out. An assumption could be made that the majority of the goals would have to be deflections, not straight shots. If this rule is applied what would be considered a dangerous shot? Anything above the shoulders? The 25 yard rule is just too dangerous.
|
|
RE: Peter from Aus
05-04-2001 2:25 am
|
Report this post
|
|
I love your idea about the points. Why dont we have 1 point fron in the Circle.2 points from in the 25yd line and 3 points from beyond center. That will make the game better.
|
|
Thug
05-04-2001 2:35 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Well done Kahlon. I feel that if the game changes to much we might lose players that play now. What the use of that??????
|
|
aussie chick
05-04-2001 6:55 am
|
Report this post
|
scrap the new proposed rules cause of the safety issues and the fact that those who have come to love the game, love it the way it is now not what how it should be.
also the game involves skill not just if you can hit the ball hard enough to make the people duck out of the road and whistle it past the goal keeper
|
|
Donny, Bermuda
05-04-2001 1:42 pm
|
Report this post
|
Some very good comments both for an against. However some point to keeping things the same just for the sake that they don't like change and that is wrong! No one gets anywhere by being stagnant. I applaud those who continually look at the game and try to improve the sport. Arguably, attempts to change our sport may have the opposite effect, but lets face the fact that its great that we have 'trials' of potential changes for evaluation and confirmation rather than implementing them outright. Also its important to note that the people making these changes do have the games best interest at heart and I'm sure they have thought about (and argued about) many of the pros and cons to these changes before settling on them. Maybe what would help more is if we were able to determine fully what their thinking has been on these changes and why they came to a consensus to test them. Is this information available anywhere?
Now for the meat of the changes as I see it. The 1st rule I believe does not add any more significant danger for several reasons. Firstly, there will be less packing of bodies in front of the objective (goal) and more gaps will be available to exploit because of the increased surface area for the defence to cover a potential strike. This would mean it REDUCES the danger. Secondly it is offset by a potential lifted ball from a greater area thereby INCREASING danger, however it is tempered by posibily having more reaction time. I would say that this change may be slightly LESS dangerous than the current environment. Also don't forget to add in that this may improve the Umpire's role in that more space means easier to see to make decisions and most likely less whistling and more flow will result. Add in again the potential atractiveness to spectators will improve because of this and not just for the goals but flow of game and seeing more of what takes place in the game. I would think this is a STRONG case to 'TRY' the rule and determine for sure if this IMPROVES the game. It certainly has the POTENTIAL!
Now as for 3 defenders being out of the 25, this is EASILY enforceable by the umpires and will HELP even more for the flow and danger issues BUT where is the penalty for non-observance by players....
And for the third rule in an attempt to give more meaning to the corner I believe this will make the Long Corner more dangerous than the Short corner in both the number of goals scored and the ability to injure someone. There does not seem to be any provision of where the attackers are able to position themselves so a corner could be hit out and stopped anywhere in the 25 area and struck at full force into MORE players running out to 'defend' (and I use the term 'defend' losely as there is no way to). Runners from the back line will NOT have enough time to get out to defend/protect themselves on this one. I believe the intention is great but it just needs to be rethought out. Thumbs DOWN to this one as it stands.
Sorry for the long comments but let's get out there and try these. I think many will be surprised that they will improve the game for player, umpire, and spectator!
|
|
Old Player
05-04-2001 2:25 pm
|
Report this post
|
It will interesting to see how these rules played out. I am almost done playing now but i know with all these changes in rules i will not be watching this game after I stop playing. It will be sad day when this game gets changed.
I see comments are split. Half for and half against. Is this how we want hockey to move in the future? I have to say i agree with Mr. Kahlon. "I love this game" When is this descion going to be made?
|
|
Donny, Bermuda
05-04-2001 2:42 pm
|
Report this post
|
Those that surely "love this game" will support this game long after their playing days are over. I know I would want my kids to have the opportunity to take part in it and I know they will enjoy the 'thinking' and 'skillful' environment as a great and rewarding challenge, quite refreshing from other 'beat them up' or 'military excersize/chess piece' team sports available!
I know that Old Player, you DO love this game -- that is why I see your comments here... so please continue to support it after your playing days (even if you have your reservations about some of it). Let's continue to put something back into the sport that we love so much.
|
|
Old Player
05-04-2001 4:04 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I will put back into the game that i love but only if it is still the game that i loved. I hope that makes more sense.
|
|
N. D (Seattle)
05-04-2001 4:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
There is nothing wrong to at least try first 2 rules in the tournament. 3rd rule does not make any sense. One rule chage that should help defenders is that umpires should stop blowing whistles for every little unintentioal stick contact this just stops the flow of the game.(I am not talking about stick wack here) Any body who plays defence knows what I am talking about. Regarding scoring from 25 yard line, No raised shot should be allowed and should be given .5 points/goal and 1 from inside the circle, this will encourage to score from inside the circle but still having option for scoring from outside. Believe me it is going to be hard to score form outside the circle. Only cases might been defender/golie has to stop the ball if ball was defelected by the offence outside the circle. 2nd rule should improve the flow.
Come on guys there is no harm to just give it a try in couple of tournaments before implementing these rules.
|
|
][D ][ ][V][ ][D
05-08-2001 2:52 am
|
Report this post
|
if they implement these new rules, it will definately do more harm than good in this case. Allowing to score anywhere in the 25? come on, ppl are gonna be chipping it left right and center, greater chances of injuries, ppl have a hard enough time scoring a goal in the Dee with a goalie in, u think allowing them to shoot further out is gonna give them an advantage?.
as for other rules, 8 defenders? ur gonna have the umpires too worried counting the players, instead of paying attention to the action.
and as for the other one.. just plain outrageaus and stupid!
|
|
murray rogers
05-08-2001 5:46 am
|
Report this post
|
I could not agree more, as a player, coach and umpire it is increasingly more difficult to understand the rationale behind the push to "open " up the game. If the premise is simply to score more goals them the sensible move is to increase the size of the goals. This results in no variations to rules or conditions of play.Any game, to the new spectator or player is going to seem unattractve, because they don't understant the simplicity of it's construction.To the experienced observer, coach, player or umpire much of the attraction of the game is its struggle for field position and possession and ultimately the end result. Some of the most absorbing tussels have been low scoring events between two evenly matched sides. I personally find a 5 - 4 result or the similar can be an uninspiring game. Also we must remember that for this game to be played we need defensive players. These players thrive on their ability to stop teams scoring by skill, deception and sheer hard work. To take the importance of career defenders out of the game and promote goal -a- thons where 8 -10 goals are scored a game will result in no one wanting to have the drive to become a defender and we end up with nothing but attacking players in each team. What next reduce the number of players on each team?
Leave the game alone, work on skill improvements and if need be minor changes in rules interpretations.
|
|
Hari Kant
05-08-2001 8:21 am
|
Report this post
|
The one rule suggestion from the discussion that I really like is for the long corner. The attacking team should take the free hit on the 25 yard line, in line from where the ball went over the end line.
This change will result in a better attacking position after a long. A shot on goal that is deflected just wide results in a dangerous free hit in the middle of the field.
This rule has the added benefit of being very simple to implement. No counting players, no new techniques. ie. No Changing of the Game.
|
|
Chris, Canada
05-08-2001 10:19 am
|
Report this post
|
Only a short comment (unlike Donny's long winded affairs) shots from within the 25 will force the goalie to defend against them, this greatly increases the chance of rebounds off the pads to be picked up by the attackers. Huge increase of flow and scoring chances. Those of you who watch ice hockey know that the shot from the blue line is not as much of an intention to score as it is to have the puck quickly behind the defence for the attackers to pounce on.
Great rule change and should prove to be a lasting change.
|
|
Kieran
05-08-2001 11:35 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Most goals come from intentional deflections inside the circle from passes hit outside the 25. By changing the rule the skill of an attacker geting free in the circle to get a touch will be lost instead we will have forwards waiting to tap in rebounds off the keepers pads. Then we'll have to introduce a rule to reduce this like ice hockey where the keeper can "kill" the puck. Where will it all end. Leave the game alone and encourage the skills!
|
|
Old Man
05-08-2001 1:00 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
What happened to devolping skilled players that can score. Now we are makeing rules so not so skilled players can score.
|
|
John
05-09-2001 1:44 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
This has been tried in the US both in NCAA and Club play and was rejected. Result was very dangerous play with raising balls into the circle. Players and coaches thought it was a good idea until their players started to get hurt and the reality of the real world set in. As an umpire and player in my opinion this change created more problems than benefits.
|
|
FH Fan
05-09-2001 2:16 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Shooting inside the 25 rule at the NCAA Div I game was changed because the rule was not consistant with International rules and was not preparing the player for international competition for the ***few*** that went on to play at that level. Other than that there was not an increase of dangerous play!!!!! Officials have the ability to control dangerous play and yellow cards should be thrown if players are not in control of their skills or decision making! Shooting from the inside the 25 was more fun for the spectator and kept the gk in the play! try it you might like it.
|
|
Garth (Trinidad)
05-09-2001 3:25 pm
|
Report this post
|
Useful comments by some. As an umpire and coach (less of a player now) i do not fancy mopping up the blood off of a young player struck by a rising ball hit in the 25. The no offside has promoted a lot more attacking play and as suggested goal size can be increased if we want more goals. To FH fan throwing Chritians to the lions was also 'fun' for the spectators!
Safety of the players should be of paramount importance.
The 3 player rule will require a third umpire for the illegal defense call not to mention chaos when it is obvious and not called.
Keep the ideas flowing though, its the only way forward
|
|
Md Ashraf Baig
05-09-2001 3:31 pm
|
Report this post
|
I have a suggestion ..how about keeping all the rules the same ..only increasing the size of the D to 2O yards.
The cirular nature of the D still gives enough challenge rather than having a 25 yard line.
|
|
Donny, Bermuda
05-10-2001 2:24 am
|
Report this post
|
Right now I feel the danger is greater and the chance to "mop up the blood" of young players greater when the critical area to be defended is smaller. Increasing the shooting area aids in spreading the risk and lessening the potential for injury.
Of course you will still have those "who would defend a goal at all costs" by deliberately imposing themselves between a shot and the goal but at least they would have 1) a clearer view of a shot coming at them (less bodies in congested space to obscure view) and 2) possibly more reaction time (depending on where shot is taken). The umpires would also have a clearer view and be better able to make a decision on an infringment or dangerous nature.
As for defending, I believe it would make it harder to defend and would cause them to become more skillful and better thinkers and raise their game to the additional challenge, not the opposite.
|
|
Victor Ng
05-10-2001 3:40 am
|
Report this post
|
Field hockey has a long tradition and scoring within the D makes it unique. we need to hold onto our own identity. The modern game already has too many rule changes and no other sports has had its basic rulings changed so many times in such a short space of time. To promote spectator participation needs new marketing endeavours, eg. in cricket, to liven things up, we have have one day cricket. In hockey, maybe for special tournaments as advertising campaigns, try 9 a side with new outfits. This decreases the opportunity to stifle attacking play with all 11 players in their own 25.
But I feel the mostimportant aspect is to increase the competence of umpires. We do not expect top level umpiring at ground level, and we do not expect umpires to see everything. But we need umpires who can make proper decisions after seeing a particular incident.
|
|
p
05-10-2001 4:50 am
|
Report this post
|
|
simple. scoring inside the twenty-five forces the goalie to play the ball from a greater distance. more shots at net=more rebounds=more goals! As a foeward I like it!
|
|
Al
05-10-2001 8:17 am
|
Report this post
|
Victor Ng makes a good point about the "identity" of hockey and the D. It will still have to be there for short corners, and part of the skill of the game is creating space so the attack *can* get into the D.
The long corner idea could be given a shot, and the 3 players above the 25 is not so hard to umpire (trailing ref's job: trialled in Oz: it was ok), and creates space.
A crowded D makes for ugly hockey; *that's* hard to ref!
|
|
Bad Boy
05-10-2001 2:25 pm
|
Report this post
|
Well i hope they change to the 25yd line rule cause there are a few players i want to take out:)
The truth is the world isn't a perfect place. There will be lots of people who take this rulle and abuse and we will see alot of injuries. I know how you Canadians play hockey and i can see it getting worse there then here.(Ice hockey) Is it worth it?
|
|
re: Hari
05-11-2001 3:24 am
|
Report this post
|
I agree with the long corner idea. However, if we are not looking to make drastic changes, all long corners could be taken on the 25, but five yards in. This still provides a better attacking angle without placing the defence under too much stress.
Much of the time, a ball will go off the endline unintentionaly, and therefore, the defence should not be punished with a free hit from the top of the D. Know what I mean?
|
|
Ness, Deb, Taylor, Ali!!!
05-12-2001 6:17 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
ok HI! we're at zone toutnament right now..yeah gotta say ravi that the shooting inside the 25 rule is really bad. We think there will be so mant more injuries if they put that rule into place. They shouldn't change the rules for the spectators. anyways, everyone is here ravi, were here with V and everyone says HI!!!!! aight we gtg now tho so ttyl:)
|
|
Jools
05-14-2001 2:12 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I entirely agree with this article. Well done. Hope we will be heard...
|
|
Naeem Ahmed
05-25-2001 3:33 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Only one rule will benifit the game and that is no more than eight players inside their own 25 meter line.This will also help to produce specialized players playing different positions not bunch of midfielders, ask anyone in any field of life specialists are always good.The rule will also give more space to speedy forwards like Shahbaz Ahmed and of course the exciting hockey comes from players like Shahbaz.
|
|
Azhan Mohamad
05-29-2001 1:48 am
|
Report this post
|
|
allowing scoring from inside 25 line is dangerous and crazy.Players could be hurt in the process. Wants more goals? Increase the goal size then.
|
|
keith (Australia)
05-31-2001 12:35 am
|
Report this post
|
|
While I have read the opinions posted I cant say I hold one of my own till I have actually seen them in action. Talking to potential spectators the two rules that they simply cant get a grip on is the ball being kicked and stick obstruction. As a now retired lacrosse player why not abolish these two rules?
|
|
frustrated
06-03-2001 7:46 pm
|
Report this post
|
Great article and statements Ravi,it needs to be heard!
Too many rules is going to take the game down.
Maybe we need to get rid of some rules; if they want to make changes so badly.
But in my opinion I love the game just the way it is!
|
|
Albert
07-21-2001 10:56 pm
|
Report this post
|
Fist things first
There are better ways to attract viewers and players to the already wonderful game of hockey, has the FIH heard of the media! In most countrys your lucky to get a 5 sec clip of a goal on the news, let alone match coverage or world cup coverage!
|
|
Jamie
07-29-2001 6:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
NO NO NO NO
these rules completely change the game to the extent that it should no longer be called hockey. There are already enough goals being scored (more then Soccer which is the worlds most popular game) it is not the amount of goals that is limiting hockeys popularity.
|
|
Garry Wilson
08-21-2001 6:32 pm
|
Report this post
|
Rule changes
point 1. The 8 man defence worked in the Oz NHL. As has been pointed out it made for mroe exciting attacking play and even better counter attack play.
Point 2. Shooting from anywhere inside the 22 should not be enforced. The whole idea of hockey is to manouvere the ball into a position inside the shooting zone (circle) for a shot or short corner. Goalies these days would have a field day stopping these shots. Having said that the rebound could get quite interesting.
point 3. Dac Dang suggested making hockey a bit more like soccer. PLEASE DO nOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. To go to a 45 minute half would trun the game into a boring possession game without much running. The reason why hockey is one of the best and hardest sports in the world is that 35 minutes allows every player to work hard to create a fast open game. Dont bring hockey DOWN to soccers level of boringness!
Point4. Great web site. As a coach I am always looking for different ideas. I would like to see some tactical plans/ideas for short and long corners (attacking and defencive).
Keep it up!
|
|
Luqman Munawar
08-23-2001 8:48 am
|
Report this post
|
I think allowing only 8 players in the 25 yard area will make the game more attractive.
Goal shots within 25 yard line.. hmmm...
I haven`t tried it yet but I think it would result in dangerous shots.
|
|
Wittsend
09-21-2001 9:53 am
|
Report this post
|
I like the idea of being able to score from anywhere on the pitch.
Think about it.....in what other game if the ball goes in the goals its not a goal?
It makes umpiring a little easier - ball goes in the goal its agoal. You don't have to worry where the ball was hit from, and who hit it.
Opposition to this has always been danger. IMHO this is a red herring. The umpire will always consider danger first.
:)
|
|
lefthalf
09-23-2001 11:52 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Perhaps the 16 players per team rule should be looked at more closely. If the maximum was reduced to 13 or 14, physical endurance of athletes would become more of a factor in the game.
|
|
lefthalf
09-24-2001 8:48 pm
|
Report this post
|
Is the goalie really part of the game
will a change in the shooting rule or the number of players allowed in the circle allow the goalie to be more involved in the game. It seems they exist just in case someone makes an error rather than making the circle their domain!!
|
|
Bimaljith.D
10-18-2001 9:58 am
|
Report this post
|
New rule
I object this new rule.It will make this game more dangerous and make more injuries to the players during the match.I dont think anybody who played this wonderful game seriously will agree to this new change.
|
|
Viviana
10-21-2001 5:20 pm
|
Report this post
|
In my opinion, one of the best things in the game of hockey is the good circulation of the ball.
Teams shows their best creative circuit of passes after the mid-line, so I believe is not an inteligent idea to think in the 25yd rule.
It will reduce, (in some way), the space to create good combinations with the ball.
It will make the game more individual (I don't like that), don't you think???
: )
*(sorry for my bad english)
|
|
John Sanders
11-18-2001 11:47 pm
|
Report this post
|
Ravi
I understand the score within 25 yd rulke and the limit to the numbers in defence - however - could you explain the third rule change?:o
|
|
ozdrexler
11-22-2001 4:45 pm
|
Report this post
|
my opinion
I like the idea of reducing the defence numbers to 8 inside the 25. This will give the offence more room and thus make for more scoring opportunities and there should be some great passes and shots attempted because of it.
The idea of allowing shots from outside the circle is just crazy. One of the benefits of the 1st rule trial is that hard shots from outside into the circle will be reduced. This 2nd trial rule will make that argument redundant. The risk of a high ball from the 25 smacking a defender in the teeth would be greatly increased. Attack would probably turn into a smack at goal from the 25, with a few players camped on the keeper waiting to score from the rebound. It will reduce leadup play and players skill levels will drop as they no longer need those stick and ball skills to get past defenders. Stupid rule that one, hopefully it will never be implemented.
The 3rd rule trial has some merit in that defences wont be set and the attacking team should have a little bit more time to work the ball into the circle for a shot on goal from a corner before the defence sets itself up. The one thing I dont like about it is it will probably only involve 2 players. With the field quality increasing, player skills increasing, it wouldnt be difficult to drill the ball from the corner to the top of te circle where a striker can simply trap and shoot before the defence can get near him. The best goals come from good build up, and I would hate to see that side of scoring a team goal eliminated as corners and PC's become the main goal scoring chances.
So from this I reckon the 1st rule change would be a goer, and accepted by most people as a rule change that should see more goals scored and some good ones at that. The other 2 rules should never take effect and be scrapped for ever as they clearly wont improve the standard of the game, and infact probably increase the risk of injury from flying balls and promote "specialist" roles by individuals and the whole concept of a hockey being a team game would be lost.
|
|
david
01-28-2002 5:36 am
|
Report this post
|
In India the 25-yard rule was implemented in a major all-India tournament along with 8-defender rule.
It was really attractive and there were more goals. But it was also very dangerous.
|
|
Andrew
01-28-2002 7:46 am
|
Report this post
|
When?
David, did they try that this season? What did the players think of it? Were there injuries?
|
|
david
01-29-2002 1:52 am
|
Report this post
|
They tried this in Aug 2001. It was a hundred year old tourney called MCC Murugappa Gold Cup. all top clubs and teams in the country took part.
The cream of the talent in INdia was present.
A couple of injuries were there but more seemed possible.
Many players liked it. But many did not like because it gave tactically brilliant teams an upperhand.
If you want statistics I can send them, because Indian Hockey Fed sent feedback to FIH.
But the officials are busy rightnow with the quadrennial elections. soon after they come back I will let you know.
Regards
David.
|
|
Duncan.W
04-28-2002 10:12 am
|
Report this post
|
changes in sizes
I read in some comments that people are suggesting changing the size of the circle. Do you really think that every club will be able to afford to remark their astroturfs???
And others are talking about making the goals bigger...if us outfielders arent good enough to hit the target why should goalkeepers have to be punnished for it? Instead of making it easier for ourselves we should spend more time on the pitch practicing our skills!
Better players will make a better sport!!
|
|
SYED GHAZANFAR ALI
10-09-2002 6:43 pm
|
Report this post
|
Good Rule
I like 25 yard rule . Because Half back can easily put ball in the D or try to Goal. Because in asian hockey we use to hard hitting specially is my quality. And for defence it not make any trouble b/c when ever corner is start in asian hockey only defeders and winger were standin in 25 line. Other centerforward , left in , Right in wait for ball out of 25 line or Center line.
|
|
x41
