x18

Planet Field Hockey

F.I.H. Master Coach Horst Wein, who dedicated parts of his life to improving the game of hockey, appeals after the Olympic Hockey Tournaments for immediate changes to the rules:


Before one considers how to promote hockey in the future, it's not only necessary to know the game but also to discover why people like or dislike a sport. To sell our game, we need to take into account what players, spectators and sponsors desire and to emphasize the characteristics not offered by other sports.
We should collect and collate information from players of all ages about their expectations of our game. Questions should be asked such as: What encourages people to play or to watch hockey? What does a spectator or player expect from a game of hockey? What does a spectator dislike when watching a hockey match live or on television? Which characteristics encourage a young player to become interested and want to be involved and participate in our game? In essence, what is the single most important reason for liking or disliking hockey? The promotion of the game of hockey should, in future, focus on the elements of the game which most interest people and those which are most disliked.

What the analysis of opinion after any survey might reveal is that people are most worried about the complicated rules of the game. These allow little action and too often do not permit the spectator to judge correctly whether a goal was valid. This particularly applies at penalty corners.


Awareness first for improvement

Several official surveys in different countries, especially those organized by television channels, have recently revealed that hockey, despite the abolishment of the "off-side" rule and other minor cosmetic modifications during the last 4 years, still remains one of the most unattractive sports to watch. The recent Olympic tournament at Sydney confirmed this tendency .It was probably the least attractive Olympic hockey event yet but that is something the top coaches anticipated back in 1997.

A few months after the Sydney Games, the Hockey Rules Board is expected to analyse the reasons for this negative outcome. Without doubts, the Board will consider further rule changes. This time, hopefully, they will attack the real problems hockey faces, in an effort to put to an end to its poor coverage in the mass-media. That coverage is less than 10 years ago although the number of TV channels has increased more than 10 times since then. Not surprisingly, it is increasingly difficult for national hockey federations, as well as for clubs, to find sponsors.

Sad to say, and I am not the only FIH Master Coach with this opinion, the important rules changes made after the Atlanta Olympics have diminished rather than enhanced the chances of an exciting spectacle in the hockey stadium and on television. The opposite to what the rules makers intention has occurred.

It is the opinion of a steadily increasing number of experts, sports officials (including those inside the IOC) and specialists in marketing, that hockey has to make several rules changes which are supporting each other in order to achieve the desired effect, to give skilful players more time and space so that they can create exciting attacking plays and goal scoring opportunities. It can be done. One has only to look at what other traditional sports like volleyball and rugby, have done recently.

Four years ago, the Rules Board unintentionally missed the correct formula for creating time and space. Their simultaneous rule changes, of "off-side" and rolling substitution, were unfortunate. The first assured more space, the other simultaneously reduced it. If the Rules Board again will miss the correct formula, hockey will be definitely the loser.

The last rule changes, instead of benefiting the game, had led to its deterioration. That was abundantly clear at the Sydney Olympics. Far too often the matches were marked by ultra defensive patterns, with all 11 players of a team defending in their 22.90-meter zone. That certainly didn't allow attractive hockey to be played,

Frequently television commentators announced a goal had been scored, and the crowd also celebrated with enthusiasm, only, to the surprise of all, for everyone to realize that some unseen offence meant it was not a goal. The packed circle, often occupied with 18 players, makes a correct reading of play almost impossible for everybody.


Suggested rule changes to make a difference

Needless to say, important rule modifications have to be agreed as soon as possible to ensure that hockey will not remain one of the less popular games to watch for the spectators in the post Olympic year and at major events ahead.
Although well aware that not everybody is going to agree with all of my suggestions for the future rules of the game, I would still like to offer them for discussion:

1. PENALTY CORNER. It seems to me that the days of the traditional penalty corner (and those of the attacking free hit close to the over-crowded circle and of the "corner") are numbered because of increasing risk to the players. After the Sydney Olympics, the Rules Board will finally see the need for the ball to be played from the end line to attackers behind the 22.90m-line. The other six defenders will continue to have to go beyond the centre line.
When the ball is hit out from the end line, all players, including the six defenders behind the centre line, may enter the 22.90 m-zone. The player who receives the ball behind the 22.90m-line will no longer be obliged to control it.
. The game should then flow, with less danger of injuries, and will be easier to understand for umpires and spectators.
It should see the abolition of the actual illogical restrictions and end the need to stop the ball first and control the height of the first hit at goal.
As already published by myself in "World Hockey" in the late 80's, the overdue change will lead to spectacular, breathtaking and artistic attacks and counter-attacks, something which surely will attract the crowds and television.
2. CORNER. The rules of indoor hockey should be applied regarding the award of a corner. If the ball is played unintentionally across the end line, a hit-out is awarded to the defenders. If it is played out intentionally, a penalty corner, as above, is the penalty. This change will ensure the game becomes safer because of less crowding in the 22.90-meter zone.


3. RESTRICTED ZONES. Since the Hockey Rules Board has for 16 years refused my suggestion that the traditional game is played with 8-a-side teams (WITH the off-side rule AND rolling substitution), I now feel obliged to adapt to the philosophy of the Rules Board members, and accept an 11-a-side game without off-side and with rolling substitution. Taking this into account, I would like to see trials held with three players of each team not permitted to play in their own half. Teams would consequently have to defend their goal with a maximum of eight players.
Trials with these modifications have revealed that more space and time is available for the attackers who can make greater use of their innate potential. The result has been more exciting play and more goal opportunities. The game, especially at free hits in front of the circle and during the long corner hits, becomes much safer and easier to follow for the umpires as well as for the spectators.


4. GOING FORWARD. In order to encourage more vertical and less horizontal play,
the ball cannot be passed backwards across the centre line.


5. REVISED POINTS SYSTEM. Introduce for all league competitions at national and international level a different points system to encourage all teams to play more offensively, even when they are sure of winning a match with few minutes still to play.
0 points for a goalless game,
1 point for a score draw (1:1, 2:2 etc.)
2 points for a win with one or two goals difference (1:0, 2:0, 2:1, 3:1, 3:2 etc.)
3 points for a win with more than 2 goals difference (3:0, 4:1, 4:0,5:2 etc.)


Conclusion

The Hockey Rules Board is no doubt well aware that coaches will continue to interpret also in the future all rule changes to their full advantage.
In their desire for success, coaches will use their experience and shrewdness to deliberately close the game down and make it less attractive to watch, just as they did at the last Sydney Olympics. One hopes the rules makers are aware that the players will be trained in the next Olympiad of 4 years up to the Athens Games to reduce even more the time and space for their opponents. They will not allow opponents to find a rhythm or to play the sort of artistic hockey all spectators would love to see?
One shudders to think what will happen in the next four years if the Rules Board fails to find the correct formula to make hockey more attractive. Hockey will not only drop even more in popularity, but possibly disappear from our television screens altogether. That must not happen.

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.