Sat 19 Jul, 2008
|
|
|
|
Rules: More rule changes on cards  x41
 |
| India |
August 17, 2003 
Deccan Herald
> Page Views 9893
Former player Richard Agiss, one of the successful Australian coaches of the early 1980s and now a member of the Rules Board and Vice-President of Hockey Australia, foresees a lot more changes in the rules of the game in the future. He is personally much in favour of a widening of the goal.
Agiss felt that a bigger goal would ensure more strikes and prevent the goalkeepers from gaining undue advantage. “The goalkeepers now are 33% bigger than when we were playing. The equipment they wear now is more than a third extra than before.
“Personally, I would like to see the goal widened from the 12 feet that it is now to about 15 feet. That would enable more goals. In the early 80s there were less goals as the goalkeepers dominated. Then came the no-offside rule to allow more goals. So now too I think we should try and make for more goals.”
With a widening of the goal, Agiss felt that the drag flick, over which there has been debates following the danger of injury, could become a little less so. “If a rule is made which requires the first hit or flick to be on the boards, then there is less chance of it being dangerous.”
The new rules, which allow the ball to be in motion at the top of the circle before a penalty corner and the raised stick by a defender during a top-d drill, could be added to the rule book later this year. “We have received a lot of positive feedback from the countries and associations who have tried these rules on an experimental basis. We have recommended to the FIH that these rules come into force.
“For many years we had blindly followed the rule of stopping the ball outside the circle. I do not see the need for it.” There was much talk about a third umpire especially after yesterday’s The Netherlands-India match, which saw The Netherlands’ third goal coming under scrutiny.
Agiss was, however, against it. “Unless all the equipment and cameras are in the right position, can we have a third umpire. At the moment the cost involved is also quite high. Maybe 10-15 years down the line it could come into force. In yesterday’s match, even after watching the TV replays, we were not absolutely sure whether it was a goal.”
Agiss was also against the introduction of earphones which the Dutch women’s team had used at the women’s World Cup in Hobart last year. “Imagine if you have players running around with earphones and coaches giving instructions from the bench. The players would be reduced to mere robots and the match would resemble a playstation. I think sometimes, we must try and preserve the integrity of the game and not let technology take over.”
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
|
widening the net..
08-17-2003 10:17 pm
|
Report this post
|
i think that is a bad rule.. leave the net as big as it is.. u don't need more goals.. just look @ the last games @ champions trophy.. 6-5, 5-3
i think it's a bad rule..
|
|
romeo
08-18-2003 12:59 am
|
Report this post
|
for god sake forget this stupid rule!!
i remember in soccer this rule to winden the net was proposed but most of the people rejected it , now we have enough of this sort of innovation in hockey , i hope fih board work to improve the players hockey skills not to widen the f**** goal...........
|
|
thoughtful
08-18-2003 5:37 am
|
Report this post
|
widening the goal
this would be very expensive for hockey around the world - maybe a better idea would be to have a height and weight restriction on GKs? maybe all those little blokes who become jokeys could be goalies?
|
|
SWB
08-18-2003 6:10 am
|
Report this post
|
Don't agree with it either. The goalscoring is fine as it is, which 39 goals in 5 matches clearly show. Also think about the tremendous cost of supplying every pitch in the world with two larger goals...
I don't agree about the flick proposition either. Currently the problem for a goalie is than a hit may come low whereas the flick will be high, and he is unable to choose. If both are required to hit the boards, the goalie can just lay down and with a few competent line stops PC production will go totally down the drain...
|
|
totc
08-18-2003 12:00 pm
|
Report this post
|
Agiss' last comment
That's funny; I don't remember field hockey being made for the Playstation ....
|
|
Tom Harris
08-18-2003 2:29 pm
|
Report this post
|
One of the most exciting things in hockey is a shot at goal whether it results in a score or not. I believe this to be true after abserving the crowds at many games and noting when they react to play. One of the most boring aspects is passing around the back.
Should we consider making the circle larger, say 18 meters? Since the time when the 16 yard circle was arbitrarily made, the players are bigger, faster, stronger. Plus the equipment has made the movement of the ball much more rapid. Players are in such physical condition that they can play the entire field. Eleven (or even eight) defenders in the circle make constructive play very difficult. Making the circle larger would not be expensive except where the circle is sewn into the artificial turf.
To bring hockey into the bigger world, why not make the dimensions of everything in even meters?
|
|
COOL
08-18-2003 4:35 pm
|
Report this post
|
LET'S HAVE....
Bigger goals, bigger sticks, bigger everything and then introduce shoulder pads, thigh and elbow guards. Why not a fancy helmet? Don't let's forget the fancy new smoother playing surface and substitute the dimpled ball with a flat puck. Have indentured "gladiators" in the form pumped-up gym-zealots as players. Award them with barely-legal sport enhancing pills. Rake in millions in gate money!!
Then let's call it "Sockey".
Hey! if it ain't broke, don't fix-it!!
Just leave Hockey ALONE!!
Taking the lyrics off the famous song:
"Hey teacher! Leave the kid's alone"
//
|
|
H Dhillon
08-18-2003 5:06 pm
|
Report this post
|
what a $hitttttttttt
How much these guys want to destroy the Game of Hockey, they want to chnage it for their own benifits, we don't like goals let's make them bigger.......we can't compete in classical hockey, let's use Astrotruf...
let's kill hockey in poor countires who can not afford these expensive white elephents.
We don't like rules, let's change them, they already destroyed soul of Game, let's have them their hockey, and all the Asian and other countries who like to play normal Hockey, should form their own Federation and start playing normal Hockey and let them have fun, with their stupid high tech Hockey......
|
|
JD
08-18-2003 10:07 pm
|
Report this post
|
Technology not good enough...
well, 10-15 years down the line hockey will be dead if these guys keep on changing the rules and I can not see how the exsiting technology is not good enough for Mr Agiss. If FIH can not afford it, maybe they should do something about sposorship of the sport instead of changing rules. Every year these guys say "change this rule and more people will play/watch the game", what a load of crap. Inspite of all the changes, the number of "new" recruits to the sport is declining!!!! Wake up or there will be no hockey.
|
|
Davo
08-18-2003 10:17 pm
|
Report this post
|
Stupid High Tech Hockey
Have a listen to yourselves. Ask players if they prefer to play on Astro or grass and I bet I know what most of them will answer.
You can keep kidding yourselves that rule changes have been a conspiracy against asian teams, but the fact is that most rule changes of late have been to simplify the rules and their application in the game. Increasing goalscoring opportunities has also driven some rule changes.
FIH is attempting to make hockey more attractive to watch and easier to understand for the general public including the non-hockey playing population. If you don't want to go along for the ride so be it.
Imagine the outcry if offside, or stopping the ball at a corner were reintroduced and India were denied a goal because an umpire ruled against them on one of these calls. Oh Conspiracy!!
I can't say I agree with widening the goals, but I didn't agree with the previous short corner experiment where the ball had to travel 5 metres outside the circle. It didn't survive either.
If it ain't broke don't fix it eh? Sorry all you hockey luddites, but I want to see this game I love be the best it can be and attractive enough to be shown on prime time TV.
All for any improvements of our game.
|
|
PF
08-18-2003 11:54 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
There's nothing wrong with making suggestions to improve the game. No one is trying to ruin the sport-and, Mr. Dhillon, very few would prefer to revert to using grass-hockey is not a large ball sport like football or rugby, it needs a quick and smooth surface in order that the ball can travel suitably, which is simply not possible on muddy English fields, eventhough it may be in hot climates where the ground is firm. "Classical" hockey to which you refer is precisely what turns away several folk from the game because it is just not as enjoyable. As for the idea of widening the goals, well, I sort of agree that enough goals are scored in hockey as it is, but I certainly like Tom Harris' suggestion about increasing the size of the D. Often now the only opportunity you get to score a field goal is when there is a quick break, with the D being larger I think it would make for more spectacular goals, and hockey needs more visual excitement to make it more of a spectator sport. It won't create unmanagable costs, nor will it alter the way the game is played. The only question is whether a larger D would be suitable for short corners. Perhaps there should be a larger D for field goals and a smaller one for corners. As for the earphones, there is a word which describes the use of them perfectly... "Anal."
|
|
braxer001 (belgium)
08-19-2003 2:32 am
|
Report this post
|
I would also leave the goals as they are, there are enough goals scored allready, for example, when you see a soccermatch, common results are lik 2-1 or 2-3 or something, so no need to change there.
The earphones ARE ridiculous and a clear advantage, so lets get that in the rules...
Widenig the D would be a good idea as for scoring goals, but again: if you are against injuries, widening the d can work in two directions: 1th is that because of the bigger area, there is less chance of a defender being in the way (statisticly then), but as for the nature of the game: the defender will always get in the way of the ball...do I make sense here?
I also think a good rule change is the rulechange for 'high ball into the d'---> only dangerous play is counted
|
|
gurjeet
08-19-2003 8:08 am
|
Report this post
|
Has Mr Richard Agiss ever played in a Hockey Goal, or worn the kit, or faced a hockey ball standing in Goal when it is hit at near100 mph ????
Make goals bigger .....What a joker, it would be like not having any goalkeepers.
All the padding that the Goalkeepers wears doesn`t Help stop the goals, it is to stop keepers getting Hurt.
And anyway once the keeper makes a move , it is not easy to change directions like the out field players can do.
So stop dreaming of widening the goal and consontrate on scoring goals.
|
|
Prabhu Narasimhan
08-19-2003 9:19 am
|
Report this post
|
Classical Hockey!
Dudes! Lets get one thing straight. When someone means classical hockey, he just doesnt mean grass. Point taken, astro turf is the present and the future. But classical hockey also means attacking, skillful hockey relying less on physical power and stamina and more on grace and stickwork. In other words the elusive thing in western hockey, Dribbling. Modern rules aided by soccer style european hockey which relies more on stamina and athletic prowess have made hockey less enjoyable. That is not to say however that it has been a conspiracy against Asian Teams(use of word asian itself is a misnomer, only India and Pakistan play real classical hockey). I for one believe that if a team has enough skill, it should win anyways, but only upto an extent is that statement true. If you like free flowing hockey, watch an India vs Pakistan hockey match, maybe you will realise what classical hockey is.Australia to an extent plays agressive hockey and that is pleasing, but the european style is not going to get the spectators in. By the way I would completely agree with Tom Harris about rule changes.
|
|
things are fine
08-20-2003 4:23 am
|
Report this post
|
|
The goal is big enough. There have been more goals scored in matches over the last few years than ever before. It is typical of retired players, administrators, etc. to come up with carzy ideas. Why don't they consult current top class players? Leave well enough alone
|
|
vampire
08-21-2003 12:08 am
|
Report this post
|
old school
ok..lets bring back the hand stop, make foam illegal, and outlaw composite sticks! (btw i miss the old cane pads with the square toe kickers!!!) Simple solution...dont allow everyone on the pitch to defend the D...limit it to 4 defenders and a goalie in the D at any given time..any more and a corner...just to see...we dont need a bigger goals..just a thought
|
|
what?
08-21-2003 6:09 am
|
Report this post
|
Maybe the players have gotten bigger but haven't sticks gotten more livelier? what about the bowed stick? that's brought an offensive advantage to the p.c. and hasn't turf made deflections easier? plus, a struck ball comes off the turf faster than it does grass too.
anyway, it's not lack of goals that make a boring game. it's poor play.
a bigger circle would be o.k. i guess. you can keep your meters though. I like limiting all passing back and forth in the backfield. that just sucks. but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is.
|
|
grahamchester
08-24-2003 2:55 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
If you want hockey to be more exciting (more goals scored) dont bother trying the expensive options of changing goal sizes, altering pitch markings etc - just allow goals to be scored from anywhere on the pitch.
|
|
HOCKEY FAN
08-24-2003 3:55 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
See this was what I was afraid of. Now they noticed( these game lords) that India and pakistan are catching up with European teams and started doing better so they wanna change it further so it will make it easier for european teams. yeah I agree with Mr. COOL it should be called Sockey. I think hockey has been destryed enough already. the only good youu guys can do hockey is to leave it alone. Its not fun to watch any more except when India and Pakistan are playing.
|
|
pajo
08-25-2003 3:54 am
|
Report this post
|
Why is it that so many people regard the classic Asian style of hockey superior to other methods? Several people have posted messages on this particluar board accusing hockey officials of altering the game to make it easier for European or Australian teams to compete against sides such as Pakistan or India. I do, as a matter of fact admire many Asian players who possess superb individual skill, but I equally respect the way teams like Netherlands, Australia, Germany and Korea player for their gutsiness and teamwork, and anyone that is unable to appreciate that is clearly blind or possesses little knowledge of the game. I find both styles equally entertaining for different reasons, but my personal opinion is that non-Asian style hockey is much more enjoyable to play, because it is much less reliant on individual performances, and demonstrates the essence of playing a team sport. Current statistics also prove that this is the most effective way of playing the game also.
I will most probably be bombarded with messages by people who are too blinkered to appreciate European or Australian style hockey, but there goes...
|
|
aussie
08-25-2003 4:48 am
|
Report this post
|
I cant believe what i am reading here! classic hockey and thing are being done to try and reduce the ability of the aisian teams to dominate. What a load of crap. Lets face it at the moment the asian teams are just not that good! they do posses excelent individual skill but hockey is a team game always has been always will be. Someone wise once told me that a champion team will beat a team of champions, well that has rung true at this years CT the two champion teams were in the final and as it appears the best team Holland has won(Sigh!!!). but hey that how it goes. As for making the goals wider i dont think so. we are scoring enough goals,defence is pretty good to watch to if you know what to look for and are knowlegable about the game.
The safty issue is a bigger problem i think. The bowed sticks and even the compo sticks could go and then it truly would be down to the individuls ability. Maybee a rule limiting the amount of bow like they have in Ice-hockey would be good. Has anyone seen the new Mazon sling shot stick it is rediculus, all the seriouse drag flickers in melb state league one have them and on the post you cant even see the ball. Anybody could rip a calem giles flick with one of those.
|
|
observer
08-25-2003 7:24 am
|
Report this post
|
get a grip
right then chaps,
very simple, bigger goal=very expensive especially for schools etc.
Bigger D, again, very expensive as some astros would have to be relaid.
Solution- can score anywhere in the 25, no need to change pitch markings, would add some extra goals, especially on the outer edge of the D
Solution 2- the 3-up rule that has been tried out at some tournaments, with less people in the D we would have more space and less chance for 11-men block defending....
As for the asian conspiracy, if they learn't to defend properly they would be up there with the best.
|
|
Ara
11-12-2003 12:02 am
|
Report this post
|
More goals!
You want more goals? Then play the game with no GOAL KEAPERS.
|
|
Ara
11-12-2003 12:04 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Sorry for the mistake! The word is GOALKEEPERS.
|
|
wuiger
11-22-2003 7:24 am
|
Report this post
|
Overtime Changes
Why not entertain "reduced player" overtime periods for breaking ties? The first overtime period could be 9 v 9 with only 4 defenders (3 field & 1 goalkeeper) on the corners. The second overtime period could be 7 v 7 continuing with 4 defenders on the corners. The U.S. collegiate and high school field hockey has been using "reduced player" overtime periods for years with much success. The excitement level is very high due to the increased opportunities for breakaways and wide-open play. Maybe this could be a FIH Experimental Rule...
|
|
Ump
12-17-2003 5:08 am
|
Report this post
|
No Way!
A lot of goals are already scoring in games, you have to be kidding to want to widen goals? Goalkeepers need to protect themselves, hence the equipment. The game is already going good as it is, leave it be.
|
|
John Parkyn
02-20-2004 10:09 pm
|
Report this post
|
Metric please
Whatever changes are made to field hockey measurements I hope they are made to round metric measurements. After all, metric is increasingly the world's measurement standard.
Up above, somebody suggested the goal be widened from 12 feet to 15 feet, that is 3.66 m to 4.572 m.
If the goal is to be widened, I wouid hope it would be to 4.5 m.
|
|
hockey player
02-28-2004 3:15 pm
|
Report this post
|
rule changes
rule changes arnt going to do anything keep the rules as they are now the only thing that is going to bring more people to playing and watching the sport is advertiseing i enojoyed hockey from an early age at school but never joined a hockey team because i didnt no where any were i only started playing when i was 12 when someone came into my school and told me where a club was! if that had never happend i wud never have started probably has any1 seen any promotions of comealong and try hockey? or any1 come accros engalnd players getting people envolved i think not!
|
|
geo
03-23-2004 1:52 am
|
Report this post
|
rule changes
What about forgetting about changing goal sizes but allowing goals to be scored from anywhere on the pitch. The D can still be kept for shorts and strokes...
|
|
Poseidon
05-12-2004 12:21 pm
|
Report this post
|
Rule changes, Rule Book Slaughter
Can bigger goals alone aid positive development of hockey? In opinion of this club-level goalkeeper...No, afraid not. Ok they may increase scoring, but will that really improve things? To my way of thinking, it will only serve to increase the number of people wanting to be forwards - as if we don't already have a lack of able-bodied keepers coming up through the ranks, now we want to encourage everyone to score goals, NOT save them.
We know hockey is played on a small field when conpared to the various football codes of the world, and involves the use of a small, generally fast-moving ball. If you start to make the field bigger (in any respect, be it distance between markings OR goalposts), then you increase the workload for the players. *Think removal of offside - Less stressing about not being lined up to receive a pass, no running harder to be in line, receiving a pass where it suits YOU and NOT the rules.
As for the thoughts on a bigger 'D'...Well I may be a keeper, but I'm certainly no supreme athlete (in that regard I'm probably more 'old school' than new). In order to make up for my lack of speed I play VERY high, moving back to the goal as the play comes down. Were the 'D' to be increased in size dramatically, I would have to think it would make it harder for me to meet an attacker with the ball in time to stop any shot he may take. Perhaps not in a one-on-one situation (as I do play high) but in a partly crowded circle along the backline, where I'd have to run further to block someone. Of course I could just be lazier than I thought :P
Scoring from anywhere on the field? NO! THIS ISN'T BL--DY SOCCER!! Do that and I'll go on strike!
One thing I'd like to ask the people here : Is it just me or did FIH absolutely murder the rule book? No index at the back (can't remember if the appendixes are there or not), the field diagram doesn't show the dimensions for the long corner mark (5m) or the short corner marks on the back line, and in general seems to be in a not-so-pleasing format - So much for making it easier for novices to read and understand, now I'm stuffed after being used to the previous versions. Could just be me...
|
|
rocky
05-27-2004 5:53 pm
|
Report this post
|
goals
leave the goal size the same. if u want 2 score more goals, y not be able to score from n e where in the 25? Y not look at the new pc interpretation after the Olympics?
|
|
STAGG
07-05-2004 11:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
i think that it is a horrible rule. games are more exciting when they are close. the goals dont need to be bigger.
|
|
Saints player
08-20-2004 5:47 am
|
Report this post
|
Widening of the goals
I think that there should be a restricted width and height of padding for golies and nothign else, keep the game traditional and let the game go on.
|
|
ToPpS
10-26-2004 4:54 am
|
Report this post
|
RSA
As a player and umpire, my honest opinion is that the current goals are the right size. After all scoring a goal should take some skill at least ( just a thought).
There are enough goals being scored, I’ve seen double figures in many games and where the scores are low the defence may have been brilliant or the offence shocking.
The issue of allowing only 4 defenders in the D at any time could be a nightmare for umpires to consistently enforce. As for the score anywhere in the 25, that will lead to dangerous play.
In the end Rules are there for safety reasons and to encourage skilful play, not to make the game more cinematic for viewers.
|
|
joots007
10-26-2004 10:46 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Reducing the danger in drag flicks would be a good idea.
|
|
shinpads
10-27-2004 3:16 am
|
Report this post
|
Goals are there
In my lifetime of involvement in this sport I have seen most of the good and bad changes to this great game and it is interesting that this subject rears it's ugly head periodically. Once every two years in the last 40 that I can remember.
There is no need to change the size of the goal or the dimensions of the field, but there is a real need to improve the taking of goal scoring opportunities to a higher level.
That will not be done by making bigger nets to make strikers lazier and less thoughtful or team tactics more aimed at getting even more breaches within the 25, but by improving their abilities and capabilities in and around the circle. That is up to the coaches of this sport... and I welcome any help there I can get as I always angst over the lack of conversions in relation to opportunities created and work on that until my players bleed.
All widening the net will do will increase the usage of specialist corner strikers and patterns. We will then see Basketball on Turf where we will go to Africa or China to get 7'6"plus goalkeepers and defenders. What about the kids of the game as well? Do we expect them to play keeper in an impossible situation when they are only big enough to see over the tops of their pads?
In today's Hockey 3 goals do not win you the game at any level of the game (except on grass fields which is another issue entirely) and it is truely rare to see the number of 1-0 or 1-1 games of the past. So where is the problem?
Why not ask senior international players to teach umpires how to understand the finer points of the game ..e.g.... shielding the ball, tapping sticks, body checks, professional fouls, obstruction, time wasting in critical areas of the field, what is advantage and what is not ... and what is technically dangerous and what is not? BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE GAME IS BEING LET DOWN RIGHT NOW.
At the international/national level, is it because many umpires have to make the choice to follow umpiring as a career path before they gain enough playing experience? Is it because there is no real man management training of umpires so they can umpire the sport rather than be whistle blowing policemen with limited communication skills?
All good coaches and players will find ways to exploit any rule changes made. Where the real issue lies in this game is can the interpretation of any rules be made consistently by most umpires? If not why not? And how can that be addressed without changing the dimensions of the field or the parts that make up a field.
One last thing. Who pays to replace every Hockey net in the world with the larger version, what timeframe will be implemented to make that change .. and what country will take all the old ones to store with their nuclear waste?
|
|
Beno
11-10-2004 8:19 am
|
Report this post
|
hockey
this is the best site eva u guys rock
|
|
Wahay!
04-28-2005 10:07 am
|
Report this post
|
Goal width.
Surely as technology improves the size of goaly pads will decrease slightly to help hinder movement less. When this happens will these people take the goals width and twist it again? I love the game as it it. Why change it?
|
|
Myfanwy K.
06-02-2005 8:30 pm
|
Report this post
|
Goal Width
I would have to agree with the vast majority of posts here, I do not believe the goals should be widened at all. This change in rules will only make the strikers immensly lazy and lathargic. The goals are the perfect size and I do not think the goalies have to much padding. I would challenge any one who says otherwise to stand in a goal and block a ball coming at you at up to 100 miles an hour wihtout anice amoutn of padding it's BL-Dy suicide!
As for the asian conspiracy, get wiht the times, no one is plotting against you. Astro turf is simply a more effective way of playing. Also, as to dragflicks on the boards. please! just ask the goalies to lie down I mean give me a break! the whole purpose of a drag flick is to put the ball in a place where it is difficult for the goalie to reach it, and also to reduce the predictabilty of it's path.
People of any level, have been able to enjoy field hockey for as long as it has been around, I see no need to change it now. Especially not when the changes are to increase the spectator numbers, who cares! You play for the love of the game not the poepl on the side saying how wonderful you are.
However, this is just my two cents and others may not like it, but so be it.
|
|
Umpair from Africa
08-12-2005 7:08 am
|
Report this post
|
Why do rules change??
Rules change every now and then, so that the players can enjoy the game more and to make the umpairs' job easer.
As you know, money is everything in this world. And in most land - aspecialy Africa land - there is not much money in hockey. All the lands sport money goes to rugby, crieket and socker. As you can see, this is most men sports. Look as netball is Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kinea, South-Africa, and so on. You never here about it. It is always rugby, crieket and socker.
Thats way they tray to make the game easer so that there will be in 20years only one umpair instade of two. Less money to pay for a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
