The document discusses inconsistencies in how rules are applied in field hockey, specifically regarding professional fouls committed by defenders to prevent scoring opportunities. It provides several examples from Olympic and international games where defenders committed deliberate fouls by pushing or impeding forwards from behind or off the ball, but the referees did not call penalties. This allowed teams to strategically commit fouls without consequences, undermining the integrity of the game. It suggests adding more umpires or using technology to better detect and penalize off-ball fouls.

1. An inconsistent application of the rules
The modern game of hockey has players which use professional fouls at critical parts of the game to
delay or prevent the other team from advancing the ball in the midfield or playing off the ball in the
offensive circle. The typical foul in the circle which is not called by the referee is bump of the body by
the defender to an offensive player who is in a position to score on a rebound, could receive a pass a
second later, or who is going for a rebound off of the pads, or is going for a deflection off of a long pass
into the circle. The umpire more often than not does not understand that the defender has committed a
professional foul which is designed to prevent the offensive player from playing the ball. Since the
player has been knocked off balance or has been pushed from the back the player is not able to stop the
ball, change direction, or react in some other way to score. Umpires are seemingly oblivious to these
types of fouls and do not seem to be inclined to see the push in the cynical way in which it was
delivered by the defender.
At critical points in games at the 2012 summer Olympics forwards running at the goal to receive
passes, go for deflections, or to pressure the ball have been pushed from behind. Video referrals have
resulted in rejected claims. This type of injustice detracts from the integrity of the game. The cynical
defender who has committed an egregious foul is rewarded for their negative play. The offensive player
is denied the opportunity to play the ball.
Where as small infractions in midfield such as impeding the progress of a runner with the ball are met
with green and yellow card suspensions.
In the ARG vs AUS mens game with the score tied 2-2, ARG passed to a player who was in front of the
goalie. The player pushed a weak shot onto the keeper's pads. A defender then ran into the back of the
ARG forward who was pushed out of the range of the ball. The forward was denied the opportunity to
play the ball by a deliberate foul in front of the goal. A video referral resulted in a bully. Given the
strength of the ARG short corner routine (it is expected to be strong given the drag flicking ability of
their coach Jorge Lombi) the odds were in favor of a goal if a PC was awarded by the video referral
umpire.
In the GER vs BEL mens game there was a similar incident where a forward running in to deflect a
cross was pushed from behind by a defender. The call was no PC. The non-call in both cases
determined the outcome of the game in favor of the team that committed the fouls. The lesson here is
that it pays to push forwards at critical moments in games when you cannot get a stick on the ball and
you are out of position as a defender. The odds are that the referee and the video referral referee will
not penalize the defender who pushes the player who does not have the ball.
In the NZ vs NED game at the 10th minute the NZ number 10 pushed the NED 26 into another NZ
player as the NED 26 was running towards a rebound from a shot off of the keeper. The two NZ players
prevented the NED 26 from reaching the ball and in fact knocked the NED 26 over. The call: no PC.
Two NED players on the break against the NZ goalie were chased by two NZ players. The right NED
player passed to the left NED player who pushed the ball into the goal while he was sliding. The NZ
player behind the NED player slid into the NED player who slid into the goal post. The NED player
was taken into the training room for treatment. The NZ player had no chance of reaching the ball and
the NZ player committed serious foul by sliding into the NED player from behind as the NEW player
was sliding into the goal post.45rt

2. Another tactic used by teams is impeding the player that just passed the ball so that they are delayed or
pushed to the ground and cannot receive the return pass. The umpires are focused on the ball and not on
the off the ball play. As a consequence the player who has passed the ball and is impeded from running
for the return pass is taken out of the play. This gives the defense a significant advantage particularly on
counter attacks.
Germany's Wesley put a shoulder hit on Verga from NED after Verga passed the ball and Verga went
off of the field for treatment.
During the China GB game a Chinese player running with the ball was tripped by a GB player who ran
behind her. The Chinese player was injured but the umpire ruled that it was accidental and said play on.
This should have been a yellow card and Chinese free hit.
During the CHN vs. JPN game JPN players waiting for crosses were bumped with hips by the CHN
players just prior to attempting to deflect the crosses. There was no call by the referee and the result
was a 16 yard hit. Referees need to recognize that a player attempting to deflect the ball should not be
knocked to the ground by the defender.
There is strong evidence that at least one team will have two forwards hold two defenders to make a
hole for a midfielder to run through with the ball.
One way that teams are slowing the ball down is when there is a foul they are pushing the ball sideways
just out of the reach of the person about to take the ball in.
Another way is hooking players with their stick or putting their stick under the person's feet causing
them to slip.
Both the offense's and the defense's are committing fouls that result in unfair advantages. These are off
the ball fouls and are difficult to detect.
From Kevin Parker:
the guidance to umpires is to not tolerate professional fouls and to penalize accordingly.
deliberate fouls in the "D" should result in a stroke. The wording of the rule (12.4.b) is clear:
12.4 A penalty stroke is awarded :
• a for an offence by a defender in the circle which prevents the probable scoring of a goal
• b for an intentional offence in the circle by a defender against an opponent who has
possession of the ball or an opportunity to play the ball
• c for defenders persistently crossing over the back-line before permitted during the taking
of penalty corners.
In top class games the umpires have microphones and can talk to each other. The trail umpire's
job is to watch the off the ball activity and let the lead umpire know what they are seeing. It is the
lead umpire's exclusive decision what gets called in the "D" irrespective of what the trail tells
them.
In my opinion far too few stokes are called for this type of foul and, consequently, players exploit
that.

3. Is it time to add additional umpires on the end lines to detect these types of off the ball fouls?