None of the three penalties shown in the video (a penalty corner and two penalty strokes) were awarded in compliance with the FIH published Rules of Hockey.
The first, a penalty corner, was awarded for actions which did not meet the criteria for a ball body contact offence. i.e. either intent or advantage gained.
The second penalty , the first penalty stroke, did not comply with Rule 12 Advantage. The action of the tackler did not disadvantage the striker in any way, he had a free shot opportunity with the goalkeeper on the ground, he simply mishit his shot - and then the umpire went back and penalised the stick touch.
The second penalty stroke was awarded in contravention of the description of dangerous play given in the Explanation of Rule Application to Rule 9.9. - ball raised towards an opponent within 5m (here about 2m) with a flick or a scoop IS dangerous play.
The first video referral was not shown in the highlight, the second one was carried out in a way that contravened FIH Tournament Regulations.
I think all the Rules mentioned above are poorly written, but what umpires have substituted for them is no better and they are anyway not entitled to replace the current published Rules with another version - from a briefing instruction or elsewhere.
The FIH Rules Committee together with the FIH Executive Committee formulate and publish the Rules of Hockey. They have informed us in the rule-book most years during the past thirty that the Rules are constantly being simplified and clarified to ensure good application and fair play. I see little evidence of clarification having been done. The ball body contact Rule (9.11) has been amended a number of times, most notoriously in 2007, but it hasn't to my certain knowledge been correctly applied in more than sixty-five years. Umpires generally, almost as a reflex, penalise all ball body contact - not at all what they should be doing. The excuse usually offered is that this is what players expect them to do - that's pathetic.
Discussion. [ Ссылка ]
