I have rewatched my own games where the commentators have said I was wrong, and other unnecessary comments about me. When commentators explain the call to viewers they are educating people, setting a positive conversation standard towards officials which in turn creates a better culture in both understanding the rules as well as umpire-team relationships. I really love that you bring in these other components into your discussions, thank you Keely😊
Aerial 1b, The defender hasn't made an attempt to close down the receiver and only plays the ball after the mistrap. That's essentially how I apply this rule in my local comp. #ReplaySquad
And - this is getting interesting - I'm going to disagree with the second one (CHN v GBR) too, for a technical reason that may not be quite how they do replays in field hockey. It was very much 50/50 on whether CHN should have referred, but having done so I think that the decision should hinge on exactly how far the defender was from the initial reception. In this case, I'm sorry Keely, but I think it's pretty clear that it was less than 5m. Everywhere else on the field, you would not have been able to tell exactly, but here there are marks and the ball is certainly coming down inside the hashes.
I think you've misinterpreted the visuals. As I explained and displayed on video, the contact with the ball is in front of the attacking player and outside the hashes. We aren't going to be accurate in understanding 5m, playable distance and danger if we paint 5m circles on the ground as though a ball drops straight down from a height. That's not reality.
Question on the final one. Agree that it is the back of the stick at that point of the handle, but why is 9.11 "It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick« not applied where the hand has stopped the ball hitting the back of the stick?
Because the hand is nowhere near where the ball hits the handle 😉 Don't take the guidance of 9.11 out of context of the rule itself, which is whether it's an offence to play the ball with the body.
@@cymonhewitt9122 If it hits the back of the player's right hand with a normal grip on the stick, that means the back side of the stick and the handle of the back stick are being used to play the ball, which would be a foul. Can't say I've ever seen it happen though!
Hmm, I thought I was going to agree with the GBR v AUS one, but now I'm not sure. I think Kuhn is giving a PC for the initial interception attempt. I don't think 38 has actually continued. If this was gymnastics, 38's dismount would not have scored highly, but he, amazingly, stops within a couple of steps and then keeps his stick out. So PC for the initial interference (not PS), but nothing after that. and I don't think this is at odds with what the umpire says.
OK so I'm going to gently disagree with the GBR v IND aerial one. I agree that the attempted interception would have been a stroke, but I am not sure the GBR player was ever clearly in their own space. So I might have given FHD for that. Also, given the angle that ball came in, I don't think you can say that the players were alongside each other.
I have rewatched my own games where the commentators have said I was wrong, and other unnecessary comments about me. When commentators explain the call to viewers they are educating people, setting a positive conversation standard towards officials which in turn creates a better culture in both understanding the rules as well as umpire-team relationships. I really love that you bring in these other components into your discussions, thank you Keely😊
I appreciate you, Kathy! 💪
@@FHumpires 🫶
Aerial 1b, The defender hasn't made an attempt to close down the receiver and only plays the ball after the mistrap. That's essentially how I apply this rule in my local comp. #ReplaySquad
🏆
And - this is getting interesting - I'm going to disagree with the second one (CHN v GBR) too, for a technical reason that may not be quite how they do replays in field hockey. It was very much 50/50 on whether CHN should have referred, but having done so I think that the decision should hinge on exactly how far the defender was from the initial reception. In this case, I'm sorry Keely, but I think it's pretty clear that it was less than 5m. Everywhere else on the field, you would not have been able to tell exactly, but here there are marks and the ball is certainly coming down inside the hashes.
I think you've misinterpreted the visuals. As I explained and displayed on video, the contact with the ball is in front of the attacking player and outside the hashes. We aren't going to be accurate in understanding 5m, playable distance and danger if we paint 5m circles on the ground as though a ball drops straight down from a height. That's not reality.
Question on the final one.
Agree that it is the back of the stick at that point of the handle, but why is 9.11 "It is not an offence if the ball hits the hand holding the stick but would otherwise have hit the stick« not applied where the hand has stopped the ball hitting the back of the stick?
Because the hand is nowhere near where the ball hits the handle 😉
Don't take the guidance of 9.11 out of context of the rule itself, which is whether it's an offence to play the ball with the body.
Sorry. I didn't necessarily mean in this situation. If a ball hits the back of a players hand and would have hit the back side of the stick?
@@cymonhewitt9122 If it hits the back of the player's right hand with a normal grip on the stick, that means the back side of the stick and the handle of the back stick are being used to play the ball, which would be a foul. Can't say I've ever seen it happen though!
@@FHumpires thanks Keeley. Something to think about
Hmm, I thought I was going to agree with the GBR v AUS one, but now I'm not sure. I think Kuhn is giving a PC for the initial interception attempt. I don't think 38 has actually continued. If this was gymnastics, 38's dismount would not have scored highly, but he, amazingly, stops within a couple of steps and then keeps his stick out. So PC for the initial interference (not PS), but nothing after that. and I don't think this is at odds with what the umpire says.
I believe I covered either possibility.
(I see the auto captions are incorrect but it's Coen)
Getting ready for the Olympics hype :))
Right?? 🇫🇷
OK so I'm going to gently disagree with the GBR v IND aerial one. I agree that the attempted interception would have been a stroke, but I am not sure the GBR player was ever clearly in their own space. So I might have given FHD for that. Also, given the angle that ball came in, I don't think you can say that the players were alongside each other.
Well, I ungently disagree with your view on the facts. As did Michiel Otten on the pitch. 🤷♀️