TalkRollerHockey.net

[stewart henderson]

Brendan good evening.
Being one of the Refs in question this weekend I feel that I should comment:-
You are correct, during the game at Manchester the "advantage + no Team foul" UK style and subsequently euro adopted rule was applied.

You are also correct that it may lead to a hacking frenze-what is in question is how long the ref lets this go on - I will guarantee the first time the ref stops play the attacking Team will complain.
I suppose the correct way is to "have a word" with the offending player, if he persists then award a straight blue.

However the main reason for this posting is to ask on

WHEN ARE WE TO GET ANY OFFICIAL ANSWERS on this site.

I see TalkRollerHockey as a means of communication between members of the Roller Hockey world so it would be quite easy to give ONE ANSWER to the limited number of questions asked concerning the application of the new rules.
This would then stop everyone having their own views and interpretation which does nothing but confuse the matter.

[KarlWilson]

I've answered the questions I've seen, I might of missed some though.

Derek etc either don't have the time to come on here, or do not wish to.

If you want to, ask me any questions you have. Especially NC refs - I especially want to know if any NC refs have questions they need answering
_________________
Karl Wilson

[stewart henderson]

Karl; Are you now the Official voice of the UK Refs ?
I don't think so ! What answers given by you are totally personal given to people with alot more experience who to can also read a rule book.
You are totally missing my point!

[KarlWilson]

No offence Stewart, but I have as much experience with these rules, if not more, than most refs.

I'm in the CRHR so take part in all the discussions we have regarding rules, so I am part of the 'Official Voice for UK refs', and I'm the NC Refs Officer - it's my job to know the rules and answer questions.

Someone will probably have a quiet word with me after this, but people will have issues with me no matter what I do. If my above post was from Derek, your reply would have been a lot different, ie 'Thanks D, here are a few questions....'.

People are going to have to get over the fact that I am doing this job. A job no one else wants to do, so why don't you (refs) give me a hand instead of moaning about me to other people.

Bit of a personal rant off topic, but what can you do.
_________________
Karl Wilson

[brendan]

Hi Stewart,

I hope no offence taken as I am not saying either game was ref'd badly as this was not the case just differently, and as you say this is the directive from Europe so for the time being am somewhat clearer.
In our next premier league game I shall try the stopping rule and see what happen's.
Honestly the hacking comment was an exageration but a possibility I don't feel this will be the case.
My feeling is I should just forget it and just get on with it, cos all any of us can do including the ref's and as Stewart says someone is always going to complain.

[daz]

Karl,

I suppose the best you can do, since you get on here and others don't is simply take the comments back to CRHR for discussion (basically do the Secretary's job for him), and then if a directive, or other communication is appropriate come back and pass it on. All other responses are as you say, just personal opinions. At least we have a channel where concerns and questions can be passed. OK you may be seen as the Voice of UK Refs, but hey, so what, at least you are willing to step up and be heard.

Stewart,

I aint criticising the refereeing over the weekend, there will always be decisions that players don't really agree with, but the 'professional' way of dealing with that is to accept the decision no matter how bad, and then get on with the game (and if you really want to know why a certain decision was made ask the referee after the game, surely if you approach in the appropriate manner an explanation would be given would it not?). However, where we have a regular disagreement with what the rules mean, someone somewhere needs to step up and explain them, perhaps through a site such as this, and sometimes healthy debate is a good thing. With regard to hacking I totally agree with what you say, you are the ref, and it is your job to decide what is and is not ac ceptable. The only rider I would put on this is that there must be a degree of consistency on this front, not just in your own judgement, but also between referees.

Brendan,

Would you please let us know the outcome of your proposed experiment with the 'stopping rule'? I have seen this style played in Blanes where they played to 'Catalan Rules'. The skill some of the guys had in using their shin pads to control the ball was remarkable, and I cannot see how such play detracts from the game. At the end of the day if the rules are applied consistently to both teams there are actually no advantages (or maybe that should be disadvantages) to gain.

[brendan]

Just seen this on a Italian website so copied the translated version quite interesting to read, as it seems that it states that 2 or 3 direct hits per game is the norm. So I think from this our feeling that maybe we are letting to much go maybe a reality.
It is also interesting to see what the planned affects of the new rules and what our initial thoughts were, seems some of us were correct.
Article doesn't change anything just interesting reading:

They come from Spain and Portugal, the first authoritative appreciation for the new rules that bring more goals and fewer fouls. In Spain, after four rounds of ULEB, it marks the 75% more fouls and has fallen drastically. A shared concern: a method of arbitration is common.


The new rules are pleasing to the Spanish and Portuguese and the certificates come from authoritative sources.
Spain is the national coach Carlos sities to speak on behalf of almost all his colleagues (some remain skeptical even more beautiful in the world championship). And he says, in summary, that hockey is back, as the technical sport that was once, with a drastic decrease of fouls and a surge of goals scored: +75% in the first four days. All this without distorting the technical team because of "the good remain good" and not by chance at the top of the league, no matter old or new rules, there is always Barcelona.
The Spanish rule in identifying the limit of 10 fouls the key to success of the new rules. A limitation that has led the defense to change their behavior, to leave the physical in favor of more technical and tactical.
To note that the increase in goals scored is not due only in part, to as many free throws that are directly assigned on average two to three per game.
Portugal was the president of the National Olympic Committee Vicente de Moura a complimentary about the new rules of hockey. Emphasizing in particular the drastic reduction in the limit of the attitudes of the violence were among the reasons that, in the aftermath of Barcelona 1992, withdrew from the field hockey Olympic track.
And in Italy?
The new rules divide between the public and experts in favor and against, with the latter in sharp retreat. Many feared the eve of the adverse effects did not occur and, subject to the usual complaints about refereeing decisions, everything is developing according to plan.
Also from us has seen a significant increase in the number of goals scored, even if two days are very few to make comparisons unreliable. This year was marked 131 goals against 92 of the first two days of last year for an increase of over 70%.
The concern is not lacking. First you feel the need for a common yardstick arbitration. From Spain, for example, saw Italy as too lax and not very dutiful to the new rules (with a turnaround at 180 ° from the last season).
The second concern relates to the upcoming European Cup to be played with the new rules, but which would bring together teams from nations that preferred not to change this season (France and Switzerland using a hybrid of the two regulations) and where there are referees who are not used to directing, following the new regulation.

[daz]

Its not that easy to understand, since the English is not as good as I am used to, but do I pick up another important point from that? That whilst we may wish to interpret the rules in the UK as we wish, but we also need to understand how other countries have interpreted, such that those playing in Europe and beyond know what to expect when there?

[PhilMcVey]

Stewart is right, WE NEED OFFICIAL COMMENT. Directives have obviously not worked, or in my opinion are just plain wrong.

The new rules according to the directives are not what the rest of Europe are playing.

WE WERE TOLD THE WHOLE POINT OF US ADOPTING THE NEW RULES THIS SEASON WAS TO GET US USED TO PLAYING THE SAME RULES AS EVERYONE ELSE.

It would now appear that we are more out of step with Europe than before.

Currently we are told that a team foul is equivalent to (a minor yellow card foul under old rules) and a blue card foul is pretty much the same as a blue card foul under old rules.

This means personally I could commit 10 yellow card fouls in a game, and if the ref plays advantage I might only be penalised for 5 of them, and then only with a team foul (of which10 need to be conceded before DFH awarded).

Equally I have 8 out players in the team, they could all commit 2 blue card fouls each (16 in all), and still no one would receive a red card.

Under the old rules 3 yellow cards equaled a red. Now 10 yellow cards equal a DFH.

Someone please tell me, how does this square with the reason behind the new rules, which were to reduce the physical aspect of the game, punish defending teams for physical play, to reward attackers for brilliant individual skills, promote more goals?

I do not understand how we could have acheived such a monumental cock up. Seriously it takes ability to screw up something so simple to the degree that we have.

Regarding the advantage rule. The rules should be, if there is no advantage to the attacking team to allow play to continue, then the ref should blow for the team foul.

If the foul is committed when the attacker is in a clear goal scoring opportunity ref should play the advantage, if no goal scored, ref should stop the game, award the team foul / DFH.

I personally do not understand how it can be so confusing or had to grasp.

I do not blame the ref's but the people who are issuing these directives.

They be laying the down the law as they see it.

If so, as someone famous once said: "IF THAT'S THE LAW, THE LAW IS AN ASS".

a gold star for 1st person who correctly identifies that famouns person.

Phil McVey
HBU

Phil

[daz]

Well put Phil.

Didn't Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist say something similar to 'IF THAT'S THE LAW, THE LAW IS AN ASS'?

[PhilMcVey]

Karl, Relax your skin. We are not having a pop at you. (Well I'm defintely not).

You can always wheel out the big Guns to explain. (I'm sure Ken has a view).

In the words of Kevin Keegan (whilst pointing a finger at the camera) "I'd love it, I'd absolutely love it", if anyone can respond to my earlier post (about 2 up from this one I think) and tell me where I'm wrong.

Phil

(Daz, you may well be right).

[/quote]

[stewart henderson]

Well that comment last night set the ball away!!

Couple of things though:-

Karl, I aint having a, as Phil says a "pop at you" . You are what the NRHA needs, some young blood instead of all these old relics!

What I am moaning about is the lack of direction and leadership so that these initial problems and interpretation can be nipped in the bud.

Surely it is alot easier and cheaper (no trailing down to a seminar etc etc)to answer these questions (and there are not that many of them) on this Public Forum that let us all continue singing off different hymn sheets!!!!
These relavant question have to be answered OFFICIALLY.

P.S. before the Boro match on Saturday night I did ask an Official a relavant question regarding the Interpretation of the Rules.
It is now 17:00 on Thursday night - I still await the answer!!!!!

[KarlWilson]

The rant wasn't directed at you two, more to the people who do have 'issues' with me.

Team Fouls:

They are fouls between minor fouls and blue cards, ie not every little tap where a player has missed the ball - but 'intenionally' going for the stick or pads. if there is enough force behind it, and no deffinate advantage, when the player just misses the ball you can still stop the game and give the team foul.

There are also more things that you should give a blue card for, such as:

[daz]

[PhilMcVey]

Karl,

I have a question for you.

Minor fouls are not tackles of any kind.
Team fouls are (in your / referees assoc opinion) are minor yellow card fouls)
Major fouls are blue & red cards.

What are normal fouls made in the course of tackling (if unintentional)?

As far as I can see fouls are split into 3 (not including technical fouls).
Minor / Team / Major.

A foul during open play must be designated as one of the three types.

Following to it's natural conclusion. You are saying if a foul is committed when tackling someone, and the attacker loses the ball, as long as it was unitentional (in the ref's opinion) then it is not a foul, and therefore you will not blow for a foul.

That must be what you are saying because you cannot award a minor foul, as minor fouls do not cover tackles of any kind during open play.

You cannot award a Team Foul because it was unitentional (in the eyes of the ref).

Therefore you cannot award a general foul, because they don't exist!!!!

Absolutely bonkers!!!!

A foul is a foul is a foul is a foul. Whether intentional or not.

P.s. No one has responded to my comments / questions in my earlier post. (about 5 above this one).

Phil McVey
HBU