Details of Risks and Proposed Solutions for Rules of Hockey
In regard to my campaign for safe rules for Hockey, particularly in schools, people are asking what are the rules that need changing and why? If you are interested here is a break down.
The rules of Hockey are complicated and necessarily so to protect people from a number of seriously dangerous features of the game.
The Hazards
The Ball. The ball in Hockey is very hard, it travels extremely fast around the same speed as a top fast bowler in cricket, only in hockey the direction of attack is not known in advance, the player facing the ball is not padded and protected with a helmet and can defend themselves only with a stick half the size of a cricket bat.
The Sticks. These have a longer reach and hence interference zone than those in most other bat and ball sports, they are wielded in the same area as the opponent, on the move and are armed with an area known as a ‘blade’ at the furthest end of the swing.
The Pitch. This is firm and unforgiving and in cold weather is can be rigidly hard, it is also highly abrasive.
The Goal Keeper. This is a player granted special privileges in the rules to allow them to defend the goal. The privileges allow extremely protective light weight armour to be worn, because the other features of the game are so dangerous whilst defending the goal. However when other players are drawn into the goal to defend it (which was never intended by the original rule makers) they are not afforded this protection. This is the only game I know of where one player is so disproportionately protected. Collision with a goalkeeper is insignificant to the keeper but can be extremely hazardous to the unprotected player, particularly as keepers tend to tackle by taking the legs out from under fast running attackers who are polaxed in the process.
Other Field Players. In most sports this is actually the greatest danger, in hockey it is a danger, however the rules have been very effective in preventing player on player contact until recently and hence this is probably the lowest of the risks listed here.
The Goal Structure. Whilst made of hardened aluminium this is not fixed to the ground and hence would move on impact, so whilst a threat to safety, the danger is less than it might be.
The Vulnerabilities
The most vulnerable parts of the player are
a) the head,
b) the throat and
c) the spine (including the neck)
These need the greatest degree of protection in the rules.
Risk Management
Sensible rules limit, as far as possible ,the potential for impact between the vulnerable areas on the player and any of the hazards listed above.
Proposals
So here are the rules that I believe need work:
• The backhand edge shot should be treated in the same way and with parity in the rules as the far less dangerous forehand edge shot. The rules have for many years outlawed the forehand edge shot on the basis that it is too dangerous and yet has allowed the back-hand version which is far more dangerous and impossible to tackle safely. The result is that players are deliberately switching the ball to the reverse side so as to make it dangerous for opponents to tackle them as they take a shot.
• The Rule which prevented players form being able to bounce the ball on the face of the stick upwards and potentially into the faces of opposing players, making safe tackling almost impossible, should never have been removed and should be reintroduced.
• The rule which prevented players playing at balls above shoulder height should be reintroduced and indeed strengthened, limiting playing of balls in the air to only in the safe zone below knee height.
• The rule defining what is dangerous play, which used to specify that a ball was generally safe only below knee height, should be restated in that old manner and indeed made a firm rule that any ball within playing distance of a player which is above knee height should be considered dangerous or likely to lead to danger play and hence be penalised.
• The rule which used to require goalkeepers not to behave in a fashion which was not possible if not protected should be reintroduced. Or the rule which used to specify that all players (hence including goalkeepers) and which now exempts goalkeepers, but states that players can only tackle in a manner which does not cause contact between players or their sticks (or protective equipment – in the case of a keeper) needs to be rebalanced to prevent keepers from tackling dangerously within the rules.
• The rule which used to specify that players were not allowed to stand near to the goal should be reintroduced and strengthened so as to provide a marked exclusion zone around the goal in which only the keeper can stand, unless the ball is in the area first. This rule is necessary to counteract the effects of the removal of offside, which caused players (both attackers and defenders) to gravitate towards the dangerous area of the goal at times when players are striking at the goal.
• The penalty corner rules should specify that unprotected outfield defenders should start, as is the case in the indoor game, outside of the goal (hence out of the line of shot) and should specify that if defenders run across or into the line of shot and imped the progress of the ball with their bodies it will result in a penalty stroke. The former part moves the unprotected player out of the danger zone and the latter part is designed so as not to reward unsafe behaviour and therefore to discourage, rather than encourage, it.
These rule changes would effectively reduce the dangers in the game, repairing the risk status to much more as it was 25 years ago and I would be happy for my children, and me, to return to the sport.
Another solution for much of these issues, which could be applied in schools where astroturf is available, is to play indoor hockey rules outdoors. The main differences being
a) no hitting of the ball and
b) no lifting of the ball, other than in shots at goal.
I have played games under these rules and they are great fun and much safer than standard outdoor hockey.
One might also look to improve safety through the following measures:
• Reduce congestion in the shooting circle and surrounding area with use of the three-out rule [three players from each team must always be outside their own 23m area] which was tested internationally with much success in the late 90s and early millennium period.
• Reintroducing the old style long corner [similar to a penalty corner but taken 5m in from the corner (rather than edge of the circle as in the penalty corner) on the backline] in place of fouls within 5m of the circle, would likely reduce congestion and conflicts in the area of the 23m but outside the circle.
• Finally introducing a specification outlawing one-touch shooting direct from free hits would remove the danger of crash balls and deflection shots and allow the repealing of the rule which currently prohibits direct passes into the shooting circle from free hits in the 23m area, which has proved so hard to understand, enforce and leads to repeated entrenchment and conflict in the 23m area as well as requiring umpires to judge consistently and fairly when a ball has moved 5m following a free hit – something even the best umpires find impossible to do.
There are also administrative changes which go hand in hand with these which would improve flow and implementation but I shall not bore you with these.
I am not claiming that all of these have to be implemented, though I know from my own testing that they all work and are effective in reducing danger significantly. However all should be play tested by the rule setters – something they have refused to do – mainly I believe because they feel to do so would amount to an admission of having got things wrong in the past (though they describe them as ‘a step backwards’). Nevertheless the implementation of any of these safety measures would be helpful and the alternative of ignoring the issue is in my view at best plain irresponsible and at worst criminal neglect.
If you want to see the rules that I have tested and which could be used – go to:
Safe Rules for Schools Hockey 