Sat 4 Dec, 2004
|
|
|
|
WCT: Hockeyroos miss bronze in controversial fashion  x12
 |
| Australia |
November 14, 2004
ABC News via Yahoo! Australia & NZ News
> Page Views 562
Defending champions Australia have finished fourth at the Champions Trophy women's hockey tournament after losing to hosts Argentina in the play-off for bronze.
Two second half penalty corner goals handed the world champions a 3-2 victory after the Hockeyroos had led 2-1 at half-time, although the second was disputed by the visitors.
The Australian defenders claimed world player of the year Luciana Aymar's shot was too high, but the goal stood.
After the match, tournament officials conceded the goal was scored illegally, effectively denying theHockeyroos a chance to force extra-time.
"I've asked for an interpretation from the tournament umpire's manager and I haven't seen the replay," outgoing coach David Bell said.
"The umpires claim the shot at goal was a push and if it wasn't, it was a very bad decision.
"However, I am very proud of the young players who struggled for patches over the past five games.
"Tonight they showed what they are capable of. What they need to do now is be more consistent at this level. It would have been a great match for the spectators."
While Bell was denied a fairytale finish to his coaching career with the Hockeyroos, Argentina coach Sergio Vigil, also quitting, went out on a high.
He has seen his team fall behind to an eighth minute goal to Australia's Karen Smith, before Cecilia Rognoni equalised nine minutes later.
Suzie Faulkner edged the Hockeyroos ahead once again, converting from a penalty corner just before the break, before the Argentinians took control in the second half.
It was an improved performance by Australia, who had lost 5-1 to the same opponents in the round robin stages.
The Netherlands downed Germany 2-0 to take the gold medal, while earlier, China beat New Zealand 3-0 to claim fifth place.
Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
namelessderro
11-16-2004 5:51 am
|
Report this post
|
umpiring
You know what i find funny about this, after the indians lose a game in a controversial fashion they al demand that the umpires need to improve because they were robbed. But after this game which the convenors admitted later was wrongly won by argentina with a goal wrongely awarded they dont say a thing. And they say that the Europeans dont care about any of the other countrys
|
|
Interested
11-23-2004 2:33 am
|
Report this post
|
Argentina's Win
I read your note about how Arg wrongly won the Bronze over Australia - in actual fact that could be debated.
There is no arguement that the goal Aymar scored should never have been allowed, and this was a very poor umpiring decision.
However if you watch the game Aicega struck a Penalty Corner that dipped over the keeper and hit the top of the backboard and net that the umpire dissallowed.
This in fact is and should have been a goal.
Australia let themelves down - Rognoni's first goal was soft and poor keeping let it in.
The Aussies insist on running with the ball, where Argentina move the ball to each other very well.
They are a good team.
|
|
namelessderro
11-23-2004 11:48 pm
|
Report this post
|
Re: interested
interested can i ask you how much you know about hockey, because it sounds like that goal was illegal, the rule is that the ball must be backboard height when it crosses the line, if it was dipping and only hit the top of the backboard then that normally means it was above goal height as it crossed the line.
Ohh and how can you say that is the correct desicion when tournament convenours admitted after the match it was incorrect?
|
|
Crowey
11-24-2004 5:23 pm
|
Report this post
|
Backboard
nameless... I'm not sure about technicallity of at what height the ball should be at the goal-line, but what I do know is that I have NEVER had a goal disallowed off a shortcorner hit when its hit the backboard. (Not that I hit them, I'm on the receiving end!, and I hate those dipping hits as they are so much harder to save)
|
|
Interested
11-24-2004 7:45 pm
|
Report this post
|
Namelessderro
Yes you can ask how much I know about Hockey........
Your quote:
- Ohh and how can you say that is the correct desicion when tournament convenours admitted after the match it was incorrect?
Firstly I am referring to 2 different goals here - Aymars and Aicegas - 1 was allowed the other not allowed.
The TD's admitte Aymars was incorrect.
I know what the rule book reads, however the intrepretation is different.
Simply: The ball just has to hit the back board.
Crowey is correct in the intrepretation of the rule, they dip for a reason - because they are hard to save.
The reason the book reads this way is for a couple of reasons:
A: In some Countries "Backboard and Sideboard" are not words in their language.
B: There are goals out in parklands that do not have backboards or sideboards - how else would you be able to judge the height of the goal ?
C: In addition to this nobody can judge exactly the correct height as the ball crosses the line, it only makes it more difficult to umpire - this is why the intrepretation is for the ball to just hit the backboard.
You do not need to take my work for it - there are FIH Umpries/coaches/manager all around the world - go ask them !!!
|
|
namelessderro
11-24-2004 8:51 pm
|
Report this post
|
ok sorry i was wrong, i didnt actually see the goals so i cant really tell you what i think. Yeah I agree with you that normally if it hits the backboard its a goal, there is only one execption to this rule being the shots that 'lob' excessively crossing the line about 1m above ground.
Although in this case you are probably right to say that allowing the goal was correct, i admit when i was wrong and i apologise.
|
|
Ms V
11-25-2004 3:18 pm
|
Report this post
|
last namelessderro posting
Was this really namelessderro posting?
Sorry to reinforce the rules as they are read - however any elite hockey player will be able to tell you that to be legal, the travelling across the line must be 'at backboard height'. Only in school girl hockey in Aust, is this rule questioned, and not very often in the first grade competition. Just becuase a ball hits the backboard does NOT mean it is legal. Any Umpire of a decent ilk will be able to qutoe this rule. As for the comment that 'I know the rules but what about the interpretation', well I will repeat. Any Umpire of a decent ilk will know the rule and interpret it correctly. This is one of the reasons that the Ump will stand in so close to the play, and close to the back line, to judge at what height the ball crosses the line.
|
|
Crowey
11-26-2004 4:23 am
|
Report this post
|
I disagree
I'll admit that I've only been watching hockey seriously for the past 4 years or so, but in that time I've seen lot of Goundrey Cup matches, all of Perth's allotment of Thundersticks games, and as many of the touring team scratch matches I can; in those games I've seen some of the best umpires in Australia - and, so I hear, some of the best in the world.
And I repeat, I have NEVER (within the context of this discussion) seen a goal disallowed when its hit the backboard.
|
|
Ms V
11-26-2004 1:04 pm
|
Report this post
|
Nothing against you Crowey, but its great to hear from someone with such high credentials. What umpiring badge did you say you held? Sorry mate, but seriously, this type of thing happening is not all that common. And admitedly the more elite the game, the harder it is to pick. I'll admit that, because of the speed of the ball.
But unfortunately, this is what the rules state, and this is how they are interpreted. There are a number of rules such as this, that the large majority of players are not aware of. At this hour of the morning I am trying to recall but a few. Many, many players are not aware that they cannot hit the goalkeeper, even if they are trying to hit at the ball. If the ball gets stuck in the keepers pad... what's the call, what do you do?
These are a few off the top of my head. I am hoping someone else, perhaps an umpire of a high standard can ad to the list of rules that the large majority do not know about, therefore make assumptions on. Grab a rule book, see how you do!
|
|
Interested
11-26-2004 7:33 pm
|
Report this post
|
The above
Hi all
Sorry Mrs V, but Crowey is correct - we have 2 of the most highly credited people of umpiring in Australia here in WA (Prior & Grime) who were both at Athens and their view on this is the same as Crowey's and mine.
Don Prior was the Umpires Coach/Manager at Athens & part of his role is the correct interpretations of the rules to all the umpires.
The rule book is written for the Legalities of the sport - it is then umpired differently.
I would suggest that Crowey has watched these 2 umpire Goundry Cup and AHL over many years and if these 2 are doing it at FIH level, then the rules have to be around the mark.
|
|
namelessderro
11-27-2004 5:31 am
|
Report this post
|
umpire
Mrs V, I am a badged umpire in qld and i know what you mean, heaps of those rules go unnoticed. this is one of them, i have asked many internationally badged umpires including current no1 ranked female umpire in the world, Julie Ashton Lucy, and her answer was (almost word for word) "the actual way to umpire it is the height at which the ball crosses the line, but for 99% of calls if it hits the backboard its fine, the only thing you have to do is make sure your in position to see how high it hits the backboard, if it hits the top then you ask yourself how much it was dipping. If it was dipping quite significantly then it wouldnt hav crossed the line below backboard height. then its not a goal"
|
|
Ms V
11-30-2004 2:41 pm
|
Report this post
|
So what we are saying is that whilst the rule book does state that the ball must cross the line at backbaord height, that because of the speed of the ball and because our refs can't see it it is OK and they choose to 'interpret' the rules differently. I don't think so. What we ARE saying is that the rules stand as above - however because we cannot see the ball, the rule is not as heavily enforced because it cannot be.
These are two entirely different things indeed!!
What I have found in the past, is that when a adult who plays mabye first grade, and does mabye a bit of umpiring, coaches a school team or similar, that their own view of the rules as they see them from their own playing, effects the kids games. You cannot look at comparing the speed of an adults game, and applying literaly all interpretations on a kids game. One must ref by the correct rules as much as possible, and apply them to the kids understanding. Most often when kids don't understand, the ref will explain, and talk to them. Even so far as to speak to the coach after the game. They are not as eager to give cards, because most of the time kids don't deliberatly cause harm on the field.
The argument indeed, Interested, is debatable. Perhaps instead of ruling it as a wrong decision because the umpire couldn't see the ball, perhaps we do just shrug our shoulders and admit that this is a part of the game that we WILL try to rule on correctly, but that human failure comes into play. Frankly I would prefer not to have a 'third umpire' camera come into the game to rule on such goals, and accept that near enough could, in top level games, be good enough. You've got 90 min to play the game, forgive 3 sec.
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
