HOCKEY N.Z. Association Asks I.H.F. For Ruling On “Sticks”

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28766, 11 December 1958, Page 7

HOCKEY N.Z. Association Asks I.H.F. For Ruling On “Sticks”

The New Zealand Hockey Association is to ask the International Hockey Federation in Paris to give further consideration to the ••sticks” rule. At a meeting of the association’s management committee last evening a suggested draft of a letter to the federation, compiled by Mr C. C. Holland, was adopted. The letter criticises the present instructions in regard to the rule. The letter to the federation seeks the “sticks” rule to be applied as it is written. The international rule as written is clear; but, when it is read in conjunction with the suggestions to umpires, it is by no means clear, states the letter.

“The opinion expressed virtually recommends umpires to ignore the rule, except in special cases, and this is considered bad in principle," says the letter. “Surely a governing body should either recommend that its rules be observed or take steps to have them altered. In this rule, the suggestions to umpires make the decision as to whether or not an action should be penalised very much a matter of opinion.” It seemed this placed -a big responsibility upon an umpire, and one which it could be impossible to carry out fairly when two umpires were officiating, says the letter. “Games have been won, and lost, through varying interpretations of the ‘sticks’ rule.”

Ambiguous Meanings The federation’s opinion as published used the phrase “repeatedly commit sticks.” The suggestions to umpires used “persistent offender,” Both had similar meanings, but the

important thing was that both were relative and indefinite, says the let-.

ter. “How many times must a player offend before he is regarded as being persistent or as repeatedly committing an offence? Is an umpire’s knowledge of a player from previous games to be taken into account in deciding the question of repetition, or does the player commence each game with a clean record? Does an umpire take notice of a player’s action in the half of the ground not immediately under his control? . . “The interpretation appears to lack logic,” continues the letter. “Apparently a defender defending his goal may give sticks with impunity, but an opponent attacking it will be penalised if he hits the ball into the net. A player is to be penalised

if he gains an advantage. How does an umpire decide whether or not the player has gained an advantage? “Your statement that the rule was designed to prevent dangerous play is entirely correct. The rule has stood the test of time and it is suggested with respect that your federation give further consideration to this problem with the idea of recommending that the rule be applied as written." says the letter. "In doing so. you would assist in keeping the game safe and at the same time place a premium on skill rather than hard hitting.” Pakistan Tour Refused I Because the association's policy is not to accept an overseas tour before 1960 unless the terms are especially favourable, an offer by the Afghan Sports Club of Pakistan to send a team of first-class Pakistani players to New Zealand next year was not accepted at a meeting of the management committee of the New Zealand Hockey Association last evening. He considered the question now was whether New Zealand really wanted an overseas tour, said the chairman (Mr J. G. Leggat). "Considering the thrashing associations got with the last Pakistan tour, and the views expressed at our last annual meeting, X don t think we would have much support if we accepted this tour," said Mr C. A. Rogers. "When we met difficulty with a Pakistan national team, what is going to happen with a Pakistan club team?” It was decided to write to the club pointing out that New Zealand did not fee) disposed towards a tour by the club until after the 1960 Olympic Games.