Olympic hockey medal a contemptible bauble?

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31975, 30 April 1969, Page 11

Olympic hockey medal a contemptible bauble?

AT the present time there is more clamour than glamour in New Zealand hockey. Once every four years a small number of the world's players assemble at some venue or other, where a considerable proportion of them, but not all, indulge in a free-for-all, of a hooligan nature which makes the rules unnecessary and the umpires redundant. Unfortunately many umpires, whose lack of guts almost makes the honest players weep, accept the situation. At least these umpires get an overseas trip, even though their attitude denies them a dollop of glory Such is the more publicised aspect of Olympic hockey. The latest voice to utter the clarion call for one more nation to retire from the dwindling ranks of those who flirt with the game's inherited skills is that of I.

Free, an Auckland leftback. He wants more zest and drive, and he virtually endorses the report of the Olympic coach that there should be a considerable relaxation in the application of the left-side tackle rule. This report also stated that certain members of the 1968 Olympic team lacked intestinal fortitude, and conveyed the impression that some of the more skilful players in our hockey might become more rugged if they received less protection from annoying encumbrances like rules and conscientious umpires. The hue-and-cry makes little reference to other matters which most certainly affected New Zealand's chances at Mexico. The composition of the team was faulty, it was not adequately prepared before it left New Zealand with regard to tactics. its faults arising from

this omission were not corrected at Mexico, its programme in Mexico before the official matches started loaded it with fatigue, and in the course of its matches some key players had too great a burden imposed upon them. Perhaps the current wailing about “parlour hockey” and the exhortations to mayhem are intended to distract attention from these many serious errors!

In order to emphasise his point Free is obliged to misinterpret what he calls a particular type of New Zealand hockey. It is not true that attacks on the right side of the field are regarded as the sole avenue of advance, nor that possession at all costs involves slow progress. He appears to be quite ignorant of the theories which arise from possession of the ball and their application to varying situations. His confusion on the question of the leftside tackle is as profound.

He asserts that a tackle from the left is a definite skill. For once he is right, and it is the intention of the rule and the good umpire that it shall remain so, and that it shall not degenerate into the crude barging and primitive body-play which its abuse produces.

The rule permits this type of tackle tn certain circumstances. and the skilful player accepts the rule, the circumstances and the tackle. Our best umpires, by applying the rule correctly. do not eliminate leftside tackling, but they do prevent its boring, bruising degeneration. In this way they protect the skilful player and they encourage skill.

Any suggestion that a player who has concentrated on developing skill is thereby lacking in speed and vigour is both absurd and harmful to a game of vast potential skill. The most skilful players in New Zealand at the present time are no less determined, no less dedicated, no less swift

and no less effective than Free. Perhaps the selection of the next New Zealand Olympic team should be confined to those players who operate in those areas where umpires pay scant regard to the left-side tackle rule, because there are many of these umpires around. Perhaps the skilful players should be omitted. Where, oh where, will all this nonsense end? It will certainly produce a nation of hit-and-run bargers being bowled off the ball by vigorous “manly” defenders, low scoring matches, umpires with blank score cards and no whistles, and a further decline In the number of players in the “game that grows.” The place of the absent spectators will be filled by the growing army of ambulance officials, and there will be a brisk trade in shin pads, thigh pads and chest protectors. So attractive will the game become that the secondary school teacher who took his team off the field a season or two ago will discover that he has set a popular precedent—if there are any schoolboys left who can be bothered with it all.

This pathetic attack on skill in the name of injecting “zest and drive" into the game, this hinting that hockey played skilfully is unmanly by labelling it a “parlour game," is an insult to the Intelligence of players who apply their intelligence and their talents to skill and who scorn mayhem.

It is high time that New Zealand joined forces with those countries who play clean hockey, and encouraged those umpires who take the rules seriously, apply them, and stand no nonsense from the louts. For there were such teams and such umpires at the 1968 Olympics.

If the rough stuff is the way to an Olympic medal, what a contemptible bauble it must be!