HOCKEY RULINGS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19700, 4 August 1938, Page 14

HOCKEY RULINGS

INDIAN INTERPRETATIONS SPIRIT OF THE PLAY VISITING MANAGER’S TALK KNOTTY OFF-SIDE PROBLEM. Indian interpretations of many hockey rulings were given at a gathering of umpires and players by Prolessor Jagan Nath, manager of the Manavadar Indian State hockey team in Messrs. Findlays’ tea rooms last night. ' Some knotty problems were discussed, particularly one concerning the off-side rule. The professor stated that the rules should be interpreted according to the spirit of the game and the motive of the players. The gathering was presided over by Tr. H. A. Armstrong, president of the Poverty Bay Hockey Association, ana also present were Mr. S. B. Browne, Wellington, representing the New Zealand Hockey Association. Introducing the professor, Mr. Armstrong said lie was a member of the International Hockey Federation, and was at one time secretary of one of the State federations. The professor said he felt that hockey rules should be applied and interpreted uniformly throughout the world, and it was a unique opportunity for him to do something in that ’ direction on the present tour. Ilockcv was a game to be played with a stick and a bail and not with any part of the body, for the rules of hockey did not allow body play. The hand or the foot could be used to stop the ball, but must be removed immediately. Wairoa Game Not Hockey If players went according to the spirit of 'the rules they would realise that the type of hockey in New Zealand was against it. The game in Wairoa could not be called hockey; it might have been called “dig-bdll.” Hockey could not be played except on a good ground. In New Zealand there was a lot of body play, the professor continued. Many players stopped the ball with the legs. ' Tiie rules did not allow that, and why should it not be penalised? he asked. Even in catching the ball, many players offended by knocking on. ■Rugby tactics, such as charging, were often used in this country. If the Indians were to use the same methods all the players would be injured in two matches, and none would remain for a third. So many New Zealand players received injuries because oi the type of play, but the Indians were seldom hurt, except for strained muscles. No body contact was allowed in hockey. iHockey was essentially a game of no contact. If players were trained from the very beginning to use their sticks, they would do so automatically. If players remembered the two essentials of no contact and playing with the stick, hockey would improve in New Zealand, as it was already improving. Keeping Hail in the Air In the discussion which followed these remarks, Mr. Armstrong said that hockey was essentially a game to be played on the ground, and he asked how was a player to be countered when he took the ball the length of the field keeping the ball in the air? The professor replied that it all depended on the definition of ground. In India the grounds were very fast, and there was no opportunity of a player taking the ball on his stick. In New Zealand with soft grounds, play on the ground was not always favourable, and players had to cover the ground somehow. If such play was thought to be dangerous, the umpire should blow his whistle. In Wairoa, the Maori boys were much stronger. than the Indians, he continued, and they pushed the ball through tiie mud. The rules allowed (lie ball to be hit in the air, but if it was likely to lead to dangerous play the umpire could stop it. Keeping' the ball in the air was not allowed in India, but an umpire must help players and allow them to adapt themselves to the conditions of the ground and umpires also must consider the type of player they were umpiring lor.

In reply to Mr. J. Henderson, the professor 'said that formerly hooking from above and below was allowed, and now hooking from below only was permitted. Major Turnbull, an

English hockey writer, believed that the stick might be placed only passively on the ground under the stick of the opponent, but hooking, in the professor's opinion, was permissible. Hooking, however, must not be confused with striking, holding, or pulling, which were not allowed. The Offside Rule To Mr. R. J. Surgenor, the professor said that lie would not take any action against a player who gave “sticks” in the middle of the field or for a free hit if tire offence was not a bad one. So long as the game was not dangerous, he would not object to slight “sticks.” An animated discussion took place on a knotty point of off-side rule, and varying opinions were expressed by many present, on the position of a player, say, a wing, who ran from his own half after the ball was hit by one of his own side into the opposing half of the field. One portion of the meeting held that the wing would be off-side if the ball glanced off the stick of an opnosing back before the wing received it, if the wing had fewer than three opponents in front of him at the moment, while others took the opposite view. The

professor ruled that the wing would he off-side under such circumstances. To Mr. Henderson, the professor said a scoop could not be made from a free hit or penalty corner, but the push stroke could be used so long as the ball rolled on the ground, not raised. A fluke shot could be played to any height in the ordinary play so long as it was not leading to dangerous play. At the close, the professor was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.