Talk:Field hockey

Template:0.7 set nom Regarding the introduction, I'm not sure whether field hockey is that much more common than ice hockey in Korea. I'm Korean, and I've often wondered myself which sport Koreans think of when they hear the word "hockey". It might even be that more people think of ice hockey when they hear the word, in spite of the fact that our field hockey teams are infinitely better than our ice hockey teams. Or it may just be because my high school was an ice-hockey-playing school. For now I'll add Korea alongside Germany there... --Iceager 10:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think trying to identify the finer points of language usage in Korean, Hindi, Urdu, Dutch, German, Afrikaans, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and so on is kind of getting irrelevant to the article, so I restated the original point. The Korean usage would be very relevant to the Korean-language Wikipedia, of course.

By the way, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi! :)--Robert Merkel 10:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here Here, go aussie

---

I removed the bit about it being the Indian and Pakistani national sport. By any sensible definition, cricket is the national sport of both countries, as anybody from a fellow cricket-playing nation who has spent 30 seconds talking to a citizen of either country would know. They are not that strong in international competition either since the widespread introduction of synthetic fields in the 1980's. --Robert Merkel 22:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this should of been removed. In Pakistan and India the most popular sport may be cricket, but its offical national sport is field hockey. I think the offical definition of a national sport overides that of a sensible one. 123.255.60.145 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a reference to support the assertion. David Underdown 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much and search of Google for "National Sport of India" will produce field hockey, like here[1] and here[2] and here for Pakistan[3], I just can't find any proper reference.

The title 'Field Hockey' will avoid the problem of those only interested in ice-hockey making 'hits' on the article and then, probably, complaining about others wasting their time, but using Field Hockey as a title excludes indoor hockey - 'indoor field hockey' is an absurdity (there may be an indoor field surface for hockey but I don't know of one).

Hockey (field); Hockey (indoor); Hockey (roller); Hockey (street) and Hockey (ice), if there isn't a seperate article for Ice Hockey might be workable; it is at least a systematic approach. ZigZag (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What about some kind of history

I think it lacks a kind of history: Persian origin, big evolution of the rules (I remember, my grand-father used to throw the ball with the hand the put the ball back into to the pitch !), introduction and spreading of synthetic fields, ... I will start something that way, if everybody agrees. Any ideas welcomed. Lvr 08:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitely, though be careful about claiming an exclusively Persian origin; I believe there were a number of similar games in a number of cultures throughout history and dating to prehistoric times. I'd also suggest you add a seperate section on "history and rules evolution" to avoid cluttering up the description of how the game is played today with too many digressions on how the game was played in the past (except in a few rare cases where the information might be helpful). Anyway, great idea and I look forward to working with you on this. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will begin with some kind of separated page to avoid confusion while working. Do not hesitate to check my spelling. However, don't expect to have something quickly. As mentionned on my page, I'm a slow paced wikipedian ! Lvr 15:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have written the first two chapters of history, at Field hockey history. Do not hesitate to rephrase my poor English. Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Field Hockey" page history

They are a couple of stuff that were removed from this page:

• a diagram of the pitch,
• links to other wiki

Why has this been removed. Shouldn't it be convenient to bring it back. See: this old page. Lvr 16:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why they were removed, they shouldn't have been, I've added them back in again, it isn't hard to add in again, and next time just be bold and do it yourself!

I was wondering about some copyright problems (for the image at least) ! Lvr 10:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As the image description page says, I created it and placed it into the public domain. --Robert Merkel 13:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll be bolder next time ! Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other "would be nice" topics

I have plan to add a section with

• the leading countries. I should not change too often !
  • Added - need to start work on getting web links for each one, and possibly where there's enough info, content about hockey in each country - for instance it would be quite easy in the big players, as you can show league info etc? Nunners 10:15, 12 Jun 2006 (UTC)
• indoor hockey (If somebody has facts about latter issue (such countries where it is played, national competitions, ...), I'll be glad to have them).
• international hockey - list of current rankings, tournaments etc? Nunners 09:15, 12 Jun 2006 (UTC)
• Other things that are missing ???

Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've put in a proposal to create a hockey portal - that way we can get all the hockey articles into one format etc. If anyone has any suggestions, then lets all get our minds together and work it through! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:Field_Hockey Cheers Nunners --Nunners 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Summer Sport Category

I removed this Summer Sport Category. I guess it depends of the general weather of each country. Here in Central Europe, we won't play hockey during the summer because it's too hot ! We play it in automn, winter (except for a few weeks) and lent. Lvr 09:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. That category is misconceived anyway as I've argued at length, and I've placed in on Categories for deletion. --Robert Merkel 12:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Dominant Sport??

Hi there,

i am from northern ireland and i am a keen player of the sport.I have been playing since I was very young along with my family who also play. My brother and I have got to a good standard,my brother represented ireland and under age levels and i got a trial for under 16. But the sport here takes a back seat to other sports like rugby and I feel that when I have watched my brother play against teams like the dutch, spanish and germans that they are far superior and wonder is this due to hockey being a popular sport or that the players are just simpply better and have good coaching from a young age? Jc22 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hockey is very popular in the Netherlands, as far as I can say. Lvr 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

While hockey's not a "dominant sport" anywhere in the world it seems to be most popular in those countries that you mention, as well as Australia, India, and Pakistan. By the law of averages the best players from a larger pool will tend to be better than those from a smaller pool, all other things being equal. In addition, those nations you mention have strong leagues where the best players play against each other regularly and are expertly coached. Finally, they spend money developing their very, very best players for international competition. So the answer to your question is probably "yes", to both popularity and better coaching. --Robert Merkel 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Spain or South Korea or Malaysia

I agree with 155.69.5.235 modification to replace South Korea by Spain. In the FIH ranking for September 2005, Spain is 4th (men) en 10th (women), while Korea is 7th (men), 9th (women). I reput Spain instead of South Korea, which is already listed further in the artile. Lvr 09:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Malaysia, please check the above FIH rankink link: Malaysia is merley 14th in the world for men and is not ranked in 12 first nations for women ! If we include Malaysia, we should include beforehand other countries like South Korea, Poland, ... even my own Belgium !

External link for Stick History

This external link has been moved to the field hockey history article. Please don't add it here again. Lvr 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Metrification and field of play

The conversion to metric units is slightly more complicated than given here. The dotted line is 5m from the circle line, not 5 yards (4.55m), similarly new pitches, or remarking of existing pitches, is supposed to give the attacker's and defender's PC marks being 5m and 10m from the inside of the goal posts, rather than 5 and 10 yards, and the long corner mark is 5m from the backline. Also the marks 5m from the sidelines on the 23m lines and centre lines are no longer required. See pages 14-17 of the FIH Rules of Hockey I'm not sure how best to word this (which is why I haven't edited it), perhaps something along the lines of units were originally in whole numbers of yards, these have generally been changed to the exact metric equivalents, with the exception of some 5 and 10 yard distances which have been increased to exactly 5 and 10 metres

I think the best way of wording this is to give the actual and offical measures instead of the old ones and to update the picture. I think to mention the change in this page is not relevant. Only the latest rules should be described here. The rules modifications should be mentionned in the second section of the field hockey history page. This is still in a list state, but we are trying to get enough valuable data before writing something neat.

I can cope with modifying the picture if Robert Merkel (who did the original drawing) doesn't do it. Lvr 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see an anonymous user has removed the imperial measurements, but not changed the preceding paragraph that refers to them, which makes a bit of a mockery of it, plus it now uses the word "times" when describing the dimensions, rather than × which looks ugly in my opinion (i.e. using ht eword rather than the character is ugly). David Underdown 11:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous play

As an umpire I can see no justification for the 3m distance given for deciding on dangerous play on shots at goal, the only references in the rulebook are to 5m. I've not edited immediately as the whole concept of danger as related to shots on goal can get a bit heated, as can be seen on any of the hockey web forums. David Underdown

Please edit appropriately. I'm not up on the latest interpretations; my understanding as a fullback has been if I'm anywhere near the goals forward are free to regard me as a target :/ --Robert Merkel 11:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that's precisely the idea that causes most of the arguments on the talk boards, there are those who say that the defender accepts any danger by standing on or around the goal line, and those that find that rather hard to square with how the dangerous play rules are actually written. Anyway, the main point was that the only "cut-off" distance mentioned is 5m, e.g. "If a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded.

If a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal and is struck above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team."

Still not entirely sure how to edit it without heading towards POV. I'll think about it some more. Just realised I hadn't signed this originally, or above comment. David Underdown

Well, since an anon had made some changes to this anyway, I have made a few changes myself now. In doing so, I've also realised that we don't currently explain what a hit, push etc are and the differences between them, don't want to end up copying large chunks of the rules though. David Underdown 16:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that 5m is a "cut-off" distance for 'dangerous' when a ball is propelled by one player at another. The guidance to the rule, (which specifically relates to a shot at goal at a penalty corner but has been generally adopted within the game in open play and in all parts of the field), states that a ball lifted to above knee height and from within 5m of the player at which it is propelled, will certainly be dangerous, but that does not mean that a ball that is played from beyond 5m. cannot be judged to be dangerous: legitimate evasive action remains the determining criteria.

If the umpire judges that evasive action was necessary to avoid injury, then the player taking that action (or attempting to) has been endangered. Basically, if the umpire is of the opinion that a ball has been played dangerously at another player, then it has been played dangerously, even if propelled from beyond 5m of the player it endangers. The umpire is the sole judge of the matter, be the ball propelled from within 1m or from beyond 14m (i.e. from within the circle-line to the goal line).

Further, a ball that is lifted high over a considerable distance 30m - 40m or more, which may fall on the position of players who were close together at the time the ball was lifted, may be judged to be a dangerously played ball; in some circumstances that will lead to a free-ball being awarded at the place the ball was lifted, as the place where the danger was caused, and in others a free-ball (or other penalty) may be awarded at the place the ball fell or was falling. The possibility of a dangerously played ball is not "cut-off" at an arbitrary 5m 'limit', that minimum distance for 'certainly dangerous' is not a maximum distance for 'dangerous in the opinion of the umpire', the umpire is not limited or confined in that way. ZigZag (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I prevent part of my posts sometimes appearing in the edit summary box even when I put reason for the post in that box? ZigZag (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I never said that a ball more than 5m away couldn't be dangerous - I only used that word - in quotes to highlight the dubious nature of it - because an even more bizarre statement was previously in the article. There is no need to go through this page and reply to every single old conversation, most of which are long since resolved. David Underdown (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that POV David?. On a hockey forum we can at least assume some knowledge of the subject from contributors (except perhaps when they are in their early teens). An encyclopedia may be merely a comparative reference for those playing other sport or not involved in sport at all.

I put my previous contribution up in the discussion page for some days before placing it in the article because I found previous contributions deleted. My experience has been that even well accepted practice in hockey is considered POV and (wrongly)even a criticism of existing rule because of the way it is phrased rather than because of the facts stated.

What aspect of the 5m "cut off" is resolved? Sorry to be late to the subject of the article but I will go through any page in any subject that I choose to and make additions or alterations where I feel that to be appropriate. I have never gone along with the theory that the first speaker is correct or right or even that they are telling the truth, in many instances it is obviously not so. You were kind enough to remove my "excessive and unnecessary use of italics" in a previous post (POV? But thanks) I have corrected your spelling of 'dubious'.92.14.47.81 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article need not cover every nuance of hockey, it's here to provide an overview. My criticism of the formatting was based on the Manual of Style. Whilst the content of articles may be editted "mercilessly" as the notes of the bottom of the edit window point out, it's considered bad form to edit others' talkpage posts, see WP:TALK. Phrasing like "while not perfect" as you initially used immediately begs the question "by whom?" which is a perfect example of introducing a non-neutral point of view into an article - if such criticism can be attributed to a reliable thrid party source, then that's fine, but it really need to come from an acknowledged expert. If we could write something like (for example) "in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Ric Charlesworth described the current wording of the dangerous play rule as being flawed because...", that would be fine. Just because velocity is not explicitly mentioned, does not mean that umpires do not take it into account when decided whether evaisve action was necessary/legitimate. David

Underdown (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief David, you and I both know that the rules governing the dangerously lifted ball are far from perfect: as an NPHL umpire you could 'validate' that comment. Although I have not the level of experience of Charlesworth, I too have been an international hockey coach, as well as an umpire and know enough about the application of the rules of hockey to make valid comment on a talk page. Charlesworth has been outspoken in his criticism of the rules about the lifted ball but I feel that his article, which I could no doubt find, would not fit well into a general article about hockey, even as a reference it might just cause confusion among those not very familiar with the game.

I feel that if you did not know me very well through the various hockey fora where we have exchanged views you would not have bothered with these 'corrections'. There are certainly more glaring errors than mine in the article and I note that you have previously written that you do not have time to make structured contribution to it - but you have time to waste 'correcting' me even though you know I was correct.

I bow to your instructions concerning the use of italics.ZigZag (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We can say what we like here on the talk page - though it should be directed toward improving the article, rather than general chit-chat, but to go in the article it must be verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. I've tried to keep on top of "glaring errors" but it's perfectly possible things have slipped through - it's easier to audit things as they are added due to the "diff2 functionality, once there embedded in the article it takes more effort to proof-read the whole thing, and particularly to do a wholesale restructure. The real problem when it comes to trying to improve this article in the direction of being recognised as a Good or better still, Featured article is the relative dearth of authorative published works on hockey (especially of recent vintage). That compared with the paucity of media coverage of the sport makes the verfiication a difficult point, whatever you or I may know ourselves (and note that I'm only a county umpire, not national league). I know who you are, or at least I can assume I do, based on your username - if you think about it I have no real way of being certain of the point, but a newbie coming to the article would not. If there was press coverage out there quoting you as an international coach that would also be fine (though the conflict of interest guidelines would dictate that you didn't introduce it to the article yourself). David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have come across the verification problem in an article in another area David and all I can do there is to take the time to go through that article and strip out all that I see as unverifiable - which will improve it but not add anything to it - and will be a complete waste of time.

In this article, which is far less emotive, there is as you say not a great deal that is useful published (in fact I would argue with much of what is published) and certainly a reading of the rules gives little insight into the application of them, which is what I was trying to do: so we are 'up the creek without a paddle'

I am the ZigZag that you will also have known as Conundrum on the now defunct HockeyWeb forum and the FHF, the one who invented that peculiar stick and thinks elbow height should be used as a limiting height for a lifted hit in the outfield and for a drag flick at a penalty corner (among sixty-four other changes)- and if that information in addition to my writing style hasn't identified me, IM me at TalkingHockey and I will respond. ZigZag (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I happy in my own mind that I know who you are, but the point that I was tryign to make is that for Wikipedia purposes it doens't really matter. Anyhting we write here we have to be able to back up by published sources - ragardless of what we ourselves may "know" about a given topic, and however much of an expert we can justifiably claim to be. David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay David I misunderstood this "I know who you are, or at least I can assume I do, based on your username - if you think about it I have no real way of being certain of the point,.." as uncertainty. So where do we go from here? Not much is verifiable from published sources outside of the Rules of Hockey and Umpires Briefing except perhaps what David Whittaker, Ric Charlesworth, Horse Wein, John Gawley and various journalists have written - and much of that is opinion. Where do we start? At the moment much of the article seems to be put together by American High School or College students who are unfamiliar with FIH rules and the application of them and who have perhaps never played or seen hockey played on any surface except natural grass - a distant memory at most levels of european hockey. ZigZag (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth looking a step back and looking at the Association football article, and any other sport articles which have bee rated as Featured Articles - what have they got that this article hasn't? Is this article structured in a similar way, and going into similar level of detail. Remmber that this is really only supposed to be an overview - we can't hope to cover every nuance of the rules. What sources are available to us, other than the FIH and NGB websites, the rulebook, briefings and so on. Do any additional sources qualify as reliable sources? David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Popularity?

"Field Hockey is the second most played sport worldwide after football/Soccer"

Is this really true? I've never seen it on tv, and I personally know only one person who plays it... a source would be nice. - Jacen Aratan 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It was unverified, and I'm skeptical as well (I'd think tennis and golf would be amongst the most popular participant sports, particularly in the developed world). So I removed it. That said, I gather you're from Denmark. Denmark is the world's 57th-ranked hockey nation, behind such powerhouses as Gibraltar and Zimbabwe. So just because you've never heard much about it doesn't mean it's not a bigger deal elsewhere. I don't suppose Australian rules football is a big deal in Denmark either. --Robert Merkel 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked to the guy how wrote that sentence to give me his sources, but I haven't received any answer yet ! So you did well . Lvr 09:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am from England and Hockey is very popular in my school, the sport is underestimated and should be given more of a chance to shine. p.s i have seen it on t.v a lot, not just major events i.e Olympic games

---

I believe it would be more accurate to say it is the team sport (or even field team sport) with the second largest number of participants worldwide. I doubt that as many people play hockey as play, for example, golf or go fishing (if that is always considered a sport) and certainly fewer than run or swim as a sporting activity.

There is always a difficulty about including what people do casually for relaxation rather than as part of an organised competitive sport within a club (and league) structure and also about including in participation figures the activities of those still at school but not active in outside clubs registered with and in some sort of association. For a proper comparison it is necessary to know what participation is included in the figures given for other team field sports such as cricket and rugby.ZigZag (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any justification at all for suggesting hockey is the field team sport with the second largest number of participants worldwide? Surely this needs a source. Is hockey really more popular than basketball/baseball/netball/cricket/rugby/american football/rounders/volleyball worldwide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.244.18 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Penalty corner section

I call a penalty corner a short corner does anyone else?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.100.89 (talk • contribs) .

In the Belgium, we call it "PC" for "Penalty Corner" or "Petit Corner" (in French "Short Corner"). Thus yes, we call it this way too. But Penalty Corner, is the most common name for it. Lvr 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I call it a short corner but the correct technical name is a penalty corner. Does anyone think that there will be any cahnges to the rules about drag flicking a short corners? (JP Hoogma work)

Well they can't really change the rules regarding Drag Flicks because technically, Drag Flicks are push shots, and are legal to go anywhere in the goal. RandomGuy7 11:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the FIH will make a rule change in the near future regarding the height or legality of a drag flick. I mean, the FIH has to consider the factor that the sport has to be appealing to the tv audience for it to get any time on air, and the penalty corner has become a exciting part of any national or international match from a spectators point of view -123.255.60.69 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules board can change the rules if they feel like it, as they did about a decade ago when they got rid of the offside rule. --Robert Merkel 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Flicks of any sort are not technically push shots and drag-flicks are not necessarily made only during a shot at goal or during a penalty corner. The definitions section of the Rules of Hockey defines a push and a flick separately and differently. A flick stroke lifts the ball off the ground a push stroke does not.ZigZag (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

-We call it a PC in New Zealand; short corner gets confused with long corner because people just hear 'corner' and PC is quicker to say. -A flick is "a push which raises the ball off the ground", quote Terminology section of the Rulebook, so technically yes, it is a push. -It would be silly of the HRB to not allow dragflicks at PCs since they're one of the most exciting and awesome skills in the game. The only reason hockey doesn't get airtime on TV is because the broadcasters don't realise how many people would actually watch it.Nij90 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Playing countries

It seems to me that having the complete list of countries in this article unbalances it a bit. Perhaps it would be better added to the FIH article, or adopt an approach similar to that of football (soccer) and have an equivalent of List of national football teams. David Underdown 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, I Agree - it was jsut a first attempt, and I'll try and clean everything up as I go along this week - I'm also trying to get much more content in general on here anyway - see suggestions above.--Nunners 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Zulu Start?

I note that there's no information about the tradition of the 'Zulu Start' in hockey, that being where the game is started by placing the ball on the centre spot and having each goalkeeper run from their goal to hit the ball. Not used in professional hockey anymore, I believe, but certainly popular on tours and at local level. Dangerous, mind !

R.

This should be a local tradition ! I've been playing hockey through Europe for many years and I've never seen this ! Lvr 13:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does happen on tours, I think I even participated in one when playng in the Banks tournament in Barbados a few years back. I'm not sure it's really notable enough for inclusion. Since in some variants it involves the keepers starting from the "wrong" end of the pitch it is probably technically against the rules anyway, David Underdown 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's certainly a wide-spread tradition; and after all, it's not as if informal leagues in any sport always follow strict rules.

other interesting local starts

In the 1970's, field hockey was sweeping the Canadian prairies, one school at a time. At one point, someone in Birtle [4](a small town in Manitoba) introduced the game to her students. Relying on the rule book, the new field hockey players commenced the game by striking sticks in a wild rural way - about 3 feet above the ball! This method became known as the "Birtle Bully".

Nations

I'm not sure what i want form for nations name in tournament page. Should i type "Spain" only, or type "Spain national field hockey team", just like soccer. Think about it and have a good answers for me. Thank you. --Aleenf1 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PHF web page

As per my edit summary, I don't think we should be linking to individual national federations from this article, there are over a hundred federations, and we can't include all of them. Links from this page ought to stick at the FIH page, as the overall body for hockey, and links to sites about hockey in general. Why not create an article about the Pakistan Hockey Federation and put the link there, in the same way that there is an article on England Hockey which link sto its webpage. David Underdown 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree ! Lvr 10:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So did they apparently since we now have Pakistan Hockey Federation. However, most of it seemed like a cut and paste job from the history page of the website... I've had a go at cleaning it up (both from the copyright point of view, and removing some of the more tortured english), but perhaps you'd like to cast an eye over it too? David Underdown 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Member nations

Isi't suitable to put member nations in this article? In my opinion, it is more suitable to put in International Hockey Federation article. --Aleenf1 09:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. Mariano(t/c) 09:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, see comments a bit further up (Talk:Field hockey#Playing countries. But I've never got round to doing anything about it. If you have the time, feel free. David Underdown 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hockey / Field Hockey

Shouldn't it be mentioned near the beginning of the article that the sport actually seems to be called just 'Hockey'?

In the International Hockey Federation only 7 out of 116 member countries call it 'Field Hockey' - Azerbaijan, Latvia, Moldova, Romania, American Samoa, Canada, U.S.

while at the Olympics it's just called 'hockey' (http://www.olympic.org/).

Compare association football and soccer. The U.S. and Canada (& 1 or 2 other countries) officially use the name 'soccer', but this doesn't determine general usage. Hakluyt bean 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the second sentence of the article? --Robert Merkel 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, there are occasions when I might comment on an article and miss the point :) but, yes I did read it: In most countries, especially those in which ice hockey is not very prominent, it is simply known as hockey.. To me, that sounds like it's a courtesy to use the name hockey. It actually appears to be the formal name of the sport irrespective of which country one is in. Hence my point about the Olympics and the International Hockey Federation. It would be more accurate to say that the sport is internationally known as hockey but in 6 countries (and in some encyclopedic references) by way of differentiating it from ice hockey which is more popular in those countries it is called "field hockey".Hakluyt bean 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So rephrase it then. --Robert Merkel 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok :) I've had a bash at doing that Hakluyt bean 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hockey being far older, the problem is the title, which should be Hockey, with Nth. Americans the only english-speakers who need a disamb. to the ice game (both perfectly valid).FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't comparable to the soccer vs. football thing, since soccer is the usual name for that in most english-speaking countries outside the UK.FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is comparable to the soccer vs. football thing. Field hockey is the usual name for the sport in the countries where ice hockey is more popular (North America as far as English-speakers go). If you say "hockey" in Canada or the US, it means ice hockey, just as much as football means American football in those countries. --67.165.6.76 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The way it is now seems pretty good to me. A hockey page which is a disambiguation page pointing to Ice hockey and Field hockey. None of the two forms get favored over the other form. You may just want to reword the introduction of this article, but I don't think it is necessary. As of today, and as Robert Merkel pointed it out, the introduction makes it very clear. Lvr 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Demphasise US specificities

I've taken the liberty of deemphasising some of the US-specific aspects of this article. While they are of some interest, the USA is a fairly small player in the world of hockey. The USA women's team ranks behind New Zealand, and the men's team would lose to many Australian, German, or Dutch club teams. --Robert Merkel 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with moving it down like that is that people (NCAA and High School players in particular) are going to be reading it and thinking "hey , that's wrong" and editing the article before they get to the explanation - which is why I added it in the first place. The wording on goggles is better, I agree. I'll leave it for a bit and see if we get an increase in the number of edits which put the rules in US terms... David Underdown 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - if the NCAA kiddies keep on tweaking the rules section clearly we'll need to put the explanation more prominently. But what are the differences? As far as I can tell the main one seems to be clothing and equipment rules (which are subject to national bylaws in the various jurisdictions anyway), and a timeout rule (offtopic: what a stupid rule...just what I'd want, a crucial stage of the match and then you'd get a bloody cheerleader invasion...) --Robert Merkel 09:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, and NCAA players all have to wear the same coloured underwear. Weird...--Robert Merkel 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the NCAA rules are generally being brought more in line with FIH rules (although I'm not sure how metricated they are), it's the High School level where there are more changes 7 yards at free hits etc etc. By the by, could you help me keep the copyright images out of the article which Felix Portier keeps trying to add. David Underdown 10:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that under Local Rules in the article there is reference to certain types of hockey sticks being required to be used in the USA. Does anyone have a source or any other information about this directive?ZigZag (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Warnings and suspensions

Whilst SheffGruff is arguably correct in stating that you could receive a green card after a yellow, since the guidance that was in the rule book up until 2002(-03), "- once a yellow card has been awarded to a player, that player should not be awarded a green card." has now been deleted, I've yet to be coached that this would be a good idea, and only one person on teh various messageboards I frequent has argued for its application and then in only very limited circumstances, I've re-worded the para again to leave it theoretically open, but hopefully clear it's unlikely to happen in practice. Similar guidance relating to the impossibility of upgrading a penalty corner to a penalty stroke has similarly been deleted, and although I've floated this on a few occasions, again no one seems to think that the FIH actually intended to allow such an upgrade (which reminds me, I don't think we've any mention of Up 10/upgrade in the article at the moment). David Underdown 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally never bother with green cards, then again, thats my opinion. Talk to them straight away, then straight to yellow next time. Green cards are a soft option. A penalty corner can be upgraded to a stroke if necessary. Handmedown 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, whilst it's no longer specifically ruled out in the FIH rules, the coaching I've always been given is that it you don't do it - the article should reflect that fact, without being over complciated. Then again I've also always been told that if you're stopping time to talk to someone, you should be carding them. The green is a marker to everyone, not just the player concerned - and it's visible to everyone, unlike what you've said to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Then again, each umpire has there own set of preferences to how they like to control the game. Its really up to the umpires discretion Handmedown 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment I made earlier about the Yellow then Green order of card issuing comes about where the offences are different. I could (and would) award a Yellow card for a deliberate and aggressive tackle, but could then award that player a green card later on, for instance for breaking off the goal line early when defending a PC. In such a circumstance it is a sensible option to take and can (and does) happen in practice. SheffGruff 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Penalty Stroke rule

The article currently says "If the taker or another attacker commits a foul, it is treated as if the stroke has been saved, and play recommences with a 15 m hit."

Which is incorrect, if the stroke taker commits a offense during a stroke, a free hit to the defense is awarded, however if any other member of the attacking team commits a offense and a goal is scored, the stroke is retaken. Would someone mind changing this?

Reference: FIH Rules of Hockey 07 - Rule 13.7 f 123.255.60.69 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good spot, I'd got the changes about the Gk etc in, but that one slipped by. You can make edits liek that yourself you realise? David Underdown 11:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

lol yes I do, I guess I am just use to opposing views regarding the rules (as you may know, being another FHF member) and was bit anxious about changing it myself - Kirk 123.255.60.162 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tina Bachmann pic

I've taken this picture back out. It was quite low-res and appeared rather grainy in comparison with other photos already on the page. Also, it looks more like an aerial ball rather than a drag-flick fro the pitch position and so on. The article already has a number of action shots, all of which convey the game better as the include the ball, and other players, this added nothing new to the article. David Underdown 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I suspect that the differences between indoor and outdoor hockey should be removed from the lead section of the article as they seem a little over technical for that section. SheffGruff 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention, but if the differences are to be included at all, it should really be moved to its own section. Good to see someone looking to improve this article, I've only really had time to stop it detiorating, not to make major improvements. David Underdown 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the section on indoor is just plain wrong!

It's a separate variant of the game and played in many countries not just those 'where winter prevents play outdoors'. In the UK it's played alongside the outdoor game (in a yearly / climate sense). Could someone edit please80.6.147.186 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section of this article is lacking in references or sources - if anyone can point to any reliable sources for some of the claims in it it would add much more credibility to the article. I would also suggest a 'comedy' addition where the rule stating the condition of winning (ie scoring more goals than the other team) was added at a rather late stage, if it is true at all. SheffGruff 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is the lack of published histories of the game. Most of the claims can only really be validated against club websites, which are arguably not reliable sources (although if we are only saying something club x claims to be the oldest, then it is a good source for the claim, so long as we don't say that they are the oldest club). Conditions for winning (i.e. stating the bleeding obvious were only added in the past few years, I've got copies covering most of the last ten years, so it should be posible to rack down preciesly when the definition was added. David Underdown 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if we are only referencing other club's websites it would still be better than leaving the claims totally unsourced. I can see how it would be hard to find academic level published sources for this subject, but I'm sure there is something out there. I'll keep my eyes open in the local libraries and so forth, although its obviously going to take a while. SheffGruff 09:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked some friends to suggest ideas for references and they gave me some book ideas, I'll list the ISBN numbers here. I'll hopefully be able to get hold of them in the more long term future, but if anyone has more immediate access please try and look up the relevent information and cite it where applicable. ISBN(13) numbers are:

• ISBN 978-0072973020
• ISBN 978-1403940759
• ISBN 978-0415318129
• ISBN 978-0771057694

If anyone already owns any of these books then please try and verify any current claims in this article to what the book says. Otherwise I'll start the long and painful process of inter-library loans.... SheffGruff 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• ISBN 978-0811805605

Edited so the magix ISBN recognition works :) David Underdown 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the last one on your intiial list, and your later addition would be of more use for ice hockey... David Underdown 10:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Cite for 1363 use of word hockey in royal proclamation in England. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I have created these templates Template:Hockeygreencard, Template:Hockeyyellowcard, Template:Hockeyredcard for use in hockey match summaries (similar to what the football people do (see this as an example)). can also be appended with time the card was awarded eg. Template:Hockeygreencard, Template:Hockeyyellowcard. Might be nice to use in the game summaries for major tournament such as the upcoming Olympics. Hope you may find them useful. Goldfinger820 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

updated to , and . Thanks Aleenf1. Goldfinger820 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

reverse hit

reverse hit devide are vertical and horizontal hit. Horizontal hit sinonim is low reverse/sweep reverse hit/reverse hit sleep/edge shoot. In Indonesia Horizontal hit is reverse hit sleep because the flat stick forward to sky and back stick on the grass. Please explain, terminologi reverse hit slepp in wikipedia foundation is citizen.Tq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.172.4 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A reverse hit would be better called a backhand; hitting the ball on your left by turning the stick over and using the edge of the head or the inside edge of the handle. A horizontal hit would be a sweep, on either side, because you sweep your stick along the ground before hitting.Nij90 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Field Hockey!

I love Field hockey! It is the best sport ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.175.87 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Penalty stroke

Is that any possibility that Penalty stroke create in independent page? As we already have Penalty corner (field hockey) in independent page. --Aleenf1 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It would proabably be doable, certainly easy enough to write out about how it works currently, and some of the more recent changes. The amin problem would be getting references for how it came about. I understand taht it began as a penalty bully, which was always contested between the plaeyr fouled and the goalkeeper. I don't know the dates when it evolved towards it current form or anything though. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Allowed stick side or face

Is there a known reason for the rule of disallowing the use of one face or side of the stick? I know that field hockey sticks have a flat face that is good to handle the ball, and the other face is rounded to make the ball handling more difficult, but that seems to be a consequence of the rule I mentioned. If you consider every other variety oh Hockey, this is the only one that disallows the use of both sides of the stick, so I think there should be a good reason for this, and would be interesting to include it in the article. Petruza (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably for safety originally, it makes collisions less likely when two players are approaching the ball simultaneously. I believe polo has similar restrictions, there of course a couple horses with considerable mass and a closing speed in the tens of miles of hour makes this even more important. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've asked this question in many other places, and this is by far the most interesting and logical answer. Petruza (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Top Picture

I think the top picture needs to be changed it's not really representative of the game. I'd like to change it to something like http://www.flickr.com/photos/43184960@N06/3976392581/ but if anyone has a better picture we could use that. Is 'royalty free' sufficient to allow the pic to be used? Dkin (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)