Subject:  Interesting thread |
Author:
Troy
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:58:14 06/09/02 Sun
In reply to:
Becks
's message, "Those who can do, those who can't..." on 00:19:56 06/07/02 Fri
I have to reiterate one of Becks' points: just because it is not specifically disallowed does not make it legal...
It means one of two things:
- international referees cannot reach concensus, so omit to make an explicit ruling, or
- there is enough concensus that it is covered by advantage, 'unsporting' or some other general rulings.
I make these observations from the dozen or so ICF referee meetings and briefings I attended at international competitions (albeit that 6 years have passed since I last attended one).
On this specific point (of paddling with the ball under arm), as well as a number of others, I recall that there remained volatile debate on whether it was allowable, no concensus was reached, and referees were left to apply their own interpretation as to whether it was an unsporting behaviour... the end result: one or more influential referees asserted that it was 'unsporting' behaviour and would penalise it accordingly... and so players avoided using the 'tactic' for fear of unnecesary conceding a penalty.
In other situations (like throwing the ball 1m out of reach to break the 5 sec count), the advantage rule was liberally applied to avoid enforcing the ICF rule literally.
There were a significant number of interpretations that were left unresolved in this manner - it only took one country of referees to assert their right to interpret a rule liberally but in accordance with the explicit wording of the ICF rules and, despite considerable opposition and dissention, their interpretation took effect because players weren't always prepared to test the ref's interpretations with so much at stake. (I'm sure there is more concensus now!)
So one of the main problems with the ICF rules was that they were written 'negatively' - generally only outlining illegal play... leading to the assumption that if the Rules don't disallow it, it must be legal.
In contrast, the NZ rulebook was written to firstly specify what is allowed under each area of the rules, followed by clarifications identifying play that is specifically disallowed... the presumption being that unless the rules positively allow it, it will be illegal.
The advantage of the NZ approach is that participants don't have to keep revising the rulebook to disallow some new 'unsporting' tactic that was never thought of earlier.
Taken to extremes, I've heard players argue that the ICF rules allowed them to carry the ball inside their boat or stuffed up under their bib... because the rules don't specifically disallow it, they only prohibit carrying the ball on the deck!!
Finally, thanks to Becks for her brief words defending the efforts of myself and other key referees and players who contributed to the NZ rules that were drafted back in 1995... at the time there was considerable inconsistency in international interpretations, and having followed ACF interpretations for 5 years and then suddenly being exposed to a myriad of alternative interpretations from our first experience in Europe in 1994, we pulled together our own set of our preferred interpretations from the rest of the world. As I recall, every interpretation we adopted had or was being played or contemplated elsewhere in the world. Even goal-line restarts - we picked that up from the Australians who used it in their 1993 National League and provided a demo to us at the 1993 Aus Champs in Adelaide. It took hold in NZ, so we made our rules fit.
Anyway, I hope you're all enjoying your polo this year... the NI scene really looks like it's taking off!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
