Olympic Sports - Rule Changes

[Mr Epee]

The following questions are extracted from an interview with Australian, Peter Cohen. Peter serves as the president of the FIH (the FIE of Hockey). He is effectively the Rene Roch of Hockey...

The complete interview can be found here

There is all-round concern that hockey is losing its charm as a spectator sport mainly because of the frequent rule changes and due to artificial pitches. Do you agree with this assumption?

I do not agree with the assumption in relation to artificial pitches. If anything, I believe that artificial pitches have enhanced hockey as a spectator sport. I believe they have also enhanced the image of the sport in the eyes of the sporting world. On artificial pitches, the sport is seen as modern and progressive. There are fewer stoppages, the game flows and is easier to follow.

The subject of rule changes is complex. On the surface, it is understandable that some would feel that there have been too many changes but it is important to understand the underlying reasons. The FIH is conscious of the fact that hockey is an Olympic sport and we wish to retain that status. To do so, we must be mindful of the fact that the Olympic Games is a multi sport event where hockey is showcased against all other sports and must compare favourably. The sporting world is ever under the scrutiny of the TV cameras so we must ensure that our product is attractive to the wider spectator and commercial market.

In the past, hockey has been criticised as being too technical and difficult to understand, especially for the non-hockey playing public. The rules dictate the way the game is played so it is critical that we market our sport in the best possible light and this means trying to simplify the rules for the benefit of both players and spectators. Over the years, there have been many changes, which have received universal support and are now essential to our game. One such example is the replacement of the 25-yard bully with the 16-yard hit. There are many other examples.

But rule changes don't always deliver the expected result. An excellent example of this is the abolition of the offside rule. Everyone thought that, when the offside rule was abolished, there would be an immediate and significant increase in the number of goals scored and the pattern of play would become more open and exciting. While there has been an increase in the number of goals, there appears to be universal agreement that the pattern of play has become very congested. So, do we leave this situation or do we try and rectify it? What are the options? We could re-introduce offside, but I suspect that would be very unpopular. Another possibility is to make a further change to try and create space in the attack zone and to try and increase the opportunity for goals to be scored. I think everyone would agree that the excitement in any sport is to see teams creating many opportunities to score.

The FIH and the Rules Board take the view that we must continue in our quest to create a spectacle that is interesting to the TV audience and this means that we must continue in our quest to find the right formula. This has resulted in new experimental rules with the aim of limiting the number of defenders inside the defensive 25 and also to allow shots on goal in the same zone, that is, outside the circle.

I personally support these initiatives and look forward to the feedback once national associations have had the opportunity to try this experimental rules.

Do you advocate frequent changes in the rules?

I hope we can reach a stage in the near future where we can have a moratorium on rule changes because I think that it is desirable to create stability and certainty. But we must continue in our efforts to make the game more attractive and easier for spectators.

I am therefore very much in favour of the further experimental rules but will reserve my judgment on their success or otherwise until we have seen them under match conditions.

[oiuyt]

Just as clarification, before we get a number of confused, off-topic posts, Hockey in this context refers to the game played on fields (natural grass or artificial turf), as opposed to the game played on ice (and which has a locked out professional league in North America).

-B :)

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Just as clarification, before we get a number of confused, off-topic posts, Hockey in this context refers to the game played on fields (natural grass or artificial turf), as opposed to the game played on ice (and which has a locked out professional league in North America).

-B

Ah, and "pitch" is the field...thanks, oiuyt, I was really thrown off for a second.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Just as clarification, before we get a number of confused, off-topic posts, Hockey in this context refers to the game played on fields (natural grass or artificial turf), as opposed to the game played on ice (and which has a locked out professional league in North America).

-B

Yes, I thought that the discussion of artifical field would have explained this.