Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[keep-it-cool]

Will be tough as only two teams advance to the semis. The group is very tight, esp after Aus lost to England. Aus, India and Pak are all at No 2. If we lose to Spain or SA, we are out. Period.

[keep-it-cool]

Meanwhile hearing of some protest marches in Delhi against the thrashing that 11 Aussies with sticks handed out to Indians. They are wondering whether this could be racially motivated

[Blwe_torch]

Meanwhile hearing of some protest marches in Delhi against the thrashing that 11 Aussies with sticks handed out to Indians. They are wondering whether this could be racially motivated

and who is leading the march?

[Cernunnos]

Right, only the rule book gets chucked out of the window when other teams, for example Taeke Taekama yesterday, do the same thing.

Once it has been deemed unintentional, the whole point of the ban doesn't stand. You don't ban someone three games for bowling a waist high no-ball which slipped out of your hand. I mean, unbelievable!

Nope. The min penalty of 2 games is for reckless play ...not for deliberate reckless play ...for deliberate reckless play it can go to a max of 4 games. The appeals committee deemed it not to be deliberate and reduced it to the minimum penalty.

Rubbish.

The word "reckless" doesn't appear anywhere in the tournament regulations.
http://www.fihockey.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,1181-200305-217528-160518-0-file,00.pdf

The action can at worst be deemed:
- Throwing a stick or ball at or near a player, umpire or official in an inappropriate and/or
dangerous manner.
- Inappropriate physical contact between players in the course of play.

Which are Level 1 offenses (Appendix 5). Given that Shivendra hasn't even been carded for his 110 appearances, let alone breached the Code of Conduct, this should in the maximum have invited a reprimand.

Level 2 deals with assault, and since it is already established that the action was not deliberate, therefore it cannot be treated at the level of assault.

Only the most one-eyed would defend this travesty of natural justice.

Again, repeating a basic fact - holding your stick above your waist is a strict no no in hockey unless it is a play for the ball. You cant hide behind "accidentally it just happened to be up there" - that would open up the doors to a whole lot of such "accidental" stick raising.

There are many strict no nos. Doesn't mean you ban 3 games for every foul committed.

Btw, the official rules say nothing about raising the stick above waist. Please quote me the exact rule.
http://www.fihockey.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,1181-195549-212772-148180-0-file,00.pdf

This qualifies under level 2, as there was no reason for Shivendra to have the stick up there, especially given that the ball was never up in the air and had already passed on forward.

No, unless you have forgotten how to read, dangerous play is covered under level 1, whereas level 2 deals with repetition of level 1 (which isn't the case) and cases of assault. Common sense says that there can be no assault without intent.

This is how assault is defined legally:
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As Shivendra has been absolved of having the intent (as is obvious and even you agree to it), there is no question of assault and hence no question of level 2. Please let go of your habit of arguing for arguments sake.

Even if one agrees that the tournament director imposed the penalty in order to benefit the Aussies, the 3 member appeals committee also upheld the level (level 2) of the offence that Shivendra was charged with. It does indicate that there is some basis for levying that charge.

Both were wrong. The TD got mud thrown on his face as his charge that Shivendra's act was deliberate was proven wrong. The panel also proved themselves as incompetents, as then the basis of the ban doesn't hold by their very own judgement.  All this shows the complete lack of professionalism in the FIH, and given the history behind the pattern of FIH's judgments, there is no doubt about the bias part.

[keep-it-cool]

Right, only the rule book gets chucked out of the window when other teams, for example Taeke Taekama yesterday, do the same thing.

Once it has been deemed unintentional, the whole point of the ban doesn't stand. You don't ban someone three games for bowling a waist high no-ball which slipped out of your hand. I mean, unbelievable!

Nope. The min penalty of 2 games is for reckless play ...not for deliberate reckless play ...for deliberate reckless play it can go to a max of 4 games. The appeals committee deemed it not to be deliberate and reduced it to the minimum penalty.

Rubbish.

The word "reckless" doesn't appear anywhere in the tournament regulations.
http://www.fihockey.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,1181-200305-217528-160518-0-file,00.pdf

The action can at worst be deemed:
- Throwing a stick or ball at or near a player, umpire or official in an inappropriate and/or
dangerous manner.
- Inappropriate physical contact between players in the course of play.

Which are Level 1 offenses (Appendix 5). Given that Shivendra hasn't even been carded for his 110 appearances, let alone breached the Code of Conduct, this should in the maximum have invited a reprimand.

Level 2 deals with assault, and since it is already established that the action was not deliberate, therefore it cannot be treated at the level of assault.

Only the most one-eyed would defend this travesty of natural justice.

Again, repeating a basic fact - holding your stick above your waist is a strict no no in hockey unless it is a play for the ball. You cant hide behind "accidentally it just happened to be up there" - that would open up the doors to a whole lot of such "accidental" stick raising.

There are many strict no nos. Doesn't mean you ban 3 games for every foul committed.

Btw, the official rules say nothing about raising the stick above waist. Please quote me the exact rule.
http://www.fihockey.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,1181-195549-212772-148180-0-file,00.pdf

The rules also say that no player will try to hit a ball to any part of another player's body in order to get a foul ...whereas players do that all the while to get penalty corners & are awarded the same.

If the ball is not in play and players are around, a stick held above waist level is considered reckless - every commentator (including Cedric D'souza and Jagbir Singh in the Ten Sports studio) has agreed with this.

This was not just any foul ...it was something easily avoidable & did ultimately result in contact with an opposition player. The only argument that the Indian side or anyone else put forth was that the action (of hitting the opposition player) was not deliberate.

This qualifies under level 2, as there was no reason for Shivendra to have the stick up there, especially given that the ball was never up in the air and had already passed on forward.

No, unless you have forgotten how to read, dangerous play is covered under level 1, whereas level 2 deals with repetition of level 1 (which isn't the case) and cases of assault. Common sense says that there can be no assault without intent.

This is how assault is defined legally:
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As Shivendra has been absolved of having the intent (as is obvious and even you agree to it), there is no question of assault and hence no question of level 2. Please let go of your habit of arguing for arguments sake.

I'm not really interested in debating on what the legal definition of different words nor do I think these rules are put in place within a very stringent legal framework.  In any case here is a definition that I found which implies that the intent is not required - but I concede that my understanding of legal terms is weak ..so this may or may not be relevant.

In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.

Anyway, dangerous play - as I understand it and as probably was interpreted by the TD AND the appeals committee - refers to something like throwing a stick at a ball because it is not close to you, trying to stop it. Whereas running with your stick stuck up in the air when the ball is nowhere close goes one step further. It would definitely hinder someone running behind Shivendra, as he would be worried whether the stick would come up and hit him - that is the reason the rule has been framed in the first place & needs to be implemented strictly.

Even if one agrees that the tournament director imposed the penalty in order to benefit the Aussies, the 3 member appeals committee also upheld the level (level 2) of the offence that Shivendra was charged with. It does indicate that there is some basis for levying that charge.

Both were wrong. The TD got mud thrown on his face as his charge that Shivendra's act was deliberate was proven wrong. The panel also proved themselves as incompetents, as then the basis of the ban doesn't hold by their very own judgement.  All this shows the complete lack of professionalism in the FIH, and given the history behind the pattern of FIH's judgments, there is no doubt about the bias part.

Yeah sure. Everyone is wrong except those who agree with our point of view.

[justforkix]

Will be tough as only two teams advance to the semis. The group is very tight, esp after Aus lost to England. Aus, India and Pak are all at No 2. If we lose to Spain or SA, we are out. Period.

so, today's match is a do or die.....

[dhruvdeepak]

hahahaa it better be rigged otherwise nobody will be watching rest of tournament

[keep-it-cool]

Will be tough as only two teams advance to the semis. The group is very tight, esp after Aus lost to England. Aus, India and Pak are all at No 2. If we lose to Spain or SA, we are out. Period.

so, today's match is a do or die.....

i think so

this is where we stand now

Teams P W D L PTS

England 2 2 0 0 6

India 2 1 0 1 3

Spain 2 1 0 1 3

Pakistan 2 1 0 1 3

Australia 2 0 0 1 3

South Africa 2 0 0 2 0

So everyone is bunched up right now.


Matches left:

England - India, Pak, Spain
Australia - Spain, Pak, SA
Spain - India, England, Australia
Pakistan - England, Australia, SA
India - Spain, England, SA
SA - India, Pak, Australia

The way the group is placed, I think that most likely any team that goes through will have to win 4 matches.

[keep-it-cool]

hahahaa it better be rigged otherwise nobody will be watching rest of tournament

I agree ...the buzz on twitter when India was playing Pak and before the match against Australia dramatically died down during the match against Australia (esp after we were down by 2 goals). All conversation at work also was at a minimum post the Aussie match.

[justforkix]

this is where we stand now

Teams P W D L PTS

England 2 2 0 0 6

India 2 1 0 1 3

Spain 2 1 0 1 3

Pakistan 2 1 0 1 3

Australia 2 1 0 1 3

South Africa 2 0 0 2 0

So everyone is bunched up right now.

Matches left:

England - India, Pak, Spain
Australia - Spain, Pak, SA
Spain - India, England, Australia
Pakistan - England, Australia, SA
India - Spain, England, SA
SA - India, Pak, Australia

The way the group is placed, I think that most likely any team that goes through will have to win 4 matches.

not sure about that. I think 5 teams can be bunched up with 3 wins.

Eng lose to Ind, Pak and bt Spain
Aus lose to Spain, bt Pak, SA
Spain lose to Eng, bt Aus, Ind
Pak lose to Aus, bt Eng, SA
Ind lose to Spain, bt Eng, SA
SA lose to Ind, Pak, Aus

This would mean Eng, Aus, Spain, Pak, Ind will have 3 wins each

[keep-it-cool]

Hmm ..yeh bhi ho sakta hai ...do you want to bet on it?

[justforkix]

we hit an all time low in yesterday's game. players were sleepwalking during most of the game !!! was pathetic to watch !!

[sudzz]

we hit an all time low in yesterday's game. players were sleepwalking during most of the game !!! was pathetic to watch !!

When the sport is essentially played for alleviating poverty and not for any other passionate cause, this is bound to happen, we all got carried away because of that one victory over another equally mediocre team and in terms of reasons to play, even worse than India because hockey in Pakistan does not even pay.

[keep-it-cool]

we hit an all time low in yesterday's game. players were sleepwalking during most of the game !!! was pathetic to watch !!

When the sport is essentially played for alleviating poverty and not for any other passionate cause, this is bound to happen, we all got carried away because of that one victory over another equally mediocre team and in terms of reasons to play, even worse than India because hockey in Pakistan does not even pay.

Pak is ranked ahead of India. But otherwise I agree ..they have been mediocre in this tournament. I pointed this out immediately after that match ...we just do not have the quality or the game to match up to most of the higher ranked teams.

[keep-it-cool]

Btw ..was debating the issue of hockey or cricket being the national game with a few friends. One of them asked "have you ever played hockey? how many people you know play hockey - even for fun?"

Interesting point.

[sudzz]

Btw ..was debating the issue of hockey or cricket being the national game with a few friends. One of them asked "have you ever played hockey? how many people you know play hockey - even for fun?"

Interesting point.

I have played hockey and was going to play at a fairly serious level when an argument was posed to me which basically said "dekh boss apun ko hockey se naukri milega tera kya hai tu to aisich time pass kar raha hai tu ja na idhar se"

But the point is valid and even I was thinking of this, almost all of us on this forum and even otherwise fancy ourselves as a batsman or a bowler at one time or the other (reality maybe totally different) but how many of us have ever imagined ourselves as a Pargat Singh or Mohd. Shahid etc answer is probably never, we can all rattle off cricket stats very easily not so much for hockey.

The problem is a de-glam sport run by inept and corrupt officials played by those that are generally very different from us therefore the urban middle class does not support this sport and will not either, therefore its bound to suffer as it does today.