Talk about useless, what a crap comment. How about a comment that brings some value to the table?

Technique may not have been 100% perfect every time but listen at 0:15 and 0:42. Those are actually really good sounding chirps on a fox 40. Besides, it’s a tutorial, not a game.

Obstruction is obstruction... players are not allowed to obstruct with their stick or their bodies. A "stick check" is usually obstruction but if it happens off ball, than it is personal misconduct. A stick check within proximity to the ball is obstruction AND should be carded too. Are you/were you also a player?

@@UmpireHockey tysm and yes I am But I didnt know the rules to well

Ahh. Understood.

No. During a penalty stroke, only one attacker and one defender is allowed inside the 23.

@@crismaloney Understood, but if the shot is saved/deflected back into the field of play, can the rest of the players then enter the 23, or is it ruled dead with a 16m restart?

@@nazcasteve In no circumstance during a penalty stroke can other players approach. Not even the attacker taking the stroke can approach once the shot has been taken. When it is over, goal/no goal, the other players can cross the 23.

@@crismaloney I'm not getting my question across properly - I want to understand your final sentence regarding when it is *over*, not during. If the shot is saved/deflected by the goalie, does this effectively mean the penalty is over, and normal plays resumes, i.e. all other players can cross the 23, and try to play the rebound, defend etc.? I had one umpire tell me if the shot does not go in, the ball is restarted at the 16m by the defending team. This would imply normal play with all other players crossing the 23 does not resume if the shot doesn't go in

@@nazcasteve Hi Steve - Sorry. The penalty strokes ends when the ball goes into the goal or does not go into the goal, goes out of bounds, or comes to rest any place in the field of play. So, the ball deflects off the goalkeeper and stops, no goal, no follow up shots… and yes, play is restarted with a free hit (or free push indoors) just outside the circle in front of the goal. At that point, the players can go anywhere they’re normally allowed to go.

You can enter a player’s number. If you watch the video again you can see where it says ENTER SHIRT NUMBER (for cards and for goals) but I skipped right by that. It is absolutely better to enter the number and I should have included that. My bad!

for tizen os (samsung watches): galaxystore.samsung.com/geardetail/9pa1BVPZ82 for apple watches: apps.apple.com/us/app/sticky-a-digital-sticky-note/id1554773095 wear os is coming soon

After another look, this looks unlikely to be intentional.

Because this is specifically covered in the rules, the answer would be no. Even if somehow the goalkeeper was so amazingly skilled as to intentionally get the ball caught in their protective equipment, the rule says that the penalty is a penalty corner. It would be like changing some other rule that is detailed in the book. Like making the goalkeeper go up to the centerline if they enter the circle early on a penalty corner... because the umpire says that they did it intentionally. Too bad. The rule specifies that someone else goes... THAT is the penalty. Not a card. Not the goalkeeper goes. And, not a PS if the ball gets stuck in the goalkeeper's protective equipment.

@@UmpireHockey What is even worse is that in saner times a ball lodged in the equipment of any player would have resulted in a restart with a bully for a no fault stoppage. There is no reason that this sort of incident (and a few others that are now dealt with by penalty corner) could not be resolved with a restart for the attacking team on the 23m line. Any ball off the pitch over the base-line from a defender's stick, and also a high rebound of the ball off equipment, that was not of itself directly dangerous to another player, are two examples. Will these two umpires learn from this? Probably not, they would likely have though it impertinent of a player to ask them to look at the text of the Rule. They are both far to old to be learning Rule basics.

free hit for defender coz not enough 3 touch the pusher high ball to scoring for shot conner and danger to defender opponent

@@nurulasyhadah503 it was a valid shot on goal and the defender stood in between the taker and the gk so I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

but was an advantage gained by the attacker hitting the ball twice on the injection?

but did the attacking team gain an advantage that they wouldn't gained if the injector only played the ball once?

@@rhyangriffiths5398 13.3.j - after playing the ball, the attacker taking the push or hit from the back-line must not play the ball again or approach within playing distance of it until it has been played by another player.

@@azzadzarull yes I know it's against the rules but did the team gain an advantage from breaking the rules?

@@rhyangriffiths5398 yes. if the injector stop after the first contact, the defending player can reach to the ball faster than any other attacker player.

Agreed about the insertion, play should have been whistled right then for a double touch. However, for the scoop shot on the cage, even though it's not a hit, I would consider that dangerous (as an aside, this is Exhibit A for why all corner defenders should be wearing face masks)

For some offences, a PS and a card should be awarded. I agree with you that the injury is the fault of the player. But anyhow, pushing a player to ground is still an offence

Yes. There are many reasons that a PS can be called. Not all of those reasons are in this video. It isn’t a video tutorial of all reasons one might see a penalty stroke awarded. It is a video about the coach’s behavior and why some umpires don’t card such be behavior.

@@crismaloney, it's not the coach that you card anyway, its the captain. in that case, if I were umpiring id green card the captain if it was the first issue I had with the coach if it was the second or more id Yellow card the captain for team misconduct.

@@rhyangriffiths5398 A fault of the video is that it doesn't highlight that the competition taking place was under the governance of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) rules. In NFHS games, the umpires are not allowed to card captains for things for which captains are usually held accountable (the whole point of having captains is lost). Instead, umpires are to hold coaches accountable. Within this governance structure the coach who came on the field and interrupted the play should have been immediately given a green card for delay of game and if the coach did not instantly turn around and leave the field, the red card should be used. All that said, whether to card the coach vs the captain or to give a green, yellow, or red, is not the ask ("Why Umpires Don't Card Coaches") of the video. The video asks us to consider why didn't a carding happen? The video provides the answer. It says that there is a structure in place that creates a systemic problem that limits the likelihood of the umpire using the tools they have to penalize misconduct.

@@crismaloney is that just American rules or worldwide? cos I'm in New Zealand and that is the first I've even heard of carding coaches.

@@rhyangriffiths5398 The NFHS only governs play in high school in the USA.