Drag flicks ● The power of hockey ᴴᴰ

[@omrikepes4730]

Really well put together....!

[@joshpinard7941]

whats the song called?

[@nielsfaber7143]

very nice video

[@HockeyLifeSwitzerland]

+Niels Faber Tahnk you!

[@ZigZagHockey]

This is the blog article to which I referred martinzigzag.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/field-hockey-rules-shielding-the-ball/ as you are no doubt aware most obstructive play is substantially more than "mere milliseconds", but no matter how brief the period, if the obstructive action prevents a player who would otherwise have been able to play at the ball from doing so it is an offence. Admittedly it takes a great deal more skill to retain possession of the ball when it cannot be shielded from an opponent, but hockey is supposed to be a game of skill in moving the ball (passing and the off-ball movement necessary for passing) and moving with the ball (dribbling)

[@matthijsvandekamp5645]

I have a drag flick video on my channel. If you have tips please let me know!

[@ZigZagHockey]

At least five of the drag-flick shots for which a goal was awarded should have been penalised as dangerous play, clearly causing legitimate evasive action.to avoid injury Other flickers demonstrated that it is possible to be on target without endangering opponents - but that does take skill beyond propelling the ball powerfully..

[@HockeyLifeSwitzerland]

Hi +ZigZagHockey , Thanks for the comment! We have a question; can a drag flick flicked on target be penalised as a foul or dangerous play?

[@ZigZagHockey]

+ZigZagHockey Yes of course an 'on target' shot can be considered dangerous if it endangers another player i.e. in the words of the definition given in Rule 9.8."causes legitimate evasive action": there is no exception to the Rule just because the dangerously played ball is a shot at the goal (and the even more vacuous suggestion that a high shot going wide of the goal is automatically dangerous play is another myth).

[@HockeyLifeSwitzerland]

Ok we didn't know! I guess that the rule is probably going to change soon as it isn't applied at all in high level hockey.

[@ZigZagHockey]

+HockeyLife Switzerland Several of the Rules are not applied in 'high level' hockey. When did you last see ball shielding penalised as obstruction or a player penalised for lifting the ball into the legs of a close opponent (Rule 9.9) or a lifted hit in the outfield penalised as intentional or an opponent encroaching to within 5m of a player receiving an aerial pass or deflection before it was in control on the ground? I can't think of many Rules that are applied as written - 'backsticks' perhaps, but with edge hitting perhaps not. Even physical contact is not penalised when it is initiated by a player in possession of the ball. Check out my Rules blog at martinzigzag.wordpress.com

[@rhysmclachlan7945]

+ZigZagHockey It is not considered to be of a dangerous manner as those defenders have the ability to react and therefore get out of the way. The dragflick is a skill that needs to be encouraged. The above rules apply at all levels of hockey but you must consider their affect on the game play. How long does your typical definition of an 'obstruction' last, mare milliseconds is hardly an obstruction and therefore isn't blown. A player standing within 5m on the receive of an aerial ball does not necessarily affect play and therefore shouldn't be blown. High level hockey is played at such a high speed it needs to be encouraged not deterred :)