Umpire desicion #5 - Good Penalty stroke

The umpire gives nice advantage and after the advantage there was a tackle in the back from the defender, so a PS awarded!

[@maxvandenberg955]

I agree with the advantage. I also agree with the stroke, because what the defender did was deliberate.

[@Marknopoly]

Have you noticed that the ruling for obstruction is hardly ever used in higher grades of hockey, these days more and more players are turning to shield the ball from defenders and getting away with it

[@trorisk]

When i was young truning or show his back like today was not allowed.

[@ZigZagHockey]

Yes the forward, who was eventually fouled, after receiving and controlling the ball, backed into his marker and obstructed him. There was nothing wrong with the award of the penalty stroke, but play should have been stopped and a free ball awarded to the defending team some time before that stroke incident occurred. But that obstruction was minor umpires often don't see this kind of thing shown in the video below as obstruction or even as physical contact. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jImZiYmCnaqqhbM

[@jules6677]

I should say that it is a penalty corner.

[@ZigZagHockey]

Yes a good advantage given but the umpires missed the prior obstruction. Attacker receives the ball and backs into the defender who is trying to tackle, as he makes contact he 'rolls' around the defender using his body as a shield for the ball. Clever but obstruction. I have put up a clip with the relevant play slowed down.

[@textileahmed]

since gial keeper still have to defend or tackle .....it is penalty corner

[@santiagotoretta5103]

Yes there is obstruction. but it's very difficult for the referee. Any referee gives the penalty

[@ZigZagHockey]

What was 'difficult' about it?

[@lucasb3921]

Córner corto