(NPUA = National Panel Umpiring Association)
At
their annual meeting a large number of umpires requested that NPUA visit the
issue of player/ bench/ coach discipline. Below is what has come out, but I
think resonates at all levels of hockey and could be used as a reminder/ guide
to all. Margaret Mcloughlin.
Game Discipline and Behaviour
It has been reported from a number of sources within
and without our domestic structure, that the general demeanour of teams within
our sport has declined markedly. While
this is not something unique to Hockey, it is nonetheless an area for
considerable concern. Therefore, at the
recent NPUA Annual Conference, a session was dedicated to recognising areas of
conflict and suggesting tools for managing them effectively. After the formal
part of the sessions, a few scenarios were discussed and disciplinary
procedures suggested.
The key focus is one of performance. How can: a
player, coach, or umpire be fully focussed on their task if they are
‘distracted’ by other factors. If our
game is to continue to develop, we need to be able to perform to the best of
our abilities. Decision making by
players and officials is generally of a higher standard when we are focussed on
the game. So, let’s cut out the
peripheral elements that can be so distractive and destructive.
What are we looking to
do differently (or better)?
Rule 3.4 ‘Captains are responsible for
the behaviour of all players on their team and for ensuring that substitutions
are carried out correctly. A personal penalty is awarded if a captain does not
exercise these responsibilities.’
The emphasis of the Captain’s responsibilities and
entitlements is one key element. The
Captain is there for a reason, and one of those is that he/she should act as
the intermediary between the team and the officials. If a Captain fails to control the
players/management in their team, they should be disciplined. That may be initially as a verbal
request/warning, but we should not be frightened to increase sanctions if the
Captain fails to control the situation.
We must emphasise that this procedure should not be taken
instead of dealing with any other individuals concerned, but may be in
conjunction with.
Situations where a number of players advance on or
surround an umpire will not be tolerated.
This must result in further disciplinary action to the
player(s) concerned, and possibly the captain as well.
Verbal abuse comes in many guises, be it between
players, to umpires, or to others around.
It should not be tolerated.
If a player chooses to talk to an umpire, they should do so in a civil
manner. If they fail to do so, they
cannot be surprised if they are then disciplined or penalised. It is not a player’s role to question
decisions, although it can sometimes be a natural reaction. Incessant questioning and derision must be
eliminated from the game, and so we would advise that we should, and support
officials who decide to, reduce the tolerance of this.
The role of the team manager is one that tends to be
overlooked. It is their responsibility
to submit elements such as team sheets to the Match Official (MO), and perhaps
many other logistical tasks before and after the match. However, they are also responsible for the
management and control of the members of their team who are on the bench. Therefore, they can and should be approached
to manage any issues that arise in that area, be it substitute players or team
coaches etc.
This may also be the time to remind everyone of the
experimental EHL regulation that was put in place last season, where the coach
and or manager may be issued with warning cards in the same way as any
player. If it is necessary to issue a
yellow card, then a player must be removed from the pitch to serve the suspension.
This rule is to be continued until further notice.
What do we hope to
achieve?
The ability for everyone within our sport to have
dialogue is vital if we are all to continue to develop. In many cases officials benefit from players
knowledge, and hopefully visa versa.
Long may this continue, however it is apparent that the line between
communication and derision has become somewhat thinner in recent years. What we hope to establish is a more focussed
approach within the sport at the highest level.
If we can all concentrate on our jobs, we stand more chance of
performing to our ability.
We are not suggesting that we have a ‘zero tolerance’
approach, more a tightening of the reins in a hope of retaining control before
it goes too far. This is a delicate
balance, and may take a while to gain equilibrium.
However, we believe that this is an issue that needs
urgent attention and is most certainly something for which umpires and
officials cannot shirk responsibility.
Andy Mair – Chairman NPUA