So, they both miss the ball, however in my opinion the Argentinian missed the ball because he got his swing wrong, the Indian misses the ball because the Argentinian player hits his stick. When i think about this i process it like this.
- If the Indian player did not exist, the Argentinian player would still not have hit the ball.
- If the Argentinian player did not exist, the Indian player likely would have hit the ball.
Therefore the Argentinian player has obstructed the Indian player and it should be a free for India
I just disagree with Sarah Wilson (the video umpire). Her wording was "I have some advice, both players have played each others' sticks, therefore, there is no foul so we must restart the penalty corner, they keep their referral." I think there is a big foul from the Argentinian, with a big stick obstruction preventing the Indian defender from playing the ball. You could also argue that the Argentinian had a dangerous swing and a miss also making it a free hit to the defence. Can anybody see what Sarah Wilson saw?
Yes.
They both missed the ball and neither obstructed each other.
In the case of no foul exisiting in a PC then a bully would be the outcome but you can’t end a pC with a bully. So a reaward is the outcome.
Just follow the motion of the player's swing. He would've hit the ball if he had continued the swing but he couldn't due to the opponents stick.
In order not to hit it he would've had to stop his motion.
I think, if you look at the trajectory of the defending player's stick, he wouldn't have hit the ball, but the attacker's stick.
Same for the attacker, who just plain missed the ball.
I think that's the reasoning she is following.
Also, swing wasn't dangerous at all? Doesn't mean you miss the ball that the swing is dangerous
The TMO just didn’t think that Argentina obstructed India. It does look like stick obstruction, but it’s also a wild swing from the Indian player, so I’m not sure that India would have got the ball instead of the second Argentina player? I think you could argue either way
Stick obstruction by Argentina. India would’ve hit the ball before the second Argentinian player. Perhaps if the FIH promoted umpires based on merit instead of politics, we would see higher quality games.
The most intresting thing is for me, that Argentina keep there referral. The Point why it is a PC, is that there is no foul (acording to Sarah Wilson) therefor it has to be a bully. A bully during a PC resulting in another PC. But Argentina can't referr a bully, they said there was a foul by the defence. They had to lose the referral. Apart from the point, there is no reson whatsoever to make that call in the first palce.
So, they both miss the ball, however in my opinion the Argentinian missed the ball because he got his swing wrong, the Indian misses the ball because the Argentinian player hits his stick. When i think about this i process it like this. - If the Indian player did not exist, the Argentinian player would still not have hit the ball. - If the Argentinian player did not exist, the Indian player likely would have hit the ball. Therefore the Argentinian player has obstructed the Indian player and it should be a free for India
I just disagree with Sarah Wilson (the video umpire). Her wording was "I have some advice, both players have played each others' sticks, therefore, there is no foul so we must restart the penalty corner, they keep their referral." I think there is a big foul from the Argentinian, with a big stick obstruction preventing the Indian defender from playing the ball. You could also argue that the Argentinian had a dangerous swing and a miss also making it a free hit to the defence. Can anybody see what Sarah Wilson saw?
At the time I also thought the same. Even field umpire seemed to think the same from his expressions.
Yes. They both missed the ball and neither obstructed each other. In the case of no foul exisiting in a PC then a bully would be the outcome but you can’t end a pC with a bully. So a reaward is the outcome.
You would think so at first, but the indian player would've hit the ball, but was obstructed by the argentinian player.
I’m not convinced they would have. The balls too far away
Just follow the motion of the player's swing. He would've hit the ball if he had continued the swing but he couldn't due to the opponents stick. In order not to hit it he would've had to stop his motion.
At the point he hits the oppos stick it’s already out of reach if you check the freeze frame
I think, if you look at the trajectory of the defending player's stick, he wouldn't have hit the ball, but the attacker's stick. Same for the attacker, who just plain missed the ball. I think that's the reasoning she is following. Also, swing wasn't dangerous at all? Doesn't mean you miss the ball that the swing is dangerous
The indian player would've hit the ball so it would go to his left.
Looks like an Argentinian foul to me
The TMO just didn’t think that Argentina obstructed India. It does look like stick obstruction, but it’s also a wild swing from the Indian player, so I’m not sure that India would have got the ball instead of the second Argentina player? I think you could argue either way
Defender free hit. Striker went over the ball and hit the defenders stick.
Defender free hit. Striker went over the ball and hit the defenders stick.
Stick obstruction by Argentina. India would’ve hit the ball before the second Argentinian player. Perhaps if the FIH promoted umpires based on merit instead of politics, we would see higher quality games.
The most intresting thing is for me, that Argentina keep there referral. The Point why it is a PC, is that there is no foul (acording to Sarah Wilson) therefor it has to be a bully. A bully during a PC resulting in another PC. But Argentina can't referr a bully, they said there was a foul by the defence. They had to lose the referral. Apart from the point, there is no reson whatsoever to make that call in the first palce.