Jump to content

Talk:Field hockey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Introduction

Regarding the introduction, I'm not sure whether field hockey is that much more common than ice hockey in Korea. I'm Korean, and I've often wondered myself which sport Koreans think of when they hear the word "hockey". It might even be that more people think of ice hockey when they hear the word, in spite of the fact that our field hockey teams are infinitely better than our ice hockey teams. Or it may just be because my high school was an ice-hockey-playing school. For now I'll add Korea alongside Germany there... --Iceager 10:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think trying to identify the finer points of language usage in Korean, Hindi, Urdu, Dutch, German, Afrikaans, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and so on is kind of getting irrelevant to the article, so I restated the original point. The Korean usage would be very relevant to the Korean-language Wikipedia, of course.
By the way, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi! :)--Robert Merkel 10:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here Here, go aussie

I removed the bit about it being the Indian and Pakistani national sport. By any sensible definition, cricket is the national sport of both countries, as anybody from a fellow cricket-playing nation who has spent 30 seconds talking to a citizen of either country would know. They are not that strong in international competition either since the widespread introduction of synthetic fields in the 1980's. --Robert Merkel 22:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this should of been removed. In Pakistan and India the most popular sport may be cricket, but its offical national sport is field hockey. I think the offical definition of a national sport overides that of a sensible one. 123.255.60.145 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
We need a reference to support the assertion. David Underdown 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much and search of Google for "National Sport of India" will produce field hockey, like here[1] and here[2] and here for Pakistan[3], I just can't find any proper reference.


The title 'Field Hockey' will avoid the problem of those only interested in ice-hockey making 'hits' on the article and then, probably, complaining about others wasting their time, but using Field Hockey as a title excludes indoor hockey - 'indoor field hockey' is an absurdity (there may be an indoor field surface for hockey but I don't know of one).

Hockey (field); Hockey (indoor); Hockey (roller); Hockey (street) and Hockey (ice), if there isn't a seperate article for Ice Hockey might be workable; it is at least a systematic approach. ZigZag (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What about some kind of history

I think it lacks a kind of history: Persian origin, big evolution of the rules (I remember, my grand-father used to throw the ball with the hand the put the ball back into to the pitch !), introduction and spreading of synthetic fields, ... I will start something that way, if everybody agrees. Any ideas welcomed. Lvr 08:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitely, though be careful about claiming an exclusively Persian origin; I believe there were a number of similar games in a number of cultures throughout history and dating to prehistoric times. I'd also suggest you add a seperate section on "history and rules evolution" to avoid cluttering up the description of how the game is played today with too many digressions on how the game was played in the past (except in a few rare cases where the information might be helpful). Anyway, great idea and I look forward to working with you on this. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I will begin with some kind of separated page to avoid confusion while working. Do not hesitate to check my spelling. However, don't expect to have something quickly. As mentionned on my page, I'm a slow paced wikipedian ! Lvr 15:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have written the first two chapters of history, at Field hockey history. Do not hesitate to rephrase my poor English. Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Field Hockey" page history

They are a couple of stuff that were removed from this page:

  • a diagram of the pitch,
  • links to other wiki

Why has this been removed. Shouldn't it be convenient to bring it back. See: this old page. Lvr 16:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why they were removed, they shouldn't have been, I've added them back in again, it isn't hard to add in again, and next time just be bold and do it yourself!
I was wondering about some copyright problems (for the image at least) ! Lvr 10:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the image description page says, I created it and placed it into the public domain. --Robert Merkel 13:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll be bolder next time ! Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other "would be nice" topics

I have plan to add a section with

  • the leading countries. I should not change too often !
    • Added - need to start work on getting web links for each one, and possibly where there's enough info, content about hockey in each country - for instance it would be quite easy in the big players, as you can show league info etc? Nunners 10:15, 12 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • indoor hockey (If somebody has facts about latter issue (such countries where it is played, national competitions, ...), I'll be glad to have them).
  • international hockey - list of current rankings, tournaments etc? Nunners 09:15, 12 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • Other things that are missing ???

Lvr 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've put in a proposal to create a hockey portal - that way we can get all the hockey articles into one format etc. If anyone has any suggestions, then lets all get our minds together and work it through! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:Field_Hockey Cheers Nunners --Nunners 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Summer Sport Category

I removed this Summer Sport Category. I guess it depends of the general weather of each country. Here in Central Europe, we won't play hockey during the summer because it's too hot ! We play it in automn, winter (except for a few weeks) and lent. Lvr 09:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. That category is misconceived anyway as I've argued at length, and I've placed in on Categories for deletion. --Robert Merkel 12:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Dominant Sport??

Hi there,

i am from northern ireland and i am a keen player of the sport.I have been playing since I was very young along with my family who also play. My brother and I have got to a good standard,my brother represented ireland and under age levels and i got a trial for under 16. But the sport here takes a back seat to other sports like rugby and I feel that when I have watched my brother play against teams like the dutch, spanish and germans that they are far superior and wonder is this due to hockey being a popular sport or that the players are just simpply better and have good coaching from a young age? Jc22 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hockey is very popular in the Netherlands, as far as I can say. Lvr 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
While hockey's not a "dominant sport" anywhere in the world it seems to be most popular in those countries that you mention, as well as Australia, India, and Pakistan. By the law of averages the best players from a larger pool will tend to be better than those from a smaller pool, all other things being equal. In addition, those nations you mention have strong leagues where the best players play against each other regularly and are expertly coached. Finally, they spend money developing their very, very best players for international competition. So the answer to your question is probably "yes", to both popularity and better coaching. --Robert Merkel 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Spain or South Korea or Malaysia

I agree with 155.69.5.235 modification to replace South Korea by Spain. In the FIH ranking for September 2005, Spain is 4th (men) en 10th (women), while Korea is 7th (men), 9th (women). I reput Spain instead of South Korea, which is already listed further in the artile. Lvr 09:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Malaysia, please check the above FIH rankink link: Malaysia is merley 14th in the world for men and is not ranked in 12 first nations for women ! If we include Malaysia, we should include beforehand other countries like South Korea, Poland, ... even my own Belgium !

This external link has been moved to the field hockey history article. Please don't add it here again. Lvr 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Metrification and field of play

The conversion to metric units is slightly more complicated than given here. The dotted line is 5m from the circle line, not 5 yards (4.55m), similarly new pitches, or remarking of existing pitches, is supposed to give the attacker's and defender's PC marks being 5m and 10m from the inside of the goal posts, rather than 5 and 10 yards, and the long corner mark is 5m from the backline. Also the marks 5m from the sidelines on the 23m lines and centre lines are no longer required. See pages 14-17 of the FIH Rules of Hockey I'm not sure how best to word this (which is why I haven't edited it), perhaps something along the lines of units were originally in whole numbers of yards, these have generally been changed to the exact metric equivalents, with the exception of some 5 and 10 yard distances which have been increased to exactly 5 and 10 metres

I think the best way of wording this is to give the actual and offical measures instead of the old ones and to update the picture. I think to mention the change in this page is not relevant. Only the latest rules should be described here. The rules modifications should be mentionned in the second section of the field hockey history page. This is still in a list state, but we are trying to get enough valuable data before writing something neat.
I can cope with modifying the picture if Robert Merkel (who did the original drawing) doesn't do it. Lvr 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see an anonymous user has removed the imperial measurements, but not changed the preceding paragraph that refers to them, which makes a bit of a mockery of it, plus it now uses the word "times" when describing the dimensions, rather than × which looks ugly in my opinion (i.e. using ht eword rather than the character is ugly). David Underdown 11:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurling

"Hurling dates to before 1272 BC." This is dubious. While the article points out that games like field hockey have a long history going back to ancient Egypt, one would like to see a reference supporting the claim on hurling. Who was writing about the Irish in 1272 BC? Or was it their Celtic ancestors in the Balkans? Axel 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Dangerous play

As an umpire I can see no justification for the 3m distance given for deciding on dangerous play on shots at goal, the only references in the rulebook are to 5m. I've not edited immediately as the whole concept of danger as related to shots on goal can get a bit heated, as can be seen on any of the hockey web forums. David Underdown

Please edit appropriately. I'm not up on the latest interpretations; my understanding as a fullback has been if I'm anywhere near the goals forward are free to regard me as a target :/ --Robert Merkel 11:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that's precisely the idea that causes most of the arguments on the talk boards, there are those who say that the defender accepts any danger by standing on or around the goal line, and those that find that rather hard to square with how the dangerous play rules are actually written. Anyway, the main point was that the only "cut-off" distance mentioned is 5m, e.g. "If a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal during the taking of a penalty corner and is struck by the ball below the knee, another penalty corner must be awarded.
If a defender is within five metres of the first shot at goal and is struck above the knee in a normal stance, the shot is judged to be dangerous and a free hit must be awarded to the defending team."
Still not entirely sure how to edit it without heading towards POV. I'll think about it some more. Just realised I hadn't signed this originally, or above comment. David Underdown

Well, since an anon had made some changes to this anyway, I have made a few changes myself now. In doing so, I've also realised that we don't currently explain what a hit, push etc are and the differences between them, don't want to end up copying large chunks of the rules though. David Underdown 16:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that 5m is a "cut-off" distance for 'dangerous' when a ball is propelled by one player at another. The guidance to the rule, (which specifically relates to a shot at goal at a penalty corner but has been generally adopted within the game in open play and in all parts of the field), states that a ball lifted to above knee height and from within 5m of the player at which it is propelled, will certainly be dangerous, but that does not mean that a ball that is played from beyond 5m. cannot be judged to be dangerous: legitimate evasive action remains the determining criteria.
If the umpire judges that evasive action was necessary to avoid injury, then the player taking that action (or attempting to) has been endangered. Basically, if the umpire is of the opinion that a ball has been played dangerously at another player, then it has been played dangerously, even if propelled from beyond 5m of the player it endangers. The umpire is the sole judge of the matter, be the ball propelled from within 1m or from beyond 14m (i.e. from within the circle-line to the goal line).
Further, a ball that is lifted high over a considerable distance 30m - 40m or more, which may fall on the position of players who were close together at the time the ball was lifted, may be judged to be a dangerously played ball; in some circumstances that will lead to a free-ball being awarded at the place the ball was lifted, as the place where the danger was caused, and in others a free-ball (or other penalty) may be awarded at the place the ball fell or was falling. The possibility of a dangerously played ball is not "cut-off" at an arbitrary 5m 'limit', that minimum distance for 'certainly dangerous' is not a maximum distance for 'dangerous in the opinion of the umpire', the umpire is not limited or confined in that way. ZigZag (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How do I prevent part of my posts sometimes appearing in the edit summary box even when I put reason for the post in that box? ZigZag (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Martin, I never said that a ball more than 5m away couldn't be dangerous - I only used that word - in quotes to highlight the dubious nature of it - because an even more bizarre statement was previously in the article. There is no need to go through this page and reply to every single old conversation, most of which are long since resolved. David Underdown (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that POV David?. On a hockey forum we can at least assume some knowledge of the subject from contributors (except perhaps when they are in their early teens). An encyclopedia may be merely a comparative reference for those playing other sport or not involved in sport at all.

I put my previous contribution up in the discussion page for some days before placing it in the article because I found previous contributions deleted. My experience has been that even well accepted practice in hockey is considered POV and (wrongly)even a criticism of existing rule because of the way it is phrased rather than because of the facts stated.

What aspect of the 5m "cut off" is resolved? Sorry to be late to the subject of the article but I will go through any page in any subject that I choose to and make additions or alterations where I feel that to be appropriate. I have never gone along with the theory that the first speaker is correct or right or even that they are telling the truth, in many instances it is obviously not so. You were kind enough to remove my "excessive and unnecessary use of italics" in a previous post (POV? But thanks) I have corrected your spelling of 'dubious'.92.14.47.81 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article need not cover every nuance of hockey, it's here to provide an overview. My criticism of the formatting was based on the Manual of Style. Whilst the content of articles may be editted "mercilessly" as the notes of the bottom of the edit window point out, it's considered bad form to edit others' talkpage posts, see WP:TALK. Phrasing like "while not perfect" as you initially used immediately begs the question "by whom?" which is a perfect example of introducing a non-neutral point of view into an article - if such criticism can be attributed to a reliable thrid party source, then that's fine, but it really need to come from an acknowledged expert. If we could write something like (for example) "in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Ric Charlesworth described the current wording of the dangerous play rule as being flawed because...", that would be fine. Just because velocity is not explicitly mentioned, does not mean that umpires do not take it into account when decided whether evaisve action was necessary/legitimate. David

Underdown (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief David, you and I both know that the rules governing the dangerously lifted ball are far from perfect: as an NPHL umpire you could 'validate' that comment. Although I have not the level of experience of Charlesworth, I too have been an international hockey coach, as well as an umpire and know enough about the application of the rules of hockey to make valid comment on a talk page. Charlesworth has been outspoken in his criticism of the rules about the lifted ball but I feel that his article, which I could no doubt find, would not fit well into a general article about hockey, even as a reference it might just cause confusion among those not very familiar with the game.

I feel that if you did not know me very well through the various hockey fora where we have exchanged views you would not have bothered with these 'corrections'. There are certainly more glaring errors than mine in the article and I note that you have previously written that you do not have time to make structured contribution to it - but you have time to waste 'correcting' me even though you know I was correct.

I bow to your instructions concerning the use of italics.ZigZag (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We can say what we like here on the talk page - though it should be directed toward improving the article, rather than general chit-chat, but to go in the article it must be verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. I've tried to keep on top of "glaring errors" but it's perfectly possible things have slipped through - it's easier to audit things as they are added due to the "diff2 functionality, once there embedded in the article it takes more effort to proof-read the whole thing, and particularly to do a wholesale restructure. The real problem when it comes to trying to improve this article in the direction of being recognised as a Good or better still, Featured article is the relative dearth of authorative published works on hockey (especially of recent vintage). That compared with the paucity of media coverage of the sport makes the verfiication a difficult point, whatever you or I may know ourselves (and note that I'm only a county umpire, not national league). I know who you are, or at least I can assume I do, based on your username - if you think about it I have no real way of being certain of the point, but a newbie coming to the article would not. If there was press coverage out there quoting you as an international coach that would also be fine (though the conflict of interest guidelines would dictate that you didn't introduce it to the article yourself). David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have come across the verification problem in an article in another area David and all I can do there is to take the time to go through that article and strip out all that I see as unverifiable - which will improve it but not add anything to it - and will be a complete waste of time.

In this article, which is far less emotive, there is as you say not a great deal that is useful published (in fact I would argue with much of what is published) and certainly a reading of the rules gives little insight into the application of them, which is what I was trying to do: so we are 'up the creek without a paddle'

I am the ZigZag that you will also have known as Conundrum on the now defunct HockeyWeb forum and the FHF, the one who invented that peculiar stick and thinks elbow height should be used as a limiting height for a lifted hit in the outfield and for a drag flick at a penalty corner (among sixty-four other changes)- and if that information in addition to my writing style hasn't identified me, IM me at TalkingHockey and I will respond. ZigZag (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I happy in my own mind that I know who you are, but the point that I was tryign to make is that for Wikipedia purposes it doens't really matter. Anyhting we write here we have to be able to back up by published sources - ragardless of what we ourselves may "know" about a given topic, and however much of an expert we can justifiably claim to be. David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay David I misunderstood this "I know who you are, or at least I can assume I do, based on your username - if you think about it I have no real way of being certain of the point,.." as uncertainty. So where do we go from here? Not much is verifiable from published sources outside of the Rules of Hockey and Umpires Briefing except perhaps what David Whittaker, Ric Charlesworth, Horse Wein, John Gawley and various journalists have written - and much of that is opinion. Where do we start? At the moment much of the article seems to be put together by American High School or College students who are unfamiliar with FIH rules and the application of them and who have perhaps never played or seen hockey played on any surface except natural grass - a distant memory at most levels of european hockey. ZigZag (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth looking a step back and looking at the Association football article, and any other sport articles which have bee rated as Featured Articles - what have they got that this article hasn't? Is this article structured in a similar way, and going into similar level of detail. Remmber that this is really only supposed to be an overview - we can't hope to cover every nuance of the rules. What sources are available to us, other than the FIH and NGB websites, the rulebook, briefings and so on. Do any additional sources qualify as reliable sources? David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your response a new rule is under review where it will be required that all players wear face masks to help protect their faces. Bfowler513 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Bfowler513


Consider John Smith (ie why to use "hockey" not "field hockey" in the text)

It might be helpful to think about John Smith (Labour Party leader). Within that article, he gets called "John Smith" in the lead, and "Smith" thereafter, even though there are many other people called Smith or John Smith. Similarly, within the article called "Field hockey", it makes sense to refer to the game as "hockey" as that it what the governing body calls it: we don't need to distinguish it from ice hockey or other forms of hockey within this article. Hope that helps. PamD 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no problem calling it field hockey at first reference and hockey thereafter. Compare the various football articles —association football, American football etc — which do the corresponding thing. My only complaint is that the ice hockey article should also use the word hockey at second reference, which is an argument that I have made at that article, but thus far have been unable to prevail. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. No copyright in the above John Smith remarks, so feel free to use them over there. PamD 08:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree--I think using the term 'hockey' after makes the most sense. Ice hockey should as well! I've played both sports and have refereed to them as simply 'hockey' in different contexts. I also think the article could use a section of the different levels of field hockey (high school, division I II II, professional, olympic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickey13 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Page title

Shouldn't the page title be Hockey rather than Field Hockey? Kniwor (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No. --Trovatore (talk)
The Yanks and Canucks would never allow it - and they rule WP. They simply cannot ever admit that what they call hockey is a "deviant" form of the game and this one is the original. Roger (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Less emotionally, please review WP:ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The term "hockey" in American English means Ice Hockey. The world-wide default English language is American English. The other Hockeys thus require qualifiers. Simple as that. And I have played one of those other "hockeys" (that is, Field Hockey) since I was 10 years old, and hope to keep playing until I cark it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
As recommended above, see WP:ENGVAR where you will read: "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." PamD 10:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense! There is no such thing as a "world-wide default English language". You've obviously never read WP:ENGVAR. Roger (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping for a more convincing reason as to why this page is titled "Field Hockey". Wikipedia is supposed to reflect facts, and not the sentiments and conveniences of any particular set of people. Absent any official source, I agree that the conventions must be followed, but this is not the case here. This is about the very name of the sport, and if the official website of the International Hockey Federation calls the sport by the name "Hockey", that is what must be reflected here. Lacking any cogent arguments otherwise, I will move to rename this page in due time. Changing the name if this sport to "Field Hockey" is like changing the name of the country "Republic of China" in the wikipedia article to "Taiwan", which is not acceptable. Though the entire world calls it Taiwan, the official name is unambiguously clear, and must be correctly reflected.Kniwor (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason it is not simply called hockey is that, in some English varieties, unmodified hockey means ice hockey. Combine that with "Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of English", and you have your answer.
As for the International Hockey Federation, it is not entitled to dictate what ice hockey shall be called, so we have a conflict (note that the National Hockey League, which is much more important than the International Ice Hockey Federation, uses simply hockey in the name). --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(I should say that none of what I've said necessarily means that the article has to be called field hockey. If editors preferred to use parenthetical disambiguation, it could be, I don't know, hockey (field) or hockey (IHf) or something of the sort. But it can never be just hockey, because of the conflict with ice hockey.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of parenthetical disambiguation - provided it is applied consistently to all affected articles. Roger (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, personally, I don't. I was just pointing out that it was an option. At some point in the past, the association football article used to be called football (soccer). I think the current solution is more elegant. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, provided the proponents of Ice Hockey are also willing to not make any claims of primacy. Roger (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Travatore, I am not suggesting that the International Hockey Federeation has any right to name (or rename) the sport of Ice Hockey, but the name of the sport that they represent is up to them. Field Hockey seems to be an arbitrary choice of name, something that is more fitting as an entry in the Urban Dictionary, but not the Wikipedia. If there is another sport with the same name, then there should be disambiguation. But a conflict cannot be the reason of arbitrary renaming of a sport. Moreover, the International Ice Hockey Federation calls the sport Ice Hockey, and not Hockey. The fact the National Hockey League chooses to use the short form Hockey is not conclusive of the name of the sport. However, if that is the name, then there should be disambiguation, not arbitrary renaming of another sport.Kniwor (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The point is, you can't have the name hockey. Other than that I don't care. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW: There is absolutely no factual or logical basis to the claim that "the National Hockey League is much more important than the International Ice Hockey Federation". The NHL is merely a (bi)national organisation and even in the US and Canada they do not regulate the sport at all levels, in fact they represent/regulate only a small number of teams involved in a single annual tournament. On the other hand the IIHF is the global governing body and the only one with the authority to write the rules of the sport at all levels. Who speaks for Ice Hockey at the International Olympic Committee? It sure as hell ain't the NHL. Roger (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The NHL is more important than Olympic hockey. --Trovatore (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Which part of "in only two countries" do you not understand? Roger (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Counting countries is irrelevant. Hockey is the national sport of Canada. Everywhere else it's just a sidelight. I am confident that the total revenue of the NHL dwarfs that of ice hockey in the rest of the world. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And by the way, these self-appointed international bodies have no authority whatsoever except what the leagues grant them. They don't deserve any special consideration at WP. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
HMOG, is this still being debated? If I could, I would run down the Information Superhighway and clonk you *all* on the noggin with my new carbon fibre/kevlar/ceramic composite Field hockey stick.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a bit rich coming from someone who hadn't even read ENGVAR! Roger (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course I've read WP:ENGVAR. Then again, I'm from Australia, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them. ;-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Card

Should the Green Card section be updated to reflect current International rules ? (2 minutes in the sin bin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.22.159 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the current version of the game

This article and other similar Wikipedia articles refer to the version of the game that has been taken up as being originated by "Middlesex" clubs - (namely Teddington, Richmond and Surbiton).

While Teddington is indeed in Middlesex, Richmond and Surbiton are in Surrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.108.223 (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

General Play

General Play rules need to be updated. Recent changes have been made to the rules such as the self-start rule, and how there are no longer long hits. Tfinnn (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Southern States?

There is a tiny pocket in Florida, a larger but still insignificant in Georgia (Atlanta). Not aware of any in Alabama or Mississippi. There is some in North Carolina. There is some in California, and Colorado. There is women's collegiate hockey. I think the reference to Southern States should be removed. By tiny in Florida, I'm talking < 100 people who may less than semi-regularly. No organized leagues in GA, FL, AL, Mississippi.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Field hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The field hockey ball size

"A field hockey ball with a 5 franc coin" . . . what 5 franc? The Cameroonian franc? The Guadeloupe franc? More importantly, how big are those 5 franc coins, and how many people are familiar with them?

In fact, does anyone have a ball and a ruler that they can photograph together; that would be helpful. Nick Barnett (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead sentence

So firstly, the (apparently) pro-ice-hockey edits of the IPv6 editor were obviously helpful and true.

That said, I do not see any need for "known in most countries". Even if it is true, which is not clear to me (note also that it is unsourced), it feels like a gratuitous slap at North Americans and at ice hockey. Ice hockey is also "known as hockey" where it is played (an earlier edit opined that calling ice hockey "hockey" was the same as calling water polo "polo", but this is demonstrably not true; water polo players and fans do not call it "polo", but ice hockey players and fans do call it "hockey").

Separately, I am unable to follow David Biddulph's rationale for this revert, in which he says: Global change from hockey to "field hockey" broke links, & invalidated quotes & reference titles. That sounds like an objection to a move from hockey to field hockey, but in fact there has been no such move, at least not recently. Hockey is an article on all games of the hockey family, and this has been the state of affairs for many many years. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trovatore: I was not commenting on the title of the article. If you look at the IP's edit you will see the broken wikilink, a broken reference, and invalid title of another reference. The IP's next edit included falsification of the quote which he claimed was supported by reference 12. Hence the reversion of the IP's edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, but you didn't revert the IP's edits. I had already done that. You reverted my edit. --Trovatore (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see now. You reverted to a version by Davefelmer, but not, as I had assumed, the most recent version by Davefelmer.
OK, fair enough. I still see no need for "known in most countries", as I have explained above. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It is the truth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Granting for the sake of argument that it is true, I still don't find it useful to say in that spot. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Maahockey listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maahockey. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"In the United States field hockey is played predominantly by females."

This sentence is just left hanging, without context or explanation.

I suggest we work the following into the text: "Field hockey, a mostly male-dominated game in Europe, is almost exclusively played by girls in the US due to the passing of Title IX in 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools and made field hockey a counterweight to boys’ football." [4] CapnZapp (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Term "grass hockey" sometimes used informally in US, Canada

In third paragraph: "the term "field hockey" (and sometimes "grass hockey" informally) is used primarily in Canada and the United States where ice hockey is more popular.

I don't think adding the words (and sometimes "grass hockey" informally) is too disruptive to the field hockey world outside Canada and the United States. Thoughts? Google "grass hockey" -> About 50,200 results (0.56 seconds) Facts707 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I'm not too concerned about it because I see Google "field hockey" -> About 19,600,000 results (0.82 seconds). I won't add "(and sometimes "grass hockey" informally)" unless a consensus here develops. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Good. -Roxy . wooF 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most hockey is played on artificial surface like 2G astroturf so grass not really appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.178.220 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Field_hockey/Archive_1&oldid=1236214765"