Talk:Field hockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Sports (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Olympics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconField hockey is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Green Card[edit]

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)

Dangerous play[edit]

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


Hurling[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Page title[edit]

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)

Not "in most countries"[edit]

Someone keeps reverting the terminology in the lead paragraph to read "In most countries, it is known simply as hockey'". This is incorrect; field hockey is generally known as "hockey" only in the UK and a few of its former colonies. Elsewhere, it needs to be described as "field hockey" (or a local language equivalent) in order to be disambiguated from other forms of hockey, particularly ice hockey, which is significantly more popular in many parts of the world (North America, Continental Europe, Russia, etc.). If someone wants to make the claim that field hockey is is known as simply hockey "in most countries," some evidence needs to be provided. For now, I'm changing "most countries" back to "some countries". --WorldWide Update (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're grossly missreprsenting the number of countries included in your phrasing "the UK and a few of its former colonies" - in fact Ice hockey is predominant in ONLY two if its fomer colonies - US and Canada. The rest of the entire English speaking world uses "hockey" to mean "field hockey". We are not concerned about non-English usage at all, so "continental Europe, Russia, etc" do not count. Roger (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with WorldWide Update. Hockey = Ice Hockey in more parts of the world. SO the wording should change to some. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well of course you would, you're Canadian. Roger (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
We may not be concerned about non-English usage, but we certainly need to be concerned about English-language usage everywhere, even in traditionally non-English-speaking countries. In today's globalized world, English is the world's most widespread second language, and is widely spoken and understood in places such as Continental Europe, so limiting one's examples to the British Commonwealth makes little sense. The English Wikipedia is meant for English-speaking users around the world, not merely those who live in countries where English is the predominant language.--WorldWide Update (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Besides, this has little to do with the fact that the use of the phrase "most countries" (no mention of language) in the lead paragraph is misleading. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there not some way to reword so that "some"/"many"/"most" can be completely avoided? In countries where field hockey is played and ice hockey is not, field hockey is called "hockey". In countries where ice hockey is played or watched to any significant extent, ice hockey is the sport called just "hockey". Right? So can we not just acknowledge that rather than have an endless pissing match about who has more of whatever? Franamax (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable to me. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to say 'In most countries [field hockey],...is known simply as hockey'. As I write, I am watching the Hockey World Cup. It is field hockey. The the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has 126 members compared with the 77-member International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) as stated in the Wikipedia article about hockey. Both governing bodies therefore, agree on the terminology. I know North Americans are passionate about the fine sport of ice hockey and think it is a more manly game (though this would be an extremely dubious assertion to anyone who has played top level field hockey), but it is a variant. Calling ice hockey 'hockey' is the equivalent of calling water polo 'polo' or beach volleyball 'volleyball'. Iggyc61 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It makes me smile to read these constant demands that North American usage should prevail whatever the circumstances on Wikipedia. Often this is accompanied by assertions that their usage is the majority so should be used. Even if this assertion were true (normally dubious), then if we are to follow majority usage North Americans should follow majority world usage and stop calling the ground floor the first floor, stop calling football soccer, and use dates in the common format DYM (63%) or even YMD (32%) rather than MDY (3%)! DickyP (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry guys, Canada owns hockey and their way goes. Hockey == ice hockey. That's just how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:C200:CDBF:4498:B56A:62BE:2130 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the current version of the game[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

"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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

Information.svg

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)