The Shave Tackle

I'm not sure when it was invented, and I've only been introduced to it this season, but I personally think shave tackling is awesome. I was warned that umpires could potentially see it's brilliance as a blatant foul and blow for it, but that

didn't quite prepare me for yesterdays league game, when the umpire decided to consistently blow every time I tried one. And it wasn't just me; it was every single member of our team who executed one that got blown, even when they were perfectly clean and arguably genius tackles. I was fuming: does this guy know the rules at all? Does he even know what hockey is?

Harsh, I know, but it got me thinking. This guy was middle aged, maybe a little older. He probably got his umpiring qualification a long time ago, way before this type of tackle was introduced to the game. So, he's sort of out of the loop. What if level one's had to be renewed? I'm sure this is the case higher up in the hockey world, (although I'm no expert, and I don't pretend to be) but possibly having a time frame in which a qualification has to be repeated would be beneficial to the game. People will probably think I'm taking this way too seriously, I mean it's just one little thing - just avoid the shave tackles, right? But it's not just that, it's other little details in the game that have changed and can easily be missed by umpires who are not up to date with the current rules.

I think especially in men's hockey arguments can spark over any tiny little thing, and if the umpire is in fact wrong then the authority in the game is invalid, and this could lead to rougher and less civilised games. It creates unnecessary frustration from players and spectators alike and it doesn't allow the game to move forward. What if we, as a team, now decided to stop doing shave tackles, because we felt it was not worth it in case they got blown? We'd end up losing a valuable part of the game. I know this is only a problem lower down the leagues, because premier division and international umpires need higher qualifications. But millions also play hockey at lower levels, and if we want the sport to increase in popularity to counter the likes of football and golf, little things like this need to be fixed. It's not a big deal, something that's easily implemented: just make umpires retake their qualification every couple of years. No biggie.

I know what people would say. Umpires are hard to come by anyway, especially at lower levels. If you give them another thing they have to do other than turn up in the freezing cold and blow their whistle, teams are really going to struggle to find them at all. But what's the point of having a barely qualified umpire turn up? Quality over quantity would be an advantage to hockey players everywhere. Then we can work on the quantity with our planned world domination with the sport!

Some would argue that the changing, evolving side to hockey is a hindrance, but I think it's great. It keeps the game up to date and keeps the players on their toes; there's always new stuff to learn and new ways to train. But if we have umpires who are stuck in the past, how can we hope to move forward? We need them to be just as up to date as we are as players!