Hockey 5’s

A priori I don’t discard the possibility of having a short format of hockey.

We have a short format already: indoor hockey, which in my opinion is far from being a right model for this desired “expansion and popularity” that FIH has, but at least it works in a way that primes skill and decision making under time/space pressure. And indoor achieves all of this while keeping the danger under reasonable control (except in penalty corners).

I can imagine a kind of 5-a-side format that can be very similar to indoor, with a couple of changes and then just simply being transferred to other surfaces, in a very similar way that tennis does: you can play on grass, clay, concrete, etc.

Anyway, that is more about a political/strategic decision than just a technical one. I’m sure FIH has studied these pros/cons of having a new format already. So that’s not my goal here.

I just want to highlight some design problems of the current 5-a-side format, that is, watching the internal logic of the game and finding some behaviors that I find, besides ugly, problematic:

Boards at the End:

That creates an incentive for teams in ball possession to progress without any investment in passing combinations. That’s the reason why in pinball games it is always better to shoot hard. You can get a positional superiority or just a 50/50 duel while just playing a blind ball forward. In other hockey variants with end-boards (ice, rink) you always get that ball possession behind the goal, in an area from where you have to escape if you want to have a chance to score. That’s not the case in this format.

Big Circles:

In most team invasion sports, the most dangerous moment is the shot on goal, because by definition it requires more power than a pass. In sports where you can score from everywhere, the chances to score from far away distances made the option not very attractive. In football, for example, you can score from everywhere, but the chances to get a positive outcome from a far shot are minimal, because the goalie can save it, but also because defenders can intercept it without any risk of committing an offense (unless they touch it with the hand). In hockey, while hitting you can always have a positive outcome if the small ball touches one foot, is deflected or is saved by a goalie who can’t hold the ball, just repel it. That is the reason why the bigger the circle, the bigger is the incentive to hit hard. It’s completely the opposite way of proceeding than what has been done in indoor hockey rules and regulations, where you have to be really fine and precise to get a clean shot on goal. Don’t expect nice creative interactions in this format, there is no incentive for that.

Danger:

In hockey we are used to having circles with high density of players, the shots are most of the time under pressure, facing sideways or backwards, and most importantly: players have been well attuned to the skill dynamics, forging patterns of anticipation that guide their movement. If we want to play this sport as it is right now, it has to be done with full protective equipment, otherwise the risk is too high. I repeat, the risk is obvious and we should anticipate possible episodes to regret.

I’m not against the possibility of having a short “all-rounded” format of hockey. Actually, there is something in this idea that I like. But the current format of this sport is absolutely badly designed, not only for danger issues, but also for skill and tactical demands.

Just by removing the end boards and making the circles smaller you can get a massive improvement in game dynamics plus danger reduction. That's the quickest and easiest solution that I imagine.

Cheers,

Andreu Enrich