I say good on them for putting it out there... rules like this need to be made... and changed.
... no where do they say any of the points are set in stone. I think these are pretty good IMO.
I think intent and ref judgement calls are a tricky one to pick up but has been worded in the right ways. (points 13.1 and 12.8)
I think the way a foot down defensive player in the goal stopping the ball with his/her foot could be dealt with in the same way....the referee may use his discretion to call the play a goal.
I don't like any rule that requires the ref to decide intent.
Sometimes inept or clumsy, but otherwise well-meaning players can be just as dangerous, and unfair, as a highly skilled, but malicious, player.
I think it is better to allow the ref to penalise dangerous or violent play, rather than have to decide whether a player meant to injure.
Not sure if I agree with Ray about letting the ref calling a goal when the ball hasn't actually crossed the line, but been blocked by a foot-down player or a thrown mallet. In my view, a goal should only ever be called when the ball crosses the line. Personally, I think that the offending player should be expelled from the remainder of the game.
I don't like any rule that requires the ref to decide intent.
Sometimes inept or clumsy, but otherwise well-meaning players can be just as dangerous, and unfair, as a highly skilled, but malicious, player.
I think it is better to allow the ref to penalise dangerous or violent play, rather than have to decide whether a player meant to injure.
Not sure if I agree with Ray about letting the ref calling a goal when the ball hasn't actually crossed the line, but been blocked by a foot-down player or a thrown mallet. In my view, a goal should only ever be called when the ball crosses the line. Personally, I think that the offending player should be expelled from the remainder of the game.