Earlier, hockey games could not begin till a goal keeper wore a helmet and a face guard. Forget the helmet and face guards. Hockey games can start even without a goal keeper in the near future. DNA has more:

In order to make hockey more attacking, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has recommended some drastic changes in the goalkeeper’s role in the game, even giving teams a choice of not fielding a custodian.

“We’ve set out three clear options: playing with a goalkeeper wearing full protective equipment; a goalkeeper just wearing protective headgear; or no goalkeeper at all,” Wolfgang Rommel, Chairman of the Hockey Rules Board (HRB), said.

The piece says that the rule has been enacted to bring in more attacking flare into the sport. It is a misplaced perception that attacking = more attractive. Be it basketball, football, cricket or hockey, bigger scores or goals is unrelated to the quality of a match. A good contest is much more fascinating than the scores which finally come up on the score board.

The defenders can now play a larger role as the article goes on to say:

The other important change in the rule book is that the defenders can now stop a high shot at goal with their sticks.

With this rule in place, you can expect to see most of the players looking to score a goal with only a few holding back as and when necessary. The community of goal keepers will no wonder be a bit saddened by the development.

I am all for improvements in sport. However, I see the current changes as unnecessary. Hockey is a tactical game and at the centre of the tactics lies thwarting the goal keeper and the defense around him. Things will be very different if there is no goal keeper present.

If you want to bring in new audiences to a sport, you can try with forming fun games - like cricket is going with Twenty 20. It is essentially attracting people who found the older versions of cricket uninteresting. With the changes like the ones proposed, you only lose a few of your already established followers.

There is the big question of how many teams will use the new options also which can be pondered over. Despite more options to the defenders, a goal keeper is some one who is tough to replace to stop goals. So would teams really take such a big risk? I love the way hockey is and don’t think the new changes are adding much either way.

The story of Indian hockey pains the Indian sports lover particularly - dominating champions in another year but now trailing and merely making the numbers. It is a sad story which is symbolic of the poor state Indian sport is in general. I haven’t written at length on the issue yet and my excuse is that I am too frustrated with Indian hockey to talk with perspective on it.

There have been some intentions shown like with the Professional Hockey League (which has changes to the rule to apparently try to appeal to the masses). Poor timings of the PHL have shown poor regard on it by the organisers. For example, in it’s second edition it was hosted while the India-Pakistan cricket series - the worst time to try to capture an audience. The sad situation Indian Hockey finds itself in cannot ever be rued less.

Chidambarakumari Ponnambalam presents another mourning essay on the subject: [Via Desipundit]

For all his brilliance on the field, Dhyan Chand died an ordinary man without a hefty bank balance. If this is the way we treat our Star players, we have no bloody right to complain about anyone not performing in the international arena.

The pertinent question is - ‘what can be done to improve Indian hockey?’ Infrastructure and training facilities are the keys obviously. Where does the money come in for the same? The slow but best way is by in-house initiatives like the PHL to create interest in the game. Only, such initiatives should be handled properly and seriously.

Some related posts on the plight in general in Indian sports and some new marked improvements - Why India doesn’t win at the Olympics, Indian shooting boom, Indian Football.