Stanford Player Gets Red Card for Hit

[fanlaxUN]

Agree with Can Opener's comments. I do believe there is at least a 50% chance the player thought the opponent had the ball and was trying to play out the time. I also don't think the hit was any more lethal (and in many cases less so) than the blatent, straight-arm cross checks that defenders, riders are delivering directly into on-coming ball carriers dodging, shooting or clearing the ball. Its a Red Card because the player did not have the ball, but the defender may not have known. Its not a Red Card based on the hit. Your kidding yourselfs if you think this is relatively violent vs. other game play.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Your kidding yourselfs if you think this is relatively violent vs. other game play.

Well put. Body-jarring cross checks happen all over the field all the time in the sport. The unsightly bruises on the upper arms of so many of the players are testament to that.

[Womenslaxxfan]

Your kidding yourselfs if you think this is relatively violent vs. other game play.

Well put. Body-jarring cross checks happen all over the field all the time in the sport. The unsightly bruises on the upper arms of so many of the players are testament to that.

The hit itself was yellow card worthy anywhere on the field— But it was the circumstance that made it a red card. End of game, player without the ball. I think the game is better if that hit—at that time—is red carded. And while we’re at it, although that game was only a one goal game where a turnover in the defensive end could have led to a tie game, there’s far too much hacking at the end of the game by teams trying to get the ball from an opponent’s offense that is winning 3, 4 or even 5+ goals with 30 seconds to play in the game. I’d like to see the coaches have some class and just let the winning team run the game out without fouling like crazy…for no reason at all. Once the ball is in the offensive end, the other team just can’t physically score more than 2 goals in 30 seconds.

[watcherinthewoods]

Parents on this forum, close your eyes and imagine it was your daughter taking that hit ... blind and off ball. It could have been a lot worse. Red cards are intended to penalize (among other things) reckless and dangerous behavior. This card was correctly applied.

[2004wrongisland]

It was a cheap shot. Game basically over. The excuse that she thought the offensive player had the ball doesn’t fly. You can clearly see that the offensive player’s stick is empty and the defender is only a foot away. She makes no play for a looose ball which would have occurred if the ball was still in the offensive player’s stick. It was an unsportsmanlike play from a frustrated player .

She shouldn’t be crucified for it but she shouldn’t be excused for it either.

[laxdadpat]

If my daughter delivered that hit, I would have a long conversation with her immediately after the game. I would first make an apology to the coaches from the stands and ask if I could talk to my daughter right after their post-game talk.
I would very clearly let my daughter know that it would not surprise me if she would be suspended several weeks or kicked off the team. Either punishment could be justified depending on the coach. That was a complete blind-sided cheap shot at the end of the game. The kind of hit that clears the stands at a club or high school game. If the Yale girl had the ball, I wouldn't be so worked up and it was clear she didn't have the ball.
That was nowhere near a typical women's lacrosse check, I am the parent that had no issue with the Stoney Brook/Yale check last year.

[Kleizaster]

This was a forceful shove and stab at a defenseless player. She was looking at the ball and the defender the whole time, i don't see how you can say she thought the ball was still in the defender's stick.

Even if she did, all she had to do was have her hands out and guide the player away or make attemps at causing a turnover by swiping at the stick or make a play on the ball. She did neither. That tells me she knew the ball wasn't there. She didn't even try to go help the player up like most players do for accidental contact. Yes it wasn't super violent but it didn't need to be for it to be extremely dangerous. The check plus the momentum could have easily caused a serious injury.

Where are these similar in game examples? i don't think checks like this are common at all.

If a player is going hard to the net or running full speed towards a defender and they stick their hands out and they collide, i think that's different than shoving someone moving away from you, which is what happened here.

[NutmegCrunch]

Parents on this forum, close your eyes and imagine it was your daughter taking that hit ... blind and off ball. It could have been a lot worse. Red cards are intended to penalize (among other things) reckless and dangerous behavior. This card was correctly applied.

Exactly. On the flip side, my daughter is a defender and I would be appalled and embarrassed if she made a cheap shot hit like that.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

there’s far too much hacking at the end of the game by teams trying to get the ball from an opponent’s offense that is winning 3, 4 or even 5+ goals with 30 seconds to play in the game. I’d like to see the coaches have some class and just let the winning team run the game out without fouling like crazy…for no reason at all.

You ain't kiddin. Here's stick-y Loyola whacking and hacking in garbage time.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Where are these similar in game examples? i don't think checks like this are common at all.

Would these fouls be in the context you're referring to?

[fanlaxUN]

Yup. You can find the cross check shoves in almost any game. I don't have to close my eyes to imagine. And yes, its quite possible the player did not know the player did not have the ball. Its possible she did. Its possible she thought there were 5 seconds left vs. 2 and its possible that once she hit the girl and the horn sounded 1.5 sec later she didn't chase after the groud ball. Both scenarios are possible and the difference of whether she knew if the opponent had the ball greatly skews the malice of the event - imho.

[fanlaxUN]

....and I am all for getting these cheap shots out of the game. I just think they are very common. And until the coaches and refs step up and address the cross-checking, which is not event allowed in the men's game, its going nowhere.

[Dr. Tact]

It was a cheap shot. Game basically over. The excuse that she thought the offensive player had the ball doesn’t fly. You can clearly see that the offensive player’s stick is empty and the defender is only a foot away. She makes no play for a looose ball which would have occurred if the ball was still in the offensive player’s stick. It was an unsportsmanlike play from a frustrated player .

She shouldn’t be crucified for it but she shouldn’t be excused for it either.

If my memory of the rule is correct, i don't think there is any part of crosschecking that is defined by ball possession. Someone can prove me wrong, but i still think it was the right call regardless of time or possession

[Brownlax]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C18CXmtr ... gxbXY2bXlx

Nick Saban’s words put this all into perspective.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

A former female player (goaltender for an ACC team) made a great point on Twitter the other day in response to this, about how we celebrate men for rough play and cheap shots, yet we finger-wag and condemn women when it happens with them. I completely agree with her. Perfect example here: Listen to the music chosen and the expressions on the faces of those telling the stories. They're all fine with it. As she said, it's being celebrated. Admired and chuckled at, even.

Obviously, she didn't mean that we should celebrate violence in sports. But the rhetoric should be weighed and considered, and toned way down when over-the-top rough stuff and cheap shots happen in women's sports. She's right.

[LaxDadMax]

After more reflection on this, I think too much anger is directed at Polisky and not enough at Spencer.

As Bill Walsh used to say (and many other coaches have stolen), "You either coach it or you condone it."

If there are no public statements or additional punishments for Polisky, Spencer is pretty much making it clear that this type of play is acceptable at Stanford.

Though I think Polisky's play was completely over the top and the red was rightly deserved, for me, if she plays in Stanford's next game at Sandy, then the biggest blame needs to go to the coach.

[Shootinducks]

After more reflection on this, I think too much anger is directed at Polisky and not enough at Spencer.

As Bill Walsh used to say (and many other coaches have stolen), "You either coach it or you condone it."

If there are no public statements or additional punishments for Polisky, Spencer is pretty much making it clear that this type of play is acceptable at Stanford.

Though I think Polisky's play was completely over the top and the red was rightly deserved, for me, if she plays in Stanford's next game at Sandy, then the biggest blame needs to go to the coach.

This type of play is not acceptable at Stanford or I would argue at any other program. Never will be and never has been. Athletics does have a code of good sportsmanship and it is enforced. Can the line get murky or outright ignored especially when millions of dollars are at stake. No doubt. Most of the debate here is the degree of punishment that should be applied to an amateur athlete who is 18/19 years old . The previously posted Saban video describes the conundrum exactly when you are dealing with a very young person who has made a mistake(s). The Stanford player has been punished by the prescribed removal from the following game. If the rule committee felt more should be done for red cards it would be in place. None of us have any idea what has been done internally if anything. No public statements are required or would be advised in my opinion because regardless of what is done to address this internally you will have a cohort that finds it too little and a cohort that finds it too harsh. The coach ultimately has a duty to win games at Stanford while also developing her young charges into people the university will be proud to call graduates. She will be judged by her superiors for her performance. The opinions of anyone else not involved in that equation are irrelevant….and lord knows everyone has one.

[intheknow247]

there’s far too much hacking at the end of the game by teams trying to get the ball from an opponent’s offense that is winning 3, 4 or even 5+ goals with 30 seconds to play in the game. I’d like to see the coaches have some class and just let the winning team run the game out without fouling like crazy…for no reason at all.

You ain't kiddin. Here's stick-y Loyola whacking and hacking in garbage time.

And BC going to the goal up 6. Not sure what you expect to happen here…

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

there’s far too much hacking at the end of the game by teams trying to get the ball from an opponent’s offense that is winning 3, 4 or even 5+ goals with 30 seconds to play in the game. I’d like to see the coaches have some class and just let the winning team run the game out without fouling like crazy…for no reason at all.

You ain't kiddin. Here's stick-y Loyola whacking and hacking in garbage time.

And BC going to the goal up 6. Not sure what you expect to happen here…

I'm not sure if we are agreeing here, but I think BC was justified sticking (pun intended) an FU goal after all the abuse.

[eastcoastlax]

In regard to the BC clip I think many of the earlier swings could have been a card but the one they actually called was more of an embellishment. Also of interest the player that scored that last goal is well known to put a few in late in games that are essentially over , don't blame her in this case but have seen her on many occasions due it to teams who have essentially given up on the game in absolute blowout wins.