2021 Tournament

D3 Mens Lacrosse
wgdsr
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by wgdsr »

KingPrat wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:28 pm
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:55 am but the restart whistle was literally 13-14 yards from where the infraction happened, a yard or 2 over the line. it was egregious. the ref running has nothing to do with anything. you can't expect salisbury to be able to play the ball when the guy is at a full sprint 13-14 yards downfield before a whistle blows.
The wing line on each side is 10 yards, and the whistle is blown with the RIT player still within the wing line. Salisbury player dropped the ball about 10 yards past where the interference happened, and that's where the restart should and did occur.

The rule reads that restart should happen " in the same relative position where the ball was when play was stopped." Has nothing to do with where the actual foul happened.
thanks. insert "the ball was when" in front of "the infraction happened". and is what i meant to say. and in the spirit of fast restarts, it's never perfect but in this case was on a parallel line.
so 10 yards? 11? if inside the wing? at a sprint to the cage. that's not the same relative position nor is it close.

what berkman potentially could have done (it's in nfhs rules, maybe in nc$$) is with a timeout in his pocket challenged the interpretation of a rule. if he had one or 2 refs of 3 that were made to think about what just happened and agreed with him, get a new restart.
ah23
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by ah23 »

Yeah, the interference call was very obvious. Honestly I was surprised by how obvious it was when I went back and watched the replay.

The running start though...what a joke. The ball was turned over probably 2-3 yards into the RIT defensive half. Apologies in advance for my JV Zapruder film analysis here.

Image

Even if the official was generous and gave them a few yards, possession still would only have started at midfield. The ref didn't blow the play live until RIT was sprinting 8+ yards ahead of where the foul occurred, and easily 10-12+ yards ahead of where possession changed hands.

Image

Smart lacrosse from Rosenblum to force the issue, poor officiating IMO to give him that much extra cushion. Gave a decided advantage on the play that the rules say shouldn't have existed.
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:30 pm what berkman potentially could have done (it's in nfhs rules, maybe in nc$$) is with a timeout in his pocket challenged the interpretation of a rule.
On dead-ball change of possessions within the field of play, only the team getting the ball can call a timeout. He would have had to call it when Salisbury had the ball below the restraining line (as KingPrat pointed out).
wgdsr
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by wgdsr »

ah23 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:28 pm
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:30 pm what berkman potentially could have done (it's in nfhs rules, maybe in nc$$) is with a timeout in his pocket challenged the interpretation of a rule.
On dead-ball change of possessions within the field of play, only the team getting the ball can call a timeout. He would have had to call it when Salisbury had the ball below the restraining line (as KingPrat pointed out).
by this i mean when there's a dead ball (after a goal, after a penalty) a coach is allowed to challenge the interpretation of a rule in nfhs. so maybe in nc$$.
not sure how far back you can go (to the restart?). so post-goal > challenge the restart. if you lose the challenge, you are charged a timeout.
Dr. Pretorious
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:46 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Dr. Pretorious »

Dlaxva5 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:36 am One thing to note as I rewatched the interference play. The RIT player was an LSM, meaning 6 foot pole to check the Salisbury player running along midfield. I stand by my comment from the other day.

Please don’t take away from both teams and all the phenomenal plays and players by claiming that one call was the difference. It was not.
I don’t know whether it was a good call or a bad call; folks with much more knowledge than I have debated it here for pages. But without question the call was absolutely the difference in the game; completely turned the game around in the last 20 seconds. Took a certain victory and the championship away from one side and gave it to the other. Absent that call, the game has a completely different result. It was absolutely the difference in the game.
Dr. Pretorious
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:46 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Dr. Pretorious »

One question I have, and maybe it is a dumb question because I’m not the most knowledgeable fan, but why was the Salisbury defender anywhere near the midline to begin with? I would’ve had my defenders at least halfway back closer to their own goal, if not farther, to protect the goal in the event of any type of turnover, penalty or otherwise.
KingPrat
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:25 am

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by KingPrat »

wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:55 pm
ah23 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:28 pm
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:30 pm what berkman potentially could have done (it's in nfhs rules, maybe in nc$$) is with a timeout in his pocket challenged the interpretation of a rule.
On dead-ball change of possessions within the field of play, only the team getting the ball can call a timeout. He would have had to call it when Salisbury had the ball below the restraining line (as KingPrat pointed out).
by this i mean when there's a dead ball (after a goal, after a penalty) a coach is allowed to challenge the interpretation of a rule in nfhs. so maybe in nc$$.
not sure how far back you can go (to the restart?). so post-goal > challenge the restart. if you lose the challenge, you are charged a timeout.
I've been coaching college for 13 years, and that is not a thing AFAIK. Any time I've tried to argue a call after the fact w/ head ref, I've gotten "coach, that's not my call." The only thing that you can currently review after the fact are goals.

Only recourse is with the assignor after the game, which is submitting the film and filing a "Complaint," if you even want to call it that.
ah23
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by ah23 »

Dr. Pretorious wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:08 pm I don’t know whether it was a good call or a bad call; folks with much more knowledge than I have debated it here for pages.
Tbh as a neutral party I don't think there has been much debate here. It seems like everyone except for a few Salisbury fans agrees that it was a clear interference. Not sure if you've had the chance to go and check out the replay, but IMO it's pretty convincing.
But without question the call was absolutely the difference in the game; completely turned the game around in the last 20 seconds. Took a certain victory and the championship away from one side and gave it to the other. Absent that call, the game has a completely different result. It was absolutely the difference in the game.
Could not disagree more with everything here.
  1. IMO Berkman's non-timeout was a significantly larger factor than the (correct) interference call. If he calls timeout, they come out of the break and put the ball in the stick of the national POY 100 yards from their own goal with ~0:25 on the clock. Ballgame. RIT should never have seen the ball again.
  2. Calling an obvious foul isn't 'taking anything away' from anyone. They did something against the rules. If a team gets caught doing something against the rules...they should be called for it. The alternative is asking the referee to insert himself in the outcome by not making an obvious call, because...why? Don't blame the ref for blowing his whistle, blame the player for committing the infraction in the first place
  3. The refs didn't give RIT anything. RIT's player was clearly interfered with, and as a result they got the ball with ~20 seconds left. They still had to go half the field and score on one of the country's best defenses...and then survive into double OT to finish it off. Salisbury had a million chances to win the game starting at the 0:40 mark of regulation and couldn't make any of them stick. A correct interference call is not the culprit.
Dr. Pretorious
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:46 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Dr. Pretorious »

ah23 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:41 pm
Dr. Pretorious wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:08 pm I don’t know whether it was a good call or a bad call; folks with much more knowledge than I have debated it here for pages.
Tbh as a neutral party I don't think there has been much debate here. It seems like everyone except for a few Salisbury fans agrees that it was a clear interference. Not sure if you've had the chance to go and check out the replay, but IMO it's pretty convincing.
But without question the call was absolutely the difference in the game; completely turned the game around in the last 20 seconds. Took a certain victory and the championship away from one side and gave it to the other. Absent that call, the game has a completely different result. It was absolutely the difference in the game.
Could not disagree more with everything here.
  1. IMO Berkman's non-timeout was a significantly larger factor than the (correct) interference call. If he calls timeout, they come out of the break and put the ball in the stick of the national POY 100 yards from their own goal with ~0:25 on the clock. Ballgame. RIT should never have seen the ball again.
  2. Calling an obvious foul isn't 'taking anything away' from anyone. They did something against the rules. If a team gets caught doing something against the rules...they should be called for it. The alternative is asking the referee to insert himself in the outcome by not making an obvious call, because...why? Don't blame the ref for blowing his whistle, blame the player for committing the infraction in the first place
  3. The refs didn't give RIT anything. RIT's player was clearly interfered with, and as a result they got the ball with ~20 seconds left. They still had to go half the field and score on one of the country's best defenses...and then survive into double OT to finish it off. Salisbury had a million chances to win the game starting at the 0:40 mark of regulation and couldn't make any of them stick. A correct interference call is not the culprit.
Don’t necessarily disagree with any of this.
I’m definitely not arguing that it was an incorrect or a bad call by the ref. As you say, the majority of folks seem to believe it was the right call. I’m just saying it completely changed the game - even if 100% correct.
My using “taking away” and “giving it to RIT” probably the wrong choice of words - certainly not trying to diminish the effort by RIT and their seizing the opportunity when afforded.
Just saying that if the foul isn’t committed by the D and a “correct” call not needed to be made, game has a different outcome.
I’m not saying it was incorrect; based on your & others’ comments it appears it was a correct call - I’m just saying that it significantly impacted the game, nonetheless.
But appreciate and respect your take on it. Thanks.
Cheeseandcrackers
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:33 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Cheeseandcrackers »

One question I have, and maybe it is a dumb question because I’m not the most knowledgeable fan, but why was the Salisbury defender anywhere near the midline to begin with? I would’ve had my defenders at least halfway back closer to their own goal, if not farther, to protect the goal in the event of any type of turnover, penalty or otherwise.

Dr. P - defenders are coached from pee wee or whatever it's called today to be "on" their guy when the ball is on the other end of the field. The mistake was two fold. The SU guy with the ball needs to stay away from the midline where he is within checking range of the RIT attack (who in this case included an LSM? a detail I did not catch but huge advantage for SU because it meant they were going against 3 shorties in their offensive half) and the SU defender needs to be smart enough to either not interfere with his guy, or at least do it in such a way as to not get caught.
Dr. Pretorious
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:46 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Dr. Pretorious »

Cheeseandcrackers wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:29 pm One question I have, and maybe it is a dumb question because I’m not the most knowledgeable fan, but why was the Salisbury defender anywhere near the midline to begin with? I would’ve had my defenders at least halfway back closer to their own goal, if not farther, to protect the goal in the event of any type of turnover, penalty or otherwise.

Dr. P - defenders are coached from pee wee or whatever it's called today to be "on" their guy when the ball is on the other end of the field. The mistake was two fold. The SU guy with the ball needs to stay away from the midline where he is within checking range of the RIT attack (who in this case included an LSM? a detail I did not catch but huge advantage for SU because it meant they were going against 3 shorties in their offensive half) and the SU defender needs to be smart enough to either not interfere with his guy, or at least do it in such a way as to not get caught.
Ok, understood. Thanks for the response.
Goes to show why I could never be a coach!
wgdsr
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by wgdsr »

KingPrat wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:19 pm
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:55 pm
ah23 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:28 pm
wgdsr wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:30 pm what berkman potentially could have done (it's in nfhs rules, maybe in nc$$) is with a timeout in his pocket challenged the interpretation of a rule.
On dead-ball change of possessions within the field of play, only the team getting the ball can call a timeout. He would have had to call it when Salisbury had the ball below the restraining line (as KingPrat pointed out).
by this i mean when there's a dead ball (after a goal, after a penalty) a coach is allowed to challenge the interpretation of a rule in nfhs. so maybe in nc$$.
not sure how far back you can go (to the restart?). so post-goal > challenge the restart. if you lose the challenge, you are charged a timeout.
I've been coaching college for 13 years, and that is not a thing AFAIK. Any time I've tried to argue a call after the fact w/ head ref, I've gotten "coach, that's not my call." The only thing that you can currently review after the fact are goals.

Only recourse is with the assignor after the game, which is submitting the film and filing a "Complaint," if you even want to call it that.
checked... evidently there is no similar rule in nc$$. section 13 article 1 in nfhs -- correction of errors.
Post Reply

Return to “D3 MENS LACROSSE”