Live Game Action

[Bart]

Do I have this right? UVa v Richmond. UVa scores slams her stick snd it breaks? They deem the stick is now illegal and take away the goal?

That’s absolutely insane.

Seems to be a lack of any common sense

Definitely does. That’s maddening

I don’t know. The rule book says the player is to “drop their stick or hand it to the nearest official without delay”. She clearly didn’t “drop her stick”, she slammed it to the ground.

The players have gotten a little carried away with throwing the stick or slamming sticks after they score. Maybe this is a good teaching moment and the players will go back to just dropping their sticks like the rules state. If the official picks up a broken crosse from the ground, they have to deem it illegal and disallow the goal. Maybe the stick was already cracked before the goal and slamming the stick made it worse.

Agree with another here........semantics.

If we are going to go to the letter of the book, lets starts calling this rule every time it happens.

D. Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick
to hit, push or displace an opponent.......

The point being is that the referees have the ability to use judgment on these types of calls. They do it 100's of times a game with the cross check. If they were to go by the "letter of the law" there would be way more calls for cross checking...heck it appears the women's game has gone the way of the men's game and welcomed the "cross check hold".

IMO,it was a bad call but in all fairness, UVA should not have put themselves into a position where one bad can determine the result of a game. Richmond played well and put UVA in that position.

[njbill]

This is what I get for only following along with live stats and not turning on the stream until the very end of regulation. Darn, sounds like I missed an exciting play.

If there only was someone who would post a video of it. Didn’t we used to have someone on here like that?

Wait, wait. Oh no. Admin delete this post. Delete it NOW. My wayback machine is in the shop so I can’t go back and delete it myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_M ... e_History)

[njbill]

I think, perhaps, the officials used the knucklehead rule. You might not find it in the rulebook, but when a player does a real knuckleheaded thing, sometimes the officials find a way to make a call. Happens in all sports.

[wlaxphan20]

Do I have this right? UVa v Richmond. UVa scores slams her stick snd it breaks? They deem the stick is now illegal and take away the goal?

That’s absolutely insane.

Seems to be a lack of any common sense

Definitely does. That’s maddening

I don’t know. The rule book says the player is to “drop their stick or hand it to the nearest official without delay”. She clearly didn’t “drop her stick”, she slammed it to the ground.

The players have gotten a little carried away with throwing the stick or slamming sticks after they score. Maybe this is a good teaching moment and the players will go back to just dropping their sticks like the rules state. If the official picks up a broken crosse from the ground, they have to deem it illegal and disallow the goal. Maybe the stick was already cracked before the goal and slamming the stick made it worse.

Agree with another here........semantics.

If we are going to go to the letter of the book, lets starts calling this rule every time it happens.

D. Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick
to hit, push or displace an opponent.......

The point being is that the referees have the ability to use judgment on these types of calls. They do it 100's of times a game with the cross check. If they were to go by the "letter of the law" there would be way more calls for cross checking...heck it appears the women's game has gone the way of the men's game and welcomed the "cross check hold".

IMO,it was a bad call but in all fairness, UVA should not have put themselves into a position where one bad can determine the result of a game. Richmond played well and put UVA in that position.

I agree, I don’t think the call was the reason UVA lost. They had opportunities to win even after the call was made, and credit to Richmond for playing a great game.

The vagueness in the way the rules are sometimes written, and the consistent inconsistency at which they are called (or not called) is just frustrating.

[@inthe8m]

I may be in the minority, but I believe the disallowed goal against UVA was the proper call. How are the officials to know that the stick was legal before the stick was thrown down? They can only judge the stick based on its condition when they pick it up. What happened to the stick between the shot and the stick throw is all just conjecture.

[8meterPA]

Do I have this right? UVa v Richmond. UVa scores slams her stick snd it breaks? They deem the stick is now illegal and take away the goal?

That’s absolutely insane.

Seems to be a lack of any common sense

Definitely does. That’s maddening

I don’t know. The rule book says the player is to “drop their stick or hand it to the nearest official without delay”. She clearly didn’t “drop her stick”, she slammed it to the ground.

The players have gotten a little carried away with throwing the stick or slamming sticks after they score. Maybe this is a good teaching moment and the players will go back to just dropping their sticks like the rules state. If the official picks up a broken crosse from the ground, they have to deem it illegal and disallow the goal. Maybe the stick was already cracked before the goal and slamming the stick made it worse.

Agree with another here........semantics.

If we are going to go to the letter of the book, lets starts calling this rule every time it happens.

D. Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick
to hit, push or displace an opponent.......

The point being is that the referees have the ability to use judgment on these types of calls. They do it 100's of times a game with the cross check. If they were to go by the "letter of the law" there would be way more calls for cross checking...heck it appears the women's game has gone the way of the men's game and welcomed the "cross check hold".

IMO,it was a bad call but in all fairness, UVA should not have put themselves into a position where one bad can determine the result of a game. Richmond played well and put UVA in that position.

I agree, I don’t think the call was the reason UVA lost. They had opportunities to win even after the call was made, and credit to Richmond for playing a great game.

The vagueness in the way the rules are sometimes written, and the consistent inconsistency at which they are called (or not called) is just frustrating.

ridiculous call. To Bart's point, if they applied rules to the letter, every defender and middie would card out in the first 5 mins of every game as they violate the cross check rule. A couple years ago, DD went to goal, was cross-checked on the hip, defender's shaft broke in half, ref stopped play and allowed the defender to run to sideline and get a new stick and play was restarted.

[TNLAX]

Are we cherry picking rules and enforcement here? I just want the rules enforced evenly or the same for both teams during a game. I have always thought the refs could do a better job keeping the girls safe by enforcing the rules more strictly. But the situation was that a ref did a proper stick check after a goal and found the stick to be "illegal". There is only one thing to do at that point. Disallow the goal and take the stick out of play.

[LaxCoach13]

Do I have this right? UVa v Richmond. UVa scores slams her stick snd it breaks? They deem the stick is now illegal and take away the goal?

That’s absolutely insane.

Seems to be a lack of any common sense

Definitely does. That’s maddening

I don’t know. The rule book says the player is to “drop their stick or hand it to the nearest official without delay”. She clearly didn’t “drop her stick”, she slammed it to the ground.

The players have gotten a little carried away with throwing the stick or slamming sticks after they score. Maybe this is a good teaching moment and the players will go back to just dropping their sticks like the rules state. If the official picks up a broken crosse from the ground, they have to deem it illegal and disallow the goal. Maybe the stick was already cracked before the goal and slamming the stick made it worse.

Agree with another here........semantics.

If we are going to go to the letter of the book, lets starts calling this rule every time it happens.

D. Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick
to hit, push or displace an opponent.......

The point being is that the referees have the ability to use judgment on these types of calls. They do it 100's of times a game with the cross check. If they were to go by the "letter of the law" there would be way more calls for cross checking...heck it appears the women's game has gone the way of the men's game and welcomed the "cross check hold".

IMO,it was a bad call but in all fairness, UVA should not have put themselves into a position where one bad can determine the result of a game. Richmond played well and put UVA in that position.

I agree, I don’t think the call was the reason UVA lost. They had opportunities to win even after the call was made, and credit to Richmond for playing a great game.

The vagueness in the way the rules are sometimes written, and the consistent inconsistency at which they are called (or not called) is just frustrating.

ridiculous call. To Bart's point, if they applied rules to the letter, every defender and middie would card out in the first 5 mins of every game as they violate the cross check rule. A couple years ago, DD went to goal, was cross-checked on the hip, defender's shaft broke in half, ref stopped play and allowed the defender to run to sideline and get a new stick and play was restarted.

First they need to enforce the cross checking rule and call it, I have had a official tell me its not a card offence when it should be, but second back to the dropping of the stick. Best way I can compare it, football is not allowed to spike the ball on the TD in college but lacrosse can spike their stick in an opponents face. it comes down to sportsmanship, just drop the stick. While I thought it was a crazy call it was the right call under the rules and hope it wakes some people up

[Seacoaster(1)]

First they need to enforce the cross checking rule and call it, I have had a official tell me its not a card offence when it should be, but second back to the dropping of the stick. Best way I can compare it, football is not allowed to spike the ball on the TD in college but lacrosse can spike their stick in an opponents face. it comes down to sportsmanship, just drop the stick. While I thought it was a crazy call it was the right call under the rules and hope it wakes some people up
[/quote]

Agreed. Just drop the stick.

[@inthe8m]

UNC 6 - Louisville 5 with 9:00 left in Q2.

Louisville only has 2 draw controls thus far - 11 to 2 advantage for UNC.

[@inthe8m]

UNC up 8 - 5 at half.

[@inthe8m]

UNC pulling away - up 10 - 5 in the Q3.

Switching over to the ND vs VaTech game. ND already up 4 - 0.

[@inthe8m]

Hooboy - ND up 8 - 0 on VaTech at end of Q1.

[Kleizaster]

15-7 UNC end of 3rd. This one is over. Louisville got some players. But not enough Horses to sustain a high level of play against elite teams

[Bart]

Hooboy - ND up 8 - 0 on VaTech at end of Q1.

Oh how I miss the old VTech run your d middies like they’re cross country runners defense

[@inthe8m]

Hooboy - ND up 8 - 0 on VaTech at end of Q1.

Oh how I miss the old VTech run your d middies like they’re cross country runners defense

What could go wrong?[/John Sung]

[njbill]

Choma doing her Izzy Scane imitation today!

[Kleizaster]

14-1 ND. ND Is talented but not 14-1 over VT talented. Virginia Tech never got off the bus. Embarrassing display of lacrosse.

[Can Opener]

I may be in the minority, but I believe the disallowed goal against UVA was the proper call. How are the officials to know that the stick was legal before the stick was thrown down? They can only judge the stick based on its condition when they pick it up. What happened to the stick between the shot and the stick throw is all just conjecture.

Totally agree

[njbill]

Dolce starting in goal for Boston. Not sure that's a good idea.