Syracuse 2024

[MDlaxfan76]

my agreement with carc refers to question by molo on personnel decisions on final play

as far as carc, he is wonderful guy, knowledgeable and great spokesman for game, his comments on mental health issues were personal and touching.

Beyond that , personally find less better in lax announcing , actually enjoy listening to carc and quint more when they are announcing other sports


won't lament on crease call, its the current rule for all teams with worthy object to protect goalies , see plenty of beautiful plays on crease dodge scores that dont enter that small circle.

yes, 'less is better' when the 'more' is not actually illuminating the play on the field. I don't think we need all sorts of over the top hyperbole such as how much a warrior a kid is because he fought and won a GB as the FOGO...it's the job, it's why he's on the field. Applaud a specific effort, sure. Or series of efforts..Tell us about a different approach the FOGO's may be employing, the strategy with wing play but stop with the gushing...explain the rules, any changes that have been made that are impacting play, but stop opining about it during game time. Save that for podcasts, just call the game.

I think both Quint and Carc are each generally better when not on the same broadcast, but even alone they make way too many comments about themselves, when they played, who they played with etc. For instance, I don't hear Romo talking about himself, I hear him analyzing the football game in front of him exceptionally well. Do that for us...analyze the defenses, the offensive patterns, the tactical responses...cool it on the 'personal'...

Not trying to rain on your parade, at all, but like many folks, it probably helps to know Carc and what forms his soul. I won’t belabor the issue because it’s super personal to him, but part of what makes Paul is the memory of Robert Kavovit. It’s beyond searingly painful. But I assure you Carc wears this memory on his sleeve. Carc is a good man. A great man in fact. Obviously it doesn’t mean you can’t criticize him (he’d be the first to tell you that), but fir my money, Paul Carcaterra is an incredible gift to this community of lacrosse fans/players/media.

Fair enough, I certainly don’t know him.
My view may be taken as constructive critique of the professional performance.

And the tribute was both clearly heartfelt and the specific message spot on.

[UVAlaxfan]

One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney

Refs are following protocol....

From NCAA, 2022: Contact to the head or neck
Committee members proposed a more-defined penalty structure for players who contact opponents in the head or neck area.

Players who make indirect contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a one-minute penalty.
Players who make direct contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a two-minute penalty.
Players who make excessive contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a three-minute penalty.
Currently, when players are contacted in the head or neck, it is left up to the referee's discretion whether to award a one-, two- or three-minute penalty.

"With respect to contact to the head and neck, the committee was looking to standardize the penalties to create greater consistency in how these fouls are adjudicated," Hind said.

If you hear the call, the ref cites "direct contact to the head". If you look above---that's 2 min. And if you watched, the ref was six feet away from the play.

Protecting the head and neck is going to be prioritized these days. If I'm on that field, I'd be pretty happy about that.

Also agree on the no goal call in OT....he wasn't pushed, and landed in the mouth. But the refs could really help their cause if they called out "he landed in the goal mouth, and wasn't pushed" so the fans know what's up. Otherwise, what's the point in having the refs wear mics wired to the PA?

Just because it is the rule doesn't not thwart the criticism. The problem is the rule. And the bigger problem is that it is full time.

But I will quibble with the reffs interpretation. It was not direct contact. Contact was with chest first and then slid up and contact with face mask was brief. That play is a poster child for why its a bad rule. 2 min non release-able
For contact that didn't even phase the ball carrier. Ran rignt through it and scored.

[coda]

One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney

Refs are following protocol....

From NCAA, 2022: Contact to the head or neck
Committee members proposed a more-defined penalty structure for players who contact opponents in the head or neck area.

Players who make indirect contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a one-minute penalty.
Players who make direct contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a two-minute penalty.
Players who make excessive contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a three-minute penalty.
Currently, when players are contacted in the head or neck, it is left up to the referee's discretion whether to award a one-, two- or three-minute penalty.

"With respect to contact to the head and neck, the committee was looking to standardize the penalties to create greater consistency in how these fouls are adjudicated," Hind said.

If you hear the call, the ref cites "direct contact to the head". If you look above---that's 2 min. And if you watched, the ref was six feet away from the play.

Protecting the head and neck is going to be prioritized these days. If I'm on that field, I'd be pretty happy about that.

Also agree on the no goal call in OT....he wasn't pushed, and landed in the mouth. But the refs could really help their cause if they called out "he landed in the goal mouth, and wasn't pushed" so the fans know what's up. Otherwise, what's the point in having the refs wear mics wired to the PA?

Just because it is the rule doesn't not thwart the criticism. The problem is the rule. And the bigger problem is that it is full time.

But I will quibble with the reffs interpretation. It was not direct contact. Contact was with chest first and then slid up and contact with face mask was brief. That play is a poster child for why its a bad rule. 2 min non release-able
For contact that didn't even phase the ball carrier. Ran rignt through it and scored.

100% agree. This rule is becoming the targeting of lacrosse. That was contact to the head, but nothing deserving of 2 minutes non-reasonable. That should be reserved for more egregious actions.

[a fan]

One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney

Refs are following protocol....

From NCAA, 2022: Contact to the head or neck
Committee members proposed a more-defined penalty structure for players who contact opponents in the head or neck area.

Players who make indirect contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a one-minute penalty.
Players who make direct contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a two-minute penalty.
Players who make excessive contact to an opponent's head or neck would receive a three-minute penalty.
Currently, when players are contacted in the head or neck, it is left up to the referee's discretion whether to award a one-, two- or three-minute penalty.

"With respect to contact to the head and neck, the committee was looking to standardize the penalties to create greater consistency in how these fouls are adjudicated," Hind said.

If you hear the call, the ref cites "direct contact to the head". If you look above---that's 2 min. And if you watched, the ref was six feet away from the play.

Protecting the head and neck is going to be prioritized these days. If I'm on that field, I'd be pretty happy about that.

Also agree on the no goal call in OT....he wasn't pushed, and landed in the mouth. But the refs could really help their cause if they called out "he landed in the goal mouth, and wasn't pushed" so the fans know what's up. Otherwise, what's the point in having the refs wear mics wired to the PA?

Just because it is the rule doesn't not thwart the criticism. The problem is the rule. And the bigger problem is that it is full time.

But I will quibble with the reffs interpretation. It was not direct contact. Contact was with chest first and then slid up and contact with face mask was brief. That play is a poster child for why its a bad rule. 2 min non release-able
For contact that didn't even phase the ball carrier. Ran rignt through it and scored.

Think of it like NHL's high sticking: doesn't matter if the hit is incidental, and many of calls are indeed for minor contact, as you are complaining about here. The intent behind the rule is to keep players under control, and away from a player's head.

You cats don't like the rule, but I can't see them changing it. I'm sharing the clarification from the NCAA in case folks missed it.

[UVAlaxfan]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

[wgdsr]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

I think the non-releasable portion is the debate. Maryland player is playing normal defense and stick is high and hits the helmet. Called a 1 minute prior to review. That is completely reasonable. The 2 minute non-reasonable seems overboard for that type of contact. Was the defender out of control? No. Was it sloppy? Yes. Just arguing to have the time align with the crime.

[UVAlaxfan]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

[wgdsr]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

I think the non-releasable portion is the debate. Maryland player is playing normal defense and stick is high and hits the helmet. Called a 1 minute prior to review. That is completely reasonable. The 2 minute non-reasonable seems overboard for that type of contact. Was the defender out of control? No. Was it sloppy? Yes. Just arguing to have the time align with the crime.

is there a clip of this anywhere? i'm lazy and haven't taken the time to review.

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

I think the non-releasable portion is the debate. Maryland player is playing normal defense and stick is high and hits the helmet. Called a 1 minute prior to review. That is completely reasonable. The 2 minute non-reasonable seems overboard for that type of contact. Was the defender out of control? No. Was it sloppy? Yes. Just arguing to have the time align with the crime.

is there a clip of this anywhere? i'm lazy and haven't taken the time to review.

Too lazy to find it, but kind of your normal SSDM defense. Throw that “cross check” (for lack of a better description) with the stick at the dodger, while in the defensive stance (not lunging). He catches the bottom of the face mask.

[youthathletics]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

I think the non-releasable portion is the debate. Maryland player is playing normal defense and stick is high and hits the helmet. Called a 1 minute prior to review. That is completely reasonable. The 2 minute non-reasonable seems overboard for that type of contact. Was the defender out of control? No. Was it sloppy? Yes. Just arguing to have the time align with the crime.

is there a clip of this anywhere? i'm lazy and haven't taken the time to review.

Too lazy to find it, but kind of your normal SSDM defense. Throw that “cross check” (for lack of a better description) with the stick at the dodger, while in the defensive stance (not lunging). He catches the bottom of the face mask.

This is at the point of initial contact....Was not in the chest and it rode up the body, directly on the chin of the helmet.
Direct link to play if you have ESPNU: https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/ ... 8e6f627660

[stupefied]

" One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney"

My post questioning 2 minute penalty on Maryland was one called on #27 Schaller at 5:13 mark of 1st period. Thought it should NOT have been 2 minutes and Im a Cuse fan. Like to hear a comment on that call.

[wgdsr]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

I think the non-releasable portion is the debate. Maryland player is playing normal defense and stick is high and hits the helmet. Called a 1 minute prior to review. That is completely reasonable. The 2 minute non-reasonable seems overboard for that type of contact. Was the defender out of control? No. Was it sloppy? Yes. Just arguing to have the time align with the crime.

is there a clip of this anywhere? i'm lazy and haven't taken the time to review.

Too lazy to find it, but kind of your normal SSDM defense. Throw that “cross check” (for lack of a better description) with the stick at the dodger, while in the defensive stance (not lunging). He catches the bottom of the face mask.

This is at the point of initial contact....Was not in the chest and it rode up the body, directly on the chin of the helmet.
Direct link to play if you have ESPNU: https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/ ... 8e6f627660

espn app is driving me bananas as i can only get in live and archive is giving me authentication failing, and i can't get a chat or person to resolve. and the logging out/turning off thingy isn't working either.

an aside... a crosscheck to neck or head (by a guy that benches well over 225) is a lot more dangerous than a helmet to helmet hit, all other things being equal. again that said, i haven't seen it a 2nd time.

[wgdsr]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet (that type of defense is called at all the youth levels and right up until about High School)

[MDlaxfan76]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

[MDlaxfan76]

" One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney"

My post questioning 2 minute penalty on Maryland was one called on #27 Schaller at 5:13 mark of 1st period. Thought it should NOT have been 2 minutes and Im a Cuse fan. Like to hear a comment on that call.

Just looked and recalled that play and call. We needed to see the cross check to back of head of man on ground post play to see what the issue was as the initial check didn't seem to be the issue...ref was standing right there. Unnecessary extra thrust and to the back of head...direct...so 2 minutes...we've obviously seen much worse, and this looked from afar to be pretty unconscious, but the rule is clear...if more intentional and nasty then 3 minutes.

[MDlaxfan76]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion