Tweak the College Rules

[HowieT3]

One rule clarification that could go a long way to ending the need for rules about FOGO substitution would be giving refs a firm definition (for lack of a better term) of what in and when a FOGO's clamp constitutes "withholding the ball from play". When a FOGO has the ball clamped all by himself and looks around for what seems like 15 seconds for someone to flip it to, you've got to think he's withheld the ball.

[wgdsr]

One rule clarification that could go a long way to ending the need for rules about FOGO substitution would be giving refs a firm definition (for lack of a better term) of what in and when a FOGO's clamp constitutes "withholding the ball from play". When a FOGO has the ball clamped all by himself and looks around for what seems like 15 seconds for someone to flip it to, you've got to think he's withheld the ball.

they did. it's in the rules (pages back in the thread). it's choppily worded (namely, that at parts they bifurcate being off the ground and on the ground), but suffice it to say refs have either read or interpreted it incorrectly, or just decided that they will have their own interpretation. that is, they'll allow the winner of the clamp some leeway about how and when they can exit.
nfhs has copied the rule i believe word for word, and they commonly do the same. except inconsistently depending on the crew. crazy frustrating.

[palaxoff]

nfhs has copied the rule i believe word for word, and they commonly do the same. except inconsistently depending on the crew. crazy frustrating.

The college mechanic and the high school while similar are definitely called differently. In our High School chapter meeting this is discussed often and I'd say we call withholding a lot more then in college. Having done tournaments this summer with officials from other chapters and states I'd say we are fairly consistent. I don't think sometime people realize how long a second or 2 really is. I can't count the times I am on 5 in a 10 second count and parents are screaming "get it in."

[wgdsr]

nfhs has copied the rule i believe word for word, and they commonly do the same. except inconsistently depending on the crew. crazy frustrating.

The college mechanic and the high school while similar are definitely called differently. In our High School chapter meeting this is discussed often and I'd say we call withholding a lot more then in college. Having done tournaments this summer with officials from other chapters and states I'd say we are fairly consistent. I don't think sometime people realize how long a second or 2 really is. I can't count the times I am on 5 in a 10 second count and parents are screaming "get it in."

first, let me say thank you for being an official, it's sometimes a thankless job, as you know. i'm sure it has its rewards for you, too.
but from what you're saying, this is exactly where we may have a disconnect. and like howie and dmac, etc. have said, might change how faceoffs are viewed under these "interpretations". when i read the rule, i see "immediately" and "one continuous motion". i don't see "2 seconds" anywhere. but yet that is what refs have incorporated essentially. to me, the spirit of the rule infers no divergence from the letter of the rule. they want it out. immediately and continuously. why have referees decided to essentially turn that spirit and letter around 180 degrees (no pun intended)? who asked you to?

[DMac]

In the small world of lacrosse, this is the all time greatest of posts, ever!!!
+ infinity.

[RumorMill]

In the small world of lacrosse, this is the all time greatest of posts, ever!!!
+ infinity.

I disagree.

But in fairness, I do agree with the fact referees give some generous leeway in certain circumstances. Kind of like traveling in the NBA.

[SCLaxAttack]

In the small world of lacrosse, this is the all time greatest of posts, ever!!!
+ infinity.

I disagree.

But in fairness, I do agree with the fact referees give some generous leeway in certain circumstances. Kind of like traveling in the NBA.

My turn to disagree. If the rules committee wanted to give the refs discretion in how to call it, they should have said “at the referee’s discretion.”

Don’t get me started on basketball. The amount of traveling and palming/carrying has completely changed that game in the past twenty years. They should just make dribbling voluntary.

And why am I awake at 2:49am?

[youthathletics]

In the small world of lacrosse, this is the all time greatest of posts, ever!!!
+ infinity.

I disagree.

But in fairness, I do agree with the fact referees give some generous leeway in certain circumstances. Kind of like traveling in the NBA.

My turn to disagree. If the rules committee wanted to give the refs discretion in how to call it, they should have said “at the referee’s discretion.”

Don’t get me started on basketball. The amount of traveling and palming/carrying has completely changed that game in the past twenty years. They should just make dribbling voluntary.

And why am I awake at 2:49am?

[youthathletics]

Goal-mouth arc recommended in men’s lacrosse

[RedFromMI]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

[DMac]

" A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal."

Well, such is life, I guess. A foot in the mouth doesn't usually end well.

[bearlaxfan]

One that's bugged me which I think could be an easy fix: offside, 30 sec tech where the offending player STAYS offside to play D. The fix: offending team has to get onside (any player) when the foul is called, otherwise it becomes a 1 min penalty. I know, ref judgement needed as to how soon is soon enough to avoid a 1, but I don't think it would be as disruptive to the game as good dive/bad dive.

[D2fan]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

A crease within the crease...... Great

This doesn't fix the issue with refs not consistently officiating the dive. Now there will be the grey area of if a player landed in the goal mouth.

[stupefied]

Crease dive was eliminated for damn good reason.

Game did well without it .

It was irresponsible to bring it back.

Brought nothing but confusion and injury risk.

NCAA rules committee now trying to cover up a mistake made, stop with the nonsense and remove it from the game completely

[laxpert]

Trying to picture how this will look on fields with both Men's and Women's lines. Given the choice of eliminating the dive or eliminating zone defenses I would rather keep the dive.
Lot easier to play zone when you can use the crease as an additional defensemen

[wgdsr]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

A crease within the crease...... Great

This doesn't fix the issue with refs not consistently officiating the dive. Now there will be the grey area of if a player landed in the goal mouth.

i'm assuming what will come of this is elimination of the wording about diving "toward the goalmouth", which was subjective and arbitrary, for landing in the goalmouth... which is objective. and not grey, but black and white. am i missing something?

[wgdsr]

Crease dive was eliminated for damn good reason.

Game did well without it .

It was irresponsible to bring it back.

Brought nothing but confusion and injury risk.

NCAA rules committee now trying to cover up a mistake made, stop with the nonsense and remove it from the game completely

confusion, yes. the rule seemed to not make it easy for officials to officiate. as bang bang as crease plays are, they struggled, understandably, even when dives in the crease weren't allowed.
i don't know that there was any empirical evidence that there were widespread injuries. so "damn good reason" is pretty subjective. imo.

there are probably a lot of folks in either camp. i'm agnostic, and would be fine either way.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

I never understood why the dive was re-instituted. Other than Coach T complaining, I thought we had gotten past it.

[Can Opener]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

I never understood why the dive was re-instituted. Other than Coach T complaining, I thought we had gotten past it.

+1

[pcowlax]

So the recommendation is to add a 6 foot radius semicircle on the front side of the crease (concentric with the current 9 foot radius crease). The semicircle would be twice as wide as the current 6 foot wide goal structure.

That semicircle would be the "goal mouth." A jump or dive that lands in this goal mouth would disallow any goal. No contact would also be a loss of possession. Contact with the goalie would be a one minute penalty.

As far as I can see, the crease would then have a sacred area that could not be landed in that is well defined...

I never understood why the dive was re-instituted. Other than Coach T complaining, I thought we had gotten past it.

+1

Totally agree. Although I will admit this is with the advantages of maturity. In my younger years watching the Gaits do it I thought it was the coolest thing on two legs. One of the benefits of experience however is experience. There is way too much risk of injury (to everyone, diver, goalie and sliding D) and, as an added insult, it is well neigh impossible to call for the refs. Away with it!