ProLaxShop

Out of bounds question...

Come here to see the mens lacrosse rules, and discuss things concerning rules. ie. wrong or right ref judgements?

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting on the forum please ensure you read the Board Wide Rules

A full list of men's rules can be found here
User avatar
rpowell
League Mod
League Mod
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby rpowell Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:45 pm

Moaning Git wrote:As the player without the stick is not part of the game he takes the same status as a spectator until he retrieves his stick.

Disagree with this bit - if an opponent pushes the stickless player when they are more than 3 yards from a loose ball, it's still a push or interference; if they give him a good hefty thump with their stick, it's still a slash. If you don't have a stick you may not interfere with play, but you can still be fouled against.

But I do agree with you that if the ball isn't coming out of the 'lonely' stick, pretty much the first time someone nudges it to get the ball out, then it's time to start thinking about a quick whistle and a face-off, before it gets silly :)
User avatar
jameskellam
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:24 am
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby jameskellam Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:24 pm

The rule about playing without your stick is reproduced below.

"No player, other than the designated goalkeeper when he is in his crease, shall take part in the play of the game in any manner unless he is grasping his crosse with at least one hand."

I still think that any action which delays/impedes a player trying to recover his stick can be called as interference.

Pragmatically, because it allows us to call a technical foul rather than a personal, award possession and get on with play which is all that is required unless red has caused major inconvenience (for example by throwing the stick into the audience)

and legally because the rules say that the player can't take part in the game, not that he ceases to be a player. Subs can't take part in the game but it's wholly wrong to say that they are merely spectators - for example, they specifically have to avoid impeding players who are leaving the field of play.

Other than that, I think we are Ad Idem - Black can strike the red stick to dislodge the ball, he can even play the red stick and ball out of bounds, what he can't do is deliberately prevent red from picking his stick up.
Last edited by jameskellam on Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rpowell
League Mod
League Mod
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby rpowell Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:57 pm

jameskellam wrote:Other than that, I think we are Ad Idem - Black can strike the red stick to dislodge the ball, he can even play the red stick and ball out of bounds, what he can't do is deliberately prevent red from picking his stick up.

James - now that I've looked up 'ad idem', we can agree :) *

(* subject to avizandum Don & Terry)
User avatar
Moaning Git
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:46 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Moaning Git Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:23 am

Sorry I take exception to the phrase
merely spectators
, the rules apply to their behaviour as well so the comparison I make is a valid one, while I am not sure that yours are. A player with no stick in his hand is not participating in the game so if they are pushed how can this be a technical foul? It can only be a personal for whatever reason you decide to call it probably unsportsmanlike if the contact is deliberate.

A player with no stick in his hand is of course still a player but a player whom may not take part in the game in any manner.... so I would say that temporarily he is not a player. Therefore he is protected from the normal conditions of play such as pushes etc, but if in bending down to pick up a the stick he were to impede accidently an opposition player he could still commit a foul as he would have accidently impacted on the flow of the game.

Interesting point though if a spectator deliberately tripped a player, there would be no call that I can see, unless a warning has been given to the coach about spectators behaviour, in which case a penalty could be awarded. But if the tripped player punches the spectator he could be expelled.
User avatar
Steely Dan
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:18 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Steely Dan Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:08 am

Jumping sideways a moment, as the Red stick is legally on the field is Black allowed to pick up the red stick with lodged ball and continue play (while gently placing his own stick on the ground in place of the Red stick), or would this be considered as impeding red from collecting his stick?
Herts Comets Founder 04-08
Welwyn Warriors 04/05. 08 -->
User avatar
davidmcculloch81
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:45 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby davidmcculloch81 Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:13 am

Moaning Git wrote:Sorry I take exception to the phrase
merely spectators
, the rules apply to their behaviour as well so the comparison I make is a valid one, while I am not sure that yours are. A player with no stick in his hand is not participating in the game so if they are pushed how can this be a technical foul? It can only be a personal for whatever reason you decide to call it probably unsportsmanlike if the contact is deliberate.

A player with no stick in his hand is of course still a player but a player whom may not take part in the game in any manner.... so I would say that temporarily he is not a player. Therefore he is protected from the normal conditions of play such as pushes etc, but if in bending down to pick up a the stick he were to impede accidently an opposition player he could still commit a foul as he would have accidently impacted on the flow of the game.


OR...apply common sense to the situation and move on.
Jedi Lax #9
CEng MIMechE
_______________

My views are not necessarily those of Clarendon Road Primary School Pop Lacrosse Team
User avatar
Moaning Git
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:46 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Moaning Git Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:28 pm

OR...apply common sense to the situation and move on.


Wow that is radical!
User avatar
buckers_the_great
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:29 pm
gender: Male
Location: RAF High Wycombe
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby buckers_the_great Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:00 pm

Moaning Git wrote:
OR...apply common sense to the situation and move on.


Wow that is radical!


I agree fairly radical and against the make up of a few on the Forum (see other 'active threads) but you never know stranger things have happened than common sense be applied to our fair game :D
Flt Lt Mark Buckley
RAF High Wycombe

RAF Lacrosse (Association Secretary) #17 2005-2020
SEMLA Referee
Welwyn Warriors #whatever's going spare 2011
Newcastle Knights #17 2008-2010, Toon Army #17 Forever
DanSawyer
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DanSawyer Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:35 pm

I love the 'apply common sense' approach. It always seems to come out when anyone starts looking at the details of the rulebook.

Personally I've always thought that common sense dictates that the rules of the game:
a. should be clear and unambiguous;
b. should actually say what they mean; and
c. should be applied in the way that they are written.

Apparently not...
DanSawyer
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DanSawyer Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:55 pm

Moaning Git wrote: player with no stick in his hand is hand is not participating in the game so if they are pushed how can this be a technical foul?


Quite simply, because the rule against pushing prohibits pushing an opponent, not an opponent who is participating in the game. If the rule was that you may not push a player who is participating (or permitted to participate) in the game then you would be right. It seems to me to be stretching the rules somewhat to say that if you drop your stick you cease to be an opponent of the guy who checked you.


Moaning Git wrote:A player with no stick in his hand is of course still a player but a player whom may not take part in the game in any manner.... so I would say that temporarily he is not a player.


When is a player not a player? When he is temporarily not a player, apparently. This is presumably the bit where you say you're applying common sense? My common sense tells me that a player does not cease to be a player (or an opponent, for that matter), for the few seconds he drops his crosse. It also tells me that if the rules intended that result then that's what they'd say. Part of the problem of relying on common sense rather than reading the rules is that people have different ideas of common sense.

Incidentally, if you're right and a person ceases to be a player when they drop their crosse then rule 59.2 becomes rather silly: no player may participate in the game unless he is holding his crosse. A person who is not holding his crosse is not a player. So if he participates in the game then he is not committing the offence under r.59.2 because that rule only applies to players...

Common sense: providing income for lawyers since 1092...


EDIT: take a scenario where the ball is in one half of the pitch and both teams have the minimum number of players in the other half. One of them wishes to retie his shoe, tighten his pads, fiddle with his box etc. If he puts his stick down to allow him to do any of those things, is his team now offside since it has too few players in thatvhalf of the pitch? Equally, on a slow clear if all the middies have gone into the other half and a defender is carrying the ball up when his stick is checked out of his hand, is his team offside?
User avatar
Moaning Git
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:46 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Moaning Git Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:02 am

Dan, the issues you refer to have been discussed in my hearing a number of times at gatherings of refs, for example, similar to your defensive scenario, if a player from the attacking 3 has his stick checked from his hand and it goes over the halfway line, does that potentially make his team offside. If he steps over the line to retrieve the stick is he offside. When does he become offside, when he steps over or when he picks up his stick? In this case there is an AR somewhere that addresses the situation, but the answer is down to refs discretion not what the rules say.

As I am loosing the will to live over this point lets put it this way. I will interpret the issue the way I see it, and if you don't like it, tough! That seems to be the practical approach taken by most experienced refs and on the field you do not have the time to debate issues ad nauseaum
DanSawyer
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DanSawyer Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:49 am

Moaning Git wrote:Dan, the issues you refer to have been discussed in my hearing a number of times at gatherings of refs, for example, similar to your defensive scenario, if a player from the attacking 3 has his stick checked from his hand and it goes over the halfway line, does that potentially make his team offside. If he steps over the line to retrieve the stick is he offside. When does he become offside, when he steps over or when he picks up his stick? In this case there is an AR somewhere that addresses the situation, but the answer is down to refs discretion not what the rules say.


That's not the point I'm making. You're right, there is a specific AR on that point. The point I'm making is that if he ceases to be a player when he no longer has hold of his stick then the team is offside the moment he loses the stick, even if he never leaves his own half and even if his stick never leaves his own half. He is not a player, according to you, so his team no longer have enough players in their defensive half. Likewise if a clearing team throw a long pass to an attack man, whose stick is checked from his hand when he tries to catch it, then if no middies have yet crossed the halfway line the clearing team will only have two "players" in their attack half. Rather than a groundball, which another attacker might pick up and score, the whistle should go and the riding team be given the ball. This is not an academic point. I have been that attacker and games can turn on whether the man without a stick is a "player" or not.


As I am loosing the will to live over this point lets put it this way. I will interpret the issue the way I see it, and if you don't like it, tough!


I'd guessed that you would interpret it the way you see it. And other refs will interpret it the way they see it. So two games where the same situation arises will have different outcomes. I personally think that that is totally unacceptable. Obviously you think it's fine.


That seems to be the practical approach taken by most experienced refs and on the field you do not have the time to debate issues ad nauseaum


If you are currently on the field then no, you do not have time and should stop looking at the forum and concentrate on the game you're currently reffing.

When you've finished on the field you might like to consider whether a little time spent off the field discussing issues such as this is not time well spent ensuring consistency and clarity, thereby meaning that you don't have to debate it on the field.
User avatar
Moaning Git
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:46 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Moaning Git Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:12 pm

No Dan, what I am saying is that this matter has been discussed before in refs forums and all the points you have raised have been made there. The rules indicate that if you have no stick in your hand you cannot participate in the game in any way. It is clear then that in the situations you raise that by rule the player makes his team offside. The question is then for the referee, is this a purely technical question that only really matters to anally retentive officials who think the wording of the rules is the most important factor; or should you take the what I see as the common sense approach and say to the player, to cross the line and pick up his stick.

I really do not like it when folk decide what I think is fine and what isn't. What is obvious to you is bullshit to me. And as for the unacceptable situation of two refs having two different interpretations of the same rule, it happens all the time. Take the controversies over was it a trip, for example, is it interference or is it a hold, 30 seconds, 1 minute or nothing at all. These debates happen all the time in games.

Its also a bit rich to say that it is unacceptable to have differing interpretation of the same rule.... if that were really the case you would have littel to write about on here, and my liquidation list for the day of glorious revolution would be less lawyers of all kinds cutting it down by half leaving only MPs, bankers, and car clampers up against the wall!
User avatar
Dining Room
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:00 pm
gender: Male
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Dining Room Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:19 pm

Swearbox :shock:
I was once part of the winning Pop Lacrosse team that defeated Wigan in the 1992 Greater Manchester Youth Games.

Here's a 150 second video about how to earn more money with me

http://www.telecomplus.co.uk/biz/videodir/home.taf?exref=C58612
User avatar
Moaning Git
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:46 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby Moaning Git Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:10 pm

Sorry!

I won't mention lawyers again......... damn!
DanSawyer
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DanSawyer Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:55 pm

Moaning Git wrote: The rules indicate that if you have no stick in your hand you cannot participate in the game in any way. It is clear then that in the situations you raise that by rule the player makes his team offside. The question is then for the referee, is this a purely technical question that only really matters to anally retentive officials who think the wording of the rules is the most important factor; or should you take the what I see as the common sense approach and say to the player, to cross the line and pick up his stick.


I have two questions:
1. Why do you keep talking about crossing the line to recover the stick? The whole point of the scenarios I have mentioned is that there is no line to cross. The man losing his stick is nowhere near any line of any sort. His stick does not cross the line. He does not cross the line. He does not need to cross the line. The referee does not need to allow him to cross the line. There is no line. He has simply dropped his stick, thereby putting his side offside because he is not holding a stick and therefore not a player and therefore does not count towards the number of players in that half of the field.

2. Of rather wider importance, I am intrigued by the fact that you describe your fellow referees as anally retentive if they apply the rules as written in the rulebook. This is presumably the famous "spirit of the law", the age-old partner of "common sense". As with common sense, I have no problem with using it, but I am uneasy about having it overrule the actual written rule.

I am interested to know which rules you would consider to be technical and only applied by the anally retentive. Clearly the rule about not taking part in the game you apply sometimes and sometimes not: if a player dropping his stick puts his team offside then it would be anally retentive to call the offside but if a player who has dropped his stick is pushed in the back then you would apply the rule that he is not a player and not penalise the pusher. This is incomprehensible to me but that is possibly one my opinions that you consider to be bullshit.

If I have understood you correctly, however, there are situations when "it is clear" that the rules say one thing, but that is "a purely technical question that only really matters to anally retentive officials".

I hope that you would agree that all players should know the rules of the game they play. This allows them to play within the rules and allows them to know what to expect. It is also fair: play according to the written rules and you're fine. Do something forbidden and you are not fine.
I think it follows from there that all players should know which rules will be applied and which will not. You may or may not think that this opinion is bullshit, but I think that players could feel justifiably aggrieved is they break a rule and are penalised but the other team break a rule and are not.

My point is this: if you would not apply the offside rule in that situation, would you apply it if, for example, a riding attacker, trying to stop, steps over the halfway line, going offside? The rules are clear that you should penalise him, but is that a technical matter for the anally retentive? What about a sub who confusedly steps onto the wrong half? I think that the spirit of the offside rule is that you should play 6v6 lacrosse, but do you ignore any offsides that do not contravene that rule?

For that matter, why stop at the halfway line? Early breaking from the restrained at a face? What about the ball carrier stepping out of bounds, but only just? Technically if you step over then you lose possession, but the same is true of the technical offside point, so which is common sense? In the Duke v UNC game a few years ago the UNC keeper accidentally raked the ball into his own goal. Now the spirit of the rules is surely that a goal is scored by the attacking side shooting it into the net? Of course, being American, the anally retentive referees in that game awarded the goal ,just as they awarded the foul against Danowski in a different game for having his stick fractionally too long, and innumerable occasions when refs on both sides of the Atlantic have awarded penalties against people whose pockets are fractionally too deep.



And as for the unacceptable situation of two refs having two different interpretations of the same rule, it happens all the time. Take the controversies over was it a trip, for example, is it interference or is it a hold, 30 seconds, 1 minute or nothing at all. These debates happen all the time in games.


Yes, but in each of those examples the debate is generally about what happened or possibly what was the intention of the person who did it. Rarely, I would think, is it about whether we should apply this particular rule, even though we know what the rule is. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Its also a bit rich to say that it is unacceptable to have differing interpretation of the same rule.... if that were really the case you would have littel to write about on here, and my liquidation list for the day of glorious revolution would be less lawyers of all kinds cutting it down by half leaving only MPs, bankers, and car clampers up against the wall!


Leaving your highly amusing comments about lawyer, MPs, bankers and clampers to one side, I have perhaps expressed myself badly. I have no difficulty with the notion that different refs interpret what they see in front of them differently. That's human perception for you and I deal with it every day. I find it unacceptable that there can be a rule with potentially game-changing implications, over which referees have not just differing but diametrically opposing opinions, and steps are apparently not been taken to clarify it, despite the fact that it has been raised in refs' forums, with all the arguments put forward. Why is there no definitive ruling on what should happen?

I don't raise these points for my own amusement. I have enough academic argument at work. I raise them because I want to know the rules of the game I play and how they are going to be applied.
User avatar
DWhite
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:39 pm
gender: Male

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DWhite Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:20 pm

What was actually a fun trivial wee discussion brought forward by Rob has escalated into a what can be described only as sheer childish bickering in which you each have to have the last word. How about keeping it as light hearted as the initial thread was ment to be??
Stirling University 09- present
Scotland BNC 2011
User avatar
jameskellam
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:24 am
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby jameskellam Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:42 pm

How about keeping it as light hearted as the initial thread was ment to be??

I thought they were. No abuse, quite a bit of wit, I'm enjoying it.
What if the player who dropped the stick is female?
User avatar
dannyecko
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:27 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby dannyecko Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:59 pm

jameskellam wrote:What if the player who dropped the stick is female?


Correction... *handbag* :lol: jokes
Leeds Met University #12 2010-12
Leeds Lacrosse Club #42 2010-12
Hull Lacrosse Club 2012-
Yorkshire Lacrosse BNC's 2012/2013
Lax Bandicoot #42
DanSawyer
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm
gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Out of bounds question...

Postby DanSawyer Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:35 pm

jameskellam wrote:How about keeping it as light hearted as the initial thread was ment to be??

I thought they were. No abuse, quite a bit of wit, I'm enjoying it.
What if the player who dropped the stick is female?


Then according to a fairly controversial topic a few years ago, she's playing the wrong game!

Return to “Mens Lacrosse Rules”

Monster Mesh

Monster Mesh

Login · Register

Recent Topics