Page 1 of 1

Lift Check

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:34 pm
by bobmac
Seeing lots of examples of lift checks in games at all levels, including coaching videos for juniors. Usually executed when attacker has beaten defender, who as they trail lifts an arm of the attacker, causing him to readjust pass/shot. Generally regarded as a good defensive play. Not overly aggressive, no danger of slash etc.
However, why is it not considered a stick on body hold?

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:29 pm
by UKLaxfan
Stick on Body is a HOLD

Stick on Gloves or Stick is LEGAL

Lift baby just Lift

Don't wait to get beat, watch Tom Williamson #20 England when a dodger drives on him, he gets his stick in front of the dodger and "Lifts" the dodgers Bottom Hand

Result - Dispossession or forces a bad pass or shot

There are 2 Checks that are most effective for Defenders
1) The Poke Check
2) The Lift Check

They are far more effective than the Slap Check although nowhere nearly as popular (or easy to do)

A Slap Check looks like you are defending but in reality between checks the attacker can do anything he wants

If a dodger has a decent set of arm pads he will ignore Slap Checks and YOU

Watch Nick Watson #2 England who pretty much had his way yesterday with whoever was trying to Defend him :lol:

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:31 pm
by Rotisserie
Presumably you mean where they lift the elbow of the attacker rather than actually coming in to any form of contact with the gloves/stick?

It's a very good question. Technically it should probably be illegal. Hopefully the refs can shed some light on it.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:01 pm
by Moaning Git
55.1 A player shall not hold an opponent or an opponent’s crosse except as hereinafter permitted:

i) A player may hold off an opponent who is in possession of the ball or who is within 3 yards (2.74 metres) of a loose ball or who is within 3 yards (2.74 metres) of a ball in flight with either closed gloved hand on the handle of his crosse, or with either forearm. Both hands of the player who is doing the holding must be on his crosse.

ii) A player in possession of the ball may protect his crosse with his hand, arm, or other part of his body when an opponent makes a play to check his crosse.
The hand, arm, or other part of his body may only be used to stop the stick check, and it must not be used to hold, push, or control the direction of the movement of the checker’s crosse or body.

55.2 A player may not hold an opponent’s body, other than the gloved hand holding the crosse, with his own crosse. If a player holds an opponent with that portion of the handle of his crosse which is between his hands, then a cross-check hold has been committed.


The lift of the elbow is not illegal according to these rules. They are specific that the stick must be used to "hold" so I suppose that then depends what your definition of a hold is, and i would say that it is use of the stick that restricts or inhibits freemovement of a player, a lift of the elbow would not do that, unless the lift was from the front in which case contact on the body could be considered to restrict the ball carrier.

The examples do not make things any clearer. To be honest I think the rules as written make things difficult enough for defenders so I would not wish to do anything that detracts from what I would consider skilled and clever defensive moves.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:45 pm
by dblacklock
All valid points. Stick on elbow even in a liting motion would be illegal. Not saying though tha tit will neessarily get called I've seen this used quite effectively whena long stick is trailing a player on a ground ball and they nudget the elbow just as the attack player goes to pick up the ball.

Like I said rarely gets called, but not to say that it won't.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:29 pm
by Moaning Git
The problem is Don that it may be illegal, but under what rule?

What creates a "hold" is not defined "A player shall not hold an opponent". If I hold a cup I am grasping it , if I rest my fingers on the side of a cup am I holding it? so it is a question of interpretation. If we call every incident where a players stick touches another players body then the game would be destroyed, so some questions are probaly left unanswered. I still would not call it and if questionned why not I would ask someone to show me the rule that clearly states it is illegal, and hold my hands up if I was wrong.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:17 pm
by dblacklock
Moaning Git wrote:The problem is Don that it may be illegal, but under what rule?

What creates a "hold" is not defined "A player shall not hold an opponent". If I hold a cup I am grasping it , if I rest my fingers on the side of a cup am I holding it? so it is a question of interpretation. If we call every incident where a players stick touches another players body then the game would be destroyed, so some questions are probaly left unanswered. I still would not call it and if questionned why not I would ask someone to show me the rule that clearly states it is illegal, and hold my hands up if I was wrong.


John, you are right the hold rule is poorly worded. For instance, when a man puts a hand on his opponents back to make the wrap check, we call a hold. In reality, the penalty was called because he gained an advantage through having had a better balance as a result of the "hold". I use the same premise here. The player gained an advantage by putting his stick on the player. It was not sustained as in your definition, but the stick was on the body and as such he gained an advantage. Can't think what else if would be called other than a slash and it hardly warrents this call.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:57 pm
by jameskellam
Interference?

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:06 pm
by Moaning Git
No because interference is defined in the rules.

Really the hold rule needs to be clarified. That said at the Europeans there were countless occassions of sticks resting on a body, lifts on elbows and even loose hands on backs that were not called, and probably just as many that were. Do we really want to try and play or officiate a sport where every single move is defined in the rules and every literal infringement of the wording of the rules is called? I think not, that would kill the game.

There was a lot of discussion at the Euros about the refereeing and the number of calls being made. And I have to say from some of the limited early round games I saw I felt that some of the complaints had justification. That said the final round games had far less referee involvement, which may indicate that they were being less proactive, or that players were easing off on their dodgy moves or a combination of both. Getting the balance right is key I think, and maybe carrying out a detailed post mortem on calls or theoretical situations is not helpful.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:17 pm
by jameskellam
Point taken. Its a hold. The ball carrier is prevented from putting his arm where he wants it to go, his free movement is restrained, he is being held. For my part, I wouldn't call it unless the defending player gains some actual advantage by it.

Re: Lift Check

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:35 pm
by Moaning Git
I still cannot see myself calling it. I think you are stretching a definition to make it fit. And I saw the same move being used in the Euros and they were not called, so why should they in an English match?