When to call it withholding the ball

[cnylax]

On a faceoff the one faceoff man clamps the ball how long do you give him before you call him for withholding the ball I was always told 4 seconds

[eme]

Give him time to "control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion....4 seconds is too long to just be stationary there with the ball doing nothing but pinning it to the ground...the same amount of time you'd give a goalie clamping the ball in the crease.
If he clamps the ball then starts to pivot his feet around it in a circle=witholding
If he clamps the ball and then looks up in a search for his wingmen=witholding

[LaxRef]

On a faceoff the one faceoff man clamps the ball how long do you give him before you call him for withholding the ball I was always told 4 seconds

There is no set time, but I believe most people would say 4 seconds is way too long. If a guy clamps the ball and is making no effort to move the ball within 1 -2 seconds, most officials are going to call that withholding.

The "4 seconds" myth most likely came from the old rule stating that you had 4 seconds to dislodge the ball if it became stuck in the front or back of the crosse. That had nothing to do with having the ball clamped on a faceoff, and it is no longer in the book anymore anyway.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

When perusing through the faceoff threads, one can read discussions on how to try to act like the ball is not stuck in the crosse so we don't call it. and how to then dislodge the ball discretely. I am sure I have been fooled and now have a better eye for this, and it's a quick whistle once we observe that the ball is or was stuck.

[LaxRef]

When perusing through the faceoff threads, one can read discussions on how to try to act like the ball is not stuck in the crosse so we don't call it. and how to then dislodge the ball discretely. I am sure I have been fooled and now have a better eye for this, and it's a quick whistle once we observe that the ball is or was stuck.

Care to summarize the cheating techniques for us?

[Shorelax]

This is a situation where being a player is helpful when officiating. The face-off guy on our old guy team will quickly cradle his stick when the ball is stuck in his crosse, giving the illusion the ball is in his pocket. He will go as far as throwing a short pass with the ball lodged in the back of his stick.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

love to...

[theCanadian]

This is a situation where being a player is helpful when officiating. The face-off guy on our old guy team will quickly cradle his stick when the ball is stuck in his crosse, giving the illusion the ball is in his pocket. He will go as far as throwing a short pass with the ball lodged in the back of his stick.

It works. I know there are some teams out there that actually go as far as to practice throwing out the back of their sticks.

[inblack]

If he clamps the ball then starts to pivot his feet around it in a circle=witholding
If he clamps the ball and then looks up in a search for his wingmen=witholding

Agreed, that is how I do it, and how I have instructed at clinics and on the field.

Especially this part "If he clamps the ball and then looks up in a search for his wingmen=witholding"

[massref]

This is a situation where being a player is helpful when officiating. The face-off guy on our old guy team will quickly cradle his stick when the ball is stuck in his crosse, giving the illusion the ball is in his pocket. He will go as far as throwing a short pass with the ball lodged in the back of his stick.

There is nothing illegal about cradling with the back of the stick or throwing passes with the ball in the back of the stick, it is just if it is stuck, or lodged, in the back of the stick. It isn't all that uncommon, especially at the younger level, to see player catch with thwe wrong side of the crosse.

[I got man!]

this post reminds me I need to work on a player of mine. It cracks me up when I see him popping his head up and down like a rabbit in a hole looking for his buddy while clamping the ball.

Originally Posted by eme
If he clamps the ball then starts to pivot his feet around it in a circle=witholding

Maybe I am not picturing the above post correctly. If he is moving his feet in a circle around the ball isn't he just trying to shut off the opponent while trying to find a good channel to send it?

[inblack]

Originally posted by: I got man!
Maybe I am not picturing the above post correctly. If he is moving his feet in a circle around the ball isn't he just trying to shut off the opponent while trying to find a good channel to send it?
Nope.
If he has the ball clamped to the turf/grass/carpet and he is waiting for a teammate to become open then he is stalling = witholding. Even if he is moving trying to 'bump' the other draw man off the play, if the ball is clamped = witholdoing.
He is preventing anyone from playing the ball for longer than a couple of counts = witholding.
Once he has clamped it, he has to make a move with it, or pull it out and away from the scrum quickly or he risks getting called.

[3rdPersonPlural]

So, there's a too-long clamp on a face off. That's a loose ball technical, right? Do you call 'play on' or just whistle it?

[MElaxRef]

Originally posted by 3rdPersonPlural
So, there's a too-long clamp on a face off. That's a loose ball technical, right? Do you call 'play on' or just whistle it?
Even though the ball is loose, it cannot be a play on because there is no opportunity for the offended team to gain possession.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Even though the ball is loose, it cannot be a play on because there is no opportunity for the offended team to gain possession.

Is this the only live ball no possession situation where a whistle for a technical foul is not preceded by a 'play on'?

[MElaxRef]

Is this the only live ball no possession situation where a whistle for a technical foul is not preceded by a 'play on'?

Not at all.

The simplest case is when the ball goes out of bounds.

The real key, though, is to understand the intent of the play on rule, which is to preserve the flow of the game. If the team that was fouled is in position to quickly gain possession without being disadvantaged, then use the play on technique. Before the play on technique was introduced, by rule, you were supposed to stop play on a loose ball violation in order to give the ball to the offended team, even if it meant taking away a fast break!

So the following live ball, loose ball, technical foul situations should have a quick whistle:
[1] Ball is surrounded by members of both teams, because the offended team is not in position to quickly gain possession.
[2] A1 pushes B2 and A3 is in the best position to scoop the loose ball. Team B is not in position to quickly gain possession.
[3] A1 pushes B2 and B2 still has a step on A1 and is likely to gain possession, but ball is near the sideline / endline and B2 will go OB immediately after gaining possession. Team B would be disadvantaged by a play on.
[4] A1 pushes B2 and B2 still has a step on A1 and is likely to gain possession, but A3 is in position to bodycheck B2 as soon as he gains possession. Again, Team B would be disadvantaged by a play on.

[LaxRef]

Not at all.

The simplest case is when the ball goes out of bounds.

Although a ball going out of bounds is not a technical foul, or any kind of foul.

[inblack]

Original -- Inblack:
If he has the ball clamped to the turf/grass/carpet and he is waiting for a teammate to become open then he is stalling = witholding. Even if he is moving trying to 'bump' the other draw man off the play, if the ball is clamped = witholdoing.
He is preventing anyone from playing the ball for longer than a couple of counts = witholding.


So, there's a too-long clamp on a face off. That's a loose ball technical, right? Do you call 'play on' or just whistle it?

No we don't 'Play On' here, we whistle it, and Possession change, Loose ball technical. (no one really has possession of it yet. Since this would typically all occur Before the Official calls Possession and gives the Arm Crank signal.)

Also considering that the ball is trapped against the turf, there is no opportunity for the offended teams to ever gain possession of it. Quickly or otherwise.
The longer we wait in this kind if situation the greater the possibility that something will occur. 4 wingers and the draw men all on top of eachother, there will be an additional foul.
In spirit of the Play On is to provide for possession and the possibility of a break play, not to allow for the fouls to escalate into personals or multipule fouls.

Attack and Defenders are still restrained until the re-start with Possession.

[HeadHeartHustle]

There is no set time, but I believe most people would say 4 seconds is way too long. If a guy clamps the ball and is making no effort to move the ball within 1 -2 seconds, most officials are going to call that withholding.

The "4 seconds" myth most likely came from the old rule stating that you had 4 seconds to dislodge the ball if it became stuck in the front or back of the crosse. That had nothing to do with having the ball clamped on a faceoff, and it is no longer in the book anymore anyway.

Thankyou!

when i take faceoffs, if i get beat, and the opponent clamps, i always get up, waiting for him to rip it one way or the other so i can get to it quicker. I always see people holding it down there and I'm like "c'mon thats withholding" and the refs do nothing. I seriously get up and just watch over him. He just doesnt move at all.. Its funny actually.

[PNWlax]

If the interpretations I have read here are correct the vast majority of faceoffs in our league I have seen would be withholding.

Player 1 clamps and the other player is trying to push them off the ball while player 1 is protecting the ball by continuing to clamp trying to get an opportunity to rake the ball. Sometimes it is hard to tell who may have control of the ball but the struggle definately lasts more than 4 seconds.

Usually by this time the wingmen are on top of everything and a loose ball push or something else is called. How can we get the refs to see this as withholding?

[LaxRef]

If the interpretations I have read here are correct the vast majority of faceoffs in our league I have seen would be withholding.

Player 1 clamps and the other player is trying to push them off the ball while player 1 is protecting the ball by continuing to clamp trying to get an opportunity to rake the ball. Sometimes it is hard to tell who may have control of the ball but the struggle definately lasts more than 4 seconds.

Usually by this time the wingmen are on top of everything and a loose ball push or something else is called. How can we get the refs to see this as withholding?

Talk to the assignor?

[the next 'one']

how about how long until it's called a procedure if he clamps, stands up and the ball is stuck in the back of the stick. I was always told two steps maximum.

[Beacher]

how about how long until it's called a procedure if he clamps, stands up and the ball is stuck in the back of the stick. I was always told two steps maximum.

Why give him two steps? Ball stuck in the cross is an immediate whistle and either a re-face or loss of possession depending on your rules.

[3rdPersonPlural]

OK. here's one. A1 jumps the whistle and clamps the ball. I call IP and award the ball to B1. A1 has the ball clamped but stands up and the ball is nicely wedged in the back of his crosse.

As he sheepishly shakes the ball out, my mind is racing as to what to call, if anything.

1. Another IP? Do I throw a flag? 30 seconds this time?

2. A stick penalty of some sort?

3. Dead ball so no foul?

4. USC? But for what?

5. Conduct? For a stick?

6. Make believe I was looking elsewhere and whistle the ball live?

I went for #6, but I feel that I could have done better. What did I miss?

[LaxRef]

OK. here's one. A1 jumps the whistle and clamps the ball. I call IP and award the ball to B1. A1 has the ball clamped but stands up and the ball is nicely wedged in the back of his crosse.

As he sheepishly shakes the ball out, my mind is racing as to what to call, if anything.

1. Another IP? Do I throw a flag? 30 seconds this time?

2. A stick penalty of some sort?

3. Dead ball so no foul?

4. USC? But for what?

5. Conduct? For a stick?

6. Make believe I was looking elsewhere and whistle the ball live?

I went for #6, but I feel that I could have done better. What did I miss?

Would you send him off for 30 seconds if A1 was in the neutral zone and his stick wasn't parallel to the line on the face-off? Nope. Here, you just give the ball to Team B, just like your situation.

[inblack]

Agreed, since there is nothing in the ILF rules about measuring or testing the BACK of the stick.

Free the ball award possession. Resume play

[theCanadian]

I meant to ask this very same question, but forgot to.

I clamped a loose ball on our crease in the middle of a scrum and was called for withholding while people where still falling over me.

The whole process took maybe 2 seconds, tops.

Also what eme said about clamping and moving in a circle around the ball, I see this happen all the time with no whistle. Most people call it "boxing out". Surely that can't be a penatly unless the player makes no move to actually pick the ball up.

[laxfan25]

Had a few interesting calls over the weekend. In one game the faceoff man clamped and held the ball for several seconds - withholding.
In another game one of the faceoff men's move was to come across and pin his stick across the wrists of the opponent on the ground - holding! He looked at me and said he'd never been called for that before. I told him that was the other refs' mistakes.
He learned though, because on a later faceoff one player clamped the ball and this player put his crosse across the other's, preventing him from raking it out. The coach was yelling for withholding - un-uh - legal play.

[LaxRef]

Had a few interesting calls over the weekend. In one game the faceoff man clamped and held the ball for several seconds - withholding.
In another game one of the faceoff men's move was to come across and pin his stick across the wrists of the opponent on the ground - holding! He looked at me and said he'd never been called for that before. I told him that was the other refs' mistakes.
He learned though, because on a later faceoff one player clamped the ball and this player put his crosse across the other's, preventing him from raking it out. The coach was yelling for withholding - un-uh - legal play.

If A1 clamps the ball and B1 clamps on A1's stick, preventing A1 from moving it, B1 is withholding the ball from play (the "in any other manner" clause).

[flagman]

...clamping and moving in a circle around the ball, I see this happen all the time with no whistle. Most people call it "boxing out".

Surely those people are watching basketball and this situation is withholding.:lol:

[theCanadian]

Surely those people are watching basketball and this situation is withholding.:lol:

ok ok. nice.:bartmoon: But for that situation, in my opinion, the ref doesn't need to blow his whistle.

[laxfan25]

If A1 clamps the ball and B1 clamps on A1's stick, preventing A1 from moving it, B1 is withholding the ball from play (the "in any other manner" clause).
Is there universal agreement on this? Everyone feel this way? I haven't had it often, and if that is the general consensus on interpretation I'm good with it.
My leaning was that it was an OK play.

[LaxRef]

Is there universal agreement on this? Everyone feel this way? I haven't had it often, and if that is the general consensus on interpretation I'm good with it.
My leaning was that it was an OK play.

It's a judgment call, but if B1 does something that makes it impossible for either team to play the ball (clamping on A1's stick so A1 can't move it), that meets the definition of withholding the ball from play.

[Lax Fan26]

I would argue that as long as B1 has both hands on his crosse, any clamp on A1's crosse would be a legal hold. It could become illegal if B1's crosse moved up on A1's hands/arms. Otherwise, the onus would be on A1 to move the ball out to avoid a withholding call, even if being legally held by B1.

[LaxRef]

I would argue that as long as B1 has both hands on his crosse, any clamp on A1's crosse would be a legal hold. It could become illegal if B1's crosse moved up on A1's hands/arms. Otherwise, the onus would be on A1 to move the ball out to avoid a withholding call, even if being legally held by B1.

I respectfully disagree. The hold itself would not be illegal here, but the use of the hold to keep the ball from play would be withholding. In other words, the call is not holding, but withholding.

[Lax Fan26]

Well of course I love to argue...

A1 chose the tactic of the clamp to gain the advantage of preventing anyone else access to the loose ball. B1's counter-tactic of using a legal stick-on-stick hold (within 5 yds of loose ball) does not fit the definition of witholding the ball from play as B1's crosse is in no wise touching the ball.

As FO ref, I am telling A1 to move the ball out or I will call witholding on A1.

[LaxRef]

Well of course I love to argue...

A1 chose the tactic of the clamp to gain the advantage of preventing anyone else access to the loose ball. B1's counter-tactic of using a legal stick-on-stick hold (within 5 yds of loose ball) does not fit the definition of witholding the ball from play as B1's crosse is in no wise touching the ball.

As FO ref, I am telling A1 to move the ball out or I will call witholding on A1.

I'll give you a dollar if you can convince me that the definition of withholding requires that the player be touching the ball. We have that "withholding the ball from play in any other manner" clause. In this case, A1 clamped and may have intended to move the ball out of there in one more or less continuous motion. B1 is preventing him from doing so; therefore, B1 is withholding.

Consider this: Team B is leading by 1 with a minute to go. There's a shot that hits GK B1 in the chest and falls to the ground, just in front of the goal. GK B1 stands with his feet in a V with the ball on the ground between them, and he puts his crosse on the ground in front of his feet to make a triangle. There is no count because there's no possession. He is not touching the ball. No one can get to the ball without committing a goalie interference foul. Legal play? Of course not: he's violating the "in any other manner" clause!

[avo]

I'm with Lax Fan 26 on this -

If there is loose ball within five yards of the crease, and B1 legally pushes A1 into crease, it is a crease violation by A1 even though it was B1's action that caused the violation.

In a similar manner, if A1 is legally holding B1's stick on faceoff causing B1 to have ball trapped under his stick, it would seem the violation is on B1 not on A1.

[LaxRef]

I'm with Lax Fan 26 on this -

If there is loose ball within five yards of the crease, and B1 legally pushes A1 into crease, it is a crease violation by A1 even though it was B1's action that caused the violation.

In a similar manner, if A1 is legally holding B1's stick on faceoff causing B1 to have ball trapped under his stick, it would seem the violation is on B1 not on A1.

I'm with you on the first point but not on the second. In the first case, B1 has not committed an illegal action. In the second case, A1's action is the thing that's keeping the ball out of play, not B1's, so A1 is violating the withholding rule.

We discussed this previously here. (http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=47462)

[avo]

Still see these as similar - a legal action by one player causes a violation by another player.

[LaxRef]

Still see these as similar - a legal action by one player causes a violation by another player.

The big difference is that if B1 legally pushes A1 into the crease, that action created a subsequent action which was a violation. But if B1 prevents A1 from moving his crosse with the ball under it, there is possibly no violation without B1's action, since B1 is the one that is keeping A1 from moving it.

A better analogy is if B1 illegally pushes A1 into the crease. In that situation, since B1 has acted illegally, A1 is given a pass for being in the crease. Similarly, here if B1 is somehow keeping the ball out of play--by preventing another player from moving it--B1 is committing an illegal act and A1 is given a pass.

[C.Montgomery]

A better analogy is if B1 illegally pushes A1 into the crease. In that situation, since B1 has acted illegally, A1 is given a pass for being in the crease. Similarly, here if B1 is somehow keeping the ball out of play--by preventing another player from moving it--B1 is committing an illegal act and A1 is given a pass.
In that case A1 is not given a pass. His technical foul for being in the crease is a simultaneous foul. The result is that team A gets the ball since all fouls were technical and A was entitled to the ball. Another result is that it causes the play to be whistled dead, which could prevent a goal from being scored. There is a another active thread dealing with this situation.

To me, the problem is that there are few, if any, definitions in the rule book, and many rules—like this one—are left open to interpretation. In my mind, one player is legally keeping another player from doing what he wants; that is different from keeping the ball from being played. As long as the hold is legal, I think this is a legal play and would just watch and wait.

[yorklaxman]

Nope.
If he has the ball clamped to the turf/grass/carpet and he is waiting for a teammate to become open then he is stalling = witholding. Even if he is moving trying to 'bump' the other draw man off the play, if the ball is clamped = witholdoing.
He is preventing anyone from playing the ball for longer than a couple of counts = witholding.
Once he has clamped it, he has to make a move with it, or pull it out and away from the scrum quickly or he risks getting called.

For number #1 when we fo guys pivot we are doing so to create a fastbreak not to withhold the ball

[laxfan25]

For number #1 when we fo guys pivot we are doing so to create a fastbreak not to withhold the ball
But if you're pivoting while clamped on the ball for more than a couple seconds - you ARE withholding the ball, even if your intent is to create a fast break.
On the stick clamp on the player with the ball clamp, my leaning is to handle it as I did - just let them fight for it.

[avo]

[QUOTE=LaxRef;1564795]The big difference is that if B1 legally pushes A1 into the crease, that action created a subsequent action which was a violation. But if B1 prevents A1 from moving his crosse with the ball under it, there is possibly no violation without B1's action, since B1 is the one that is keeping A1 from moving it.QUOTE]

There is no violation in either case without B1's action

In any case, I am not inclined to call withholding on either player if hold is legal - let them grit it out.

[Beacher]

Just to look at it from a different perspective, ILF world championship addendum 1.2 (I think, I'm going from memory here) deals with exactly this situation. If A1 clamps the ball, and B1 holds A1s stick on the ground, B1 is the one that is causing the ball to be withheld, so B1 is the player penalized.