View Full Version : strange unnecessary roughness call
bigdale9
03-30-2008, 11:58 AM
this weekend at a tourney the opposing defender gets the ball and is running down the field. we call a midi in through the box and send one out through the box and the coach yells "get me the ball" and he runs and lights the defender up. ref throws a flag and calls unnecesary roughness. he said there is nothing in the rule book against this but he still called it citing: "thats unnecesary"
whats the correct call here? is what we did really so terrile we should get a 1:00 man down?
3rdPersonPlural
03-30-2008, 12:34 PM
Flying in from the substitution area and blindsiding a player who didn't know you were coming with a huge hit is unsafe. Kids get hurt that way.
We can flag unsafe play with any number of calls, but most of them are personal fouls and carry a 1 to 3 minute fine.
Now if the kid had popped out of the box and played lacrosse rather than football, your official might have seen things differently.
This is specifically covered in Situation 5.8.E in NFHS - Unnecessary Roughness
cali feeder
04-07-2008, 02:30 AM
You've got a much better chance at getting the ball back if you truck the kid, correct? So was it really that unnecessary? What were his other options?
laxgoali3own
04-07-2008, 06:57 AM
You've got a much better chance at getting the ball back if you truck the kid, correct? So was it really that unnecessary? What were his other options?
Break Down and play strong fundamental defense.
MElaxRef
04-07-2008, 06:58 AM
I can't speak for the player, but the official has the option of calling unsportsmanlike conduct to lock the player in for 2 or 3 minutes.
LaxRef
04-07-2008, 07:53 AM
You've got a much better chance at getting the ball back if you truck the kid, correct? So was it really that unnecessary? What were his other options?
The "unnecessary" part means it wasn't necessary to hit him that hard to put him on the ground and separate him from the ball. In addition, as avo points out, the rules specifically cover this situation as illegal.
Stubs
04-07-2008, 05:19 PM
The phrase "Intent to injure" comes in here.
Also "It's a contact sport, not a collision sport"
laxsavage
04-07-2008, 06:41 PM
This is one of the reasons for the 2010 changes. It will be much harder to justify such a hit. I've seen some kids take some pretty rough hits and keep the ball, which could support the argumet (however flawed it may be) that big hits are necessary. Anyway, we all realize it's a contact sport, but there's nothing worse than seeing a kid get a concussion or other serious injury, and I applaud the officials for making safety a priority. Hopefully the rule changes will take some of these collisions out of the game.
Which rule changes are coming in 2010 that cover this UR? Are you thinking of the new NCAA stick dimensions that (we hope) wil lmake it easier to dislodge the ball on a poke check (remember those?)?
bigdale9
04-07-2008, 08:19 PM
You've got a much better chance at getting the ball back if you truck the kid, correct? So was it really that unnecessary? What were his other options?
it was on a fastbreak so there was no one else on him
laxsavage
04-08-2008, 07:37 AM
Which rule changes are coming in 2010 that cover this UR? Are you thinking of the new NCAA stick dimensions that (we hope) wil lmake it easier to dislodge the ball on a poke check (remember those?)?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
massref
04-11-2008, 01:02 PM
Rule 5.8 Situations D and E specifically covers a sub coming in and checking an unsuspecting player.
sicknastybeast
04-11-2008, 10:03 PM
correct me if im wrong but did u say your coach lit the kid up
massref
04-12-2008, 08:33 AM
I had a prep middle school game where the coach was a little nuts. He was yelling for his team to take this opponent out so on a clear the psycho coach's player takes the midi out from the side at mid field with a cross check to the neck. Two flags - one for the player making the cross check and one for the coach for UC, 3 minutes. What are they thinking?? Are they thinking?