goalie lowering there shoulder

[goalpole15]

if the goalie makes a save can he lower his shoulder and hit someone and if he can does he have to have both hands on his stick and can defenders come in the crease?

[3rdPersonPlural]

Are you talking about all of this while the goalie is in the crease with possession?

I think so. but it really doesn't matter

A goalie can check legally, and the rules are the same for the keeper as they are for anyone else.

Everyone has to have 2 hands on the stick to place a legal body check. That includes keepers

Defenders can legally enter the crease as long as they aren't toting the ball when they do.

[goalpole15]

hey thanks alot but i ment when the goalie was in possetion of the ball

[3rdPersonPlural]

hey thanks alot but i ment when the goalie was in possetion of the ball

Sure, I suppose. However, this question is better suited for the coaches forum, as a keeper bull dodging is as ill advised as running your longpoles at attack.

[Beacher]

Well, if you have the ball, put your shoulder down and try to go straight through your opponent I'm probably going to flag you for UR. And at least around here goalkeepers have to serve their own UR (and USC) penalties. So being a goalie doesn't make any difference here at all.

[HdGLaxWarrior]

Well, if you have the ball, put your shoulder down and try to go straight through your opponent I'm probably going to flag you for UR.

you're going to flag someone for a bull dodge?

[3rdPersonPlural]

you're going to flag someone for a bull dodge?

Read the OP. Basically this goalie wants to be able to secure the ball and run out and wallop somebody. A bull dodge is fine, but if it's more bull than dodge, it's IBC or UR. Read the rulebook.

[LaxRef]

Read the OP. Basically this goalie wants to be able to secure the ball and run out and wallop somebody. A bull dodge is fine, but if it's more bull than dodge, it's IBC or UR. Read the rulebook.

Well, a bull dodge is only fine because no one calls it. It's clearly illegal by the letter of the rules (by the rules, it's either a ward or an IBC). I've tried to get a clarification on this in the rules, to no avail.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Nobody bull dodges beyond the middle school level. It's risky beyond reason to try to bull dodge unless the defender is utterly incompetent.

[Beacher]

you're going to flag someone for a bull dodge?

Yes.

As laxref points out, you're bodychecking a player without the ball when your own team has possession. And from a safety point for view the player being hit won't expect it. To me it's a judgment call as to whether the player with the ball is trying to get past the defender, or just take the opportunity to deliver a hit.

And why is it called a bull dodge anyway?:laugh:

[ref4ee]

Well, a bull dodge is only fine because no one calls it. It's clearly illegal by the letter of the rules (by the rules, it's either a ward or an IBC). I've tried to get a clarification on this in the rules, to no avail.

I am trying to understand your logic on why it is clearly illegal. If the person has both hands on the stick and has possession, as long as they are not leading with the head, or making contact with the opposing player above the shoulders, below the waist, or from behind then I think a bull dodge is perfectly acceptable (also assuming that he is not "lining someone up"). Why should the player with possession be entitled to do less than the person that is defending him?

[MElaxRef]

And why is it called a bull dodge anyway?:laugh:

I can't explain the bull part, but one long accepted way to dodge an opponent is to roll off of the opponent's push, hold or bodycheck. Done properly, the momentum of the defender's thrust is used for leverage and may take the defender out of position.

As LR notes, the warding rule indicates that this move is illegal, if the dodger uses the contact to control the defender's body or crosse. However, since the holding rule allows the defender to hold with no more than equal pressure, IMHO, the attacker may also apply equal pressure.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules that requires at attacker with the ball to be passively redirected by a defender's bodycheck, push or hold.

So, I submit that the bull dodge is a legal dodge when the attacker is reacting to a defender's bodycheck, push or hold. However, if the attacker initiates the contact, then warding is the correct call (IBC if violent).

[boxlaxman]

I am trying to understand your logic on why it is clearly illegal. If the person has both hands on the stick and has possession, as long as they are not leading with the head, or making contact with the opposing player above the shoulders, below the waist, or from behind then I think a bull dodge is perfectly acceptable (also assuming that he is not "lining someone up"). Why should the player with possession be entitled to do less than the person that is defending him?

Yep...me too. I would never flag an offensive player for a bull dodge unless he lowers his head and spears. As an offensive player, I have a RIGHT to take any path I wish to the goal. YOU, as a defensive player must stop me. This isn't girls lacrosse where we have "shooting space" violations. I do not see this as a body check, merely taking my path to the goal and you CHOSE to get in my way.

If this is an IBC, then as an offensive player, I MUST go around you. I don;t think the game of lacrosse was meant to be that type of game. Those rules are for non-contact sports like basketball (charging), soccer and women's lacrosse.

[boxlaxman]

So, I submit that the bull dodge is a legal dodge when the attacker is reacting to a defender's bodycheck, push or hold. However, if the attacker initiates the contact, then warding is the correct call (IBC if violent).

"Warding Off", by definititon cannot occur when both hands are on the stick. IMHO, a bull dodge can only occur when 2 hands are on the stick.

I do agree that a ward can be called with a one-handed dodge if the free arm thrusts the opponent away..."swim" dodges get trciky in this area.

[LaxRef]

"Warding Off", by definititon cannot occur when both hands are on the stick.

This is incorrect:

A player in possession of the ball may not use his free hand
or arm, or any other part of his body, to hold, push or control the direction
of the movement of the crosse or body of a player applying the check.

So, if your elbow contacts the opponent's stick or body and holds, pushes, or controls that stick or body while you have two hands on the stick, no foul. But if any other body part (shoulder) does so, that's a ward.

Note that it is a myth that the rules say you can't be called for a ward if both hands are on the stick; that's not in the rules. I submitted that to the NCAA rules committee as an addition, and they did not accept it.

However, in most cases a player with both hands on the stick will not be called for a ward.

[MElaxRef]

As an offensive player, I have a RIGHT to take any path I wish to the goal. YOU, as a defensive player must stop me. I do not see this as a body check, merely taking my path to the goal and you CHOOSE to get in my way.

If this is an IBC, then as an offensive player, I MUST go around you. I don't think the game of lacrosse was meant to be that type of game. Those rules are for non-contact sports like basketball (charging), soccer and women's lacrosse.

IMHO, boxlaxman has clearly stated a fundamental of the game of men's lacrosse; however, a fundamental that is not articulated in the rule book.

Perhaps LaxRef can think of a way to incorporate this point into the definition of Legal Player Actions in Rule 4.

[LaxRef]

Yep...me too. I would never flag an offensive player for a bull dodge unless he lowers his head and spears. As an offensive player, I have a RIGHT to take any path I wish to the goal. YOU, as a defensive player must stop me.

The rules say that it is illegal to body check a player who is not in possession or within 5 yards of a loose ball. If A1 has possession, B1 is not in possession and is not within 5 yards of a loose ball, so if A1 body checks B1 it's technically an IBC. It's also a ward based on the definition in my previous post.

Now, I'm generally not calling it an IBC because no one else does, but when we have something in the rules that no one calls, that's a problem, especially for new officials trying to figure out the game.

This was my suggested addition covering these situations:


A.R. ##. A1, in possession of the ball, is driving toward the goal. A1 lowers his shoulder and knocks over B1 while (1) B1 is attempting to body check A1 (2) B1 is in a stationary position or backing away from A1 (3) B1 is not playing A1 and has his back to A1 RULING: (1) No foul (2) Warding on A1 (3) Illegal body check on A1.

Comment: In case (1), A1 needs to be able to brace for the contact by B1 and should not be penalized if he gets the better of the contact. In case (2), A1 is violating the terms of the warding rule. In case (3), he's clearly committing a dangerous foul and should be penalized.

I don't buy the "the offensive player has a right to any path he wants to take to the goal." It's not in the rules and case (3) above is a good example of a situation where a certain path would be illegal.

Again, I'm not saying that I call a ward or an IBC on a bull dodge now. What I am saying is that either of those calls would be supported by the rulebook as it currently stands, and that this situation should be resolved somehow.

[boxlaxman]

OK...I think we are reading WAAAAY too much into the rulebooks sometimes.

1. How can you penalize an offensive player for intiating a bodycheck that would be perfectly legal for the defensive player to do (assuming all normal BC regualtions were met).???

2. Warding - This was meant for the FREE HAND pushing the stick out of the way. The same thing that happens in basketball. I have a right to protect my stick and NOT let the defender check it if I have 2 hands on it...

As always...let's remember the "SPIRIT" of the rules....

[MElaxRef]

I don't buy the "the offensive player has a right to any path he wants to take to the goal." It's not in the rules and case (3) above is a good example of a situation where a certain path would be illegal.

Again, I'm not saying that I call a ward or an IBC on a bull dodge now. What I am saying is that either of those calls would be supported by the rulebook as it currently stands, and that this situation should be resolved somehow.

LR, I agree that the situation should be resolved. I suggest that the rules committee be asked about the proposition that "the offensive player with possession has a right to take any path he chooses" and to define the restrictions on that right (not through the crease, no spearing, etc.)."

I don't think that headlong rushes towards the goal are very smart, but I think that they are, in the main, in keeping with the spirit and tradition of the game.

[LaxRef]

OK...I think we are reading WAAAAY too much into the rulebooks sometimes.

Words have meanings. The rulebook needs to say what it means, otherwise it's useless.

It is hard to write good rules. If you aren't careful, you say things that confuse everyone, and continue to confuse them for years after they are corrected!

1. How can you penalize an offensive player for intiating a bodycheck that would be perfectly legal for the defensive player to do (assuming all normal BC regualtions were met).???

How can you penalize B1 for bodychecking A1, who doesn't have the ball, when it would have been perfectly legal for B1 to check A1 if he had the ball?

How can you penalize A1 for stepping in B1's crease when it would be perfectly legal for B1 to step in B1's crease?

We could go on all day. The obvious answer is: because the rules say it's legal in one situation but not in the other.

2. Warding - This was meant for the FREE HAND pushing the stick out of the way.

Then why does it say "or any other part of his body"? I mean, someone wrote that and put it in the rulebook for a reason.

And why does it say it is illegal to bodycheck a player who doesn't have possession and is not within 5 yards of a loose ball?

The same thing that happens in basketball. I have a right to protect my stick and NOT let the defender check it if I have 2 hands on it...As always...let's remember the "SPIRIT" of the rules....

The "spirit of the rules" is all too often an excuse for lazy rules writing.

Again, I am not disagreeing with how we enforce this play. I'm disagreeing that the rules support calling it that way.

[boxlaxman]

This is what I love about box lacrosse...so many of these ticky-tack things don't exist...

I'd just hate to see the sport "dumbed-down". Not sure we could ever write the proper words that would mean everything to everybody.

We have the same problem in boxla writing the rule about boarding. Everyone KNOWS what it is...just don't know how to write it...

[laxfan25]

I agree with LaxRef that you could have a warding call if the attacker just drives right over the defender, and I also agree that it is rarely called that way (and even less as an IBC). I was doing a HSJV game last night with a new team, and one of the middies on the new team did a bull dodge, pretty much running into the defender, but at a slight angle. I didn't flag him, but thought to myself "that could be called a ward".