golie out of cage

[exile lacrosse]

if the goalie is out of the cage and for some reason the team gets the ball while hes out and one of the defenders jump in and were to make a save would he be able to clamp the ball and be safe in the crease becasue he is the standing in goalie, or do these "privilages" apply only to the real goalie?

[LaxRef]

if the golie is out of the cage and for some reason the team gets the ball while hes out and one of the defenders jump in and were to make a save would he be able to clamp the ball and be safe in the crease becasue he is the standing in golie, or do these "privilages" apply only to the real golie?

The goalie priviliges apply only to the deisgnated goalkeeper, who needs to have a goalkeeper crosse and the proper pads.

And the goalie can't even "clamp the ball and be safe" exactly. If the ball is outside the crease when he clamps, he still doesn't have possession, so his stick can be checked. If the ball is inside the crease when it's clamped, his stick can't be checked, but he can't just keep it clamped (since that's withholding the ball from play).

A defenseman other than the goalie cannot, for example, get a goalie interference call, or bat the ball with his hand (and not even the goaliie can catch it with his hand or pick it up).

[ref4ee]

"If the ball is outside the crease when he clamps, he still doesn't have possession, so his stick can be checked."

Although I can't find it explicitly stated in the rulebook, it was my understanding that only the part of the crosse that is outside of the crease cylinder can be checked in this loose ball situation. (At least it is stated this way in the USL Official's Training Manual)

The way it was worded above, and in a thread from last week, would leave people to believe that the entire stick can be checked, even if only a small part of it is outside the crease.

[LCNlaxman]

what's a golie? spell goalie right please, people get mad. G-O-A-L-I-E

A) your D, you should know how to spell goalie.
B) this is your second thread in which you've spelled goalie wrong.

im not trying to be a jerk, it's just that if i didn't get to you first, other people would tear you up.

[LaxRef]

what's a golie? spell goalie right please, people get mad. G-O-A-L-I-E

A) your D, you should know how to spell goalie.
B) this is your second thread in which you've spelled goalie wrong.

im not trying to be a jerk, it's just that if i didn't get to you first, other people would tear you up.


There's no need to pick on people's spelling. If you really can't stop yourself, private message the person.

Also, if you're going to pick on people's spelling, you should make sure your own posts are beyond reproach. I see a large number of errors in your post.

[LaxRef]

"If the ball is outside the crease when he clamps, he still doesn't have possession, so his stick can be checked."

Although I can't find it explicitly stated in the rulebook, it was my understanding that only the part of the crosse that is outside of the crease cylinder can be checked in this loose ball situation. (At least it is stated this way in the USL Official's Training Manual)

The way it was worded above, and in a thread from last week, would leave people to believe that the entire stick can be checked, even if only a small part of it is outside the crease.

See NCAA Rule 4-19

c. The crosse of the goalkeeper, but not his body, when extended outside the cylinder above the crease area, is subject to being checked under the same circumstances as the crosse of any other player, except when the ball is in the crosse.

I would interpret this as you have: the part of the crosse extended outside the cylinder is allowed to be checked provided that the ball is not in the crosse. However, another possible interpretation is that if any part of the crosse is outside the cylinder then all of the crosse may be checked. Another interpretation is that you can't check the goalie's crosse unless it's completely out of the cylinder.

Good point to bring up, and welcome aboard! We always like to see another official join the group!

[LCNlaxman]

There's no need to pick on people's spelling. If you really can't stop yourself, private message the person.

Also, if you're going to pick on people's spelling, you should make sure your own posts are beyond reproach. I see a large number of errors in your post.

so 2 is a large number? other than that, i see nothing wrong. if you include the un-capitalized I's, than it's more.

I only brought it up in this thread because half the posts in the other thread were telling him how to spell goalie. You would think he would catch on.

[LCNlaxman]

I would interpret this as you have: the part of the crosse extended outside the cylinder is allowed to be checked provided that the ball is not in the crosse. However, another possible interpretation is that if any part of the crosse is outside the cylinder then all of the crosse may be checked. Another interpretation is that you can't check the goalie's crosse unless it's completely out of the cylinder.


i personally would think it would depend on what part of the goalkeepers crosse A1 was trying to check. if it was the head, the only the head need be out of the cylinder. Truly, to play it safe, i would call it a legal check only if the goalkeepers crosse is completely outside the cylinder, as you stated.

Also i have a quick question, if the goalkeeper were to run out of the crease with the ball, doesn't he have only a limited time to get back into the crease? (10 seconds i believe)

[LaxRef]

so 2 is a large number? other than that, i see nothing wrong. if you include the un-capitalized I's, than it's more.

I only brought it up in this thread because half the posts in the other thread were telling him how to spell goalie. You would think he would catch on.

Much more than 2. Anyway, there were only two other posts besides the original when you made your post, and neither of them seem to be chiding him about his spelling. People are generally pretty tolerant here; your claim that someone would "tear him up" is unsubstantiated.

In any case:

Also i have a quick question, if the goalkeeper were to run out of the crease with the ball, doesn't he have only a limited time to get back into the crease? (10 seconds i believe)

I'm not sure to what you're referring, since the goalie is not allowed to enter the crease with possession of the ball (nor is anyone else), and he certainly can take as long as he wants to get back to the crease without the ball. He's got 4 seconds to get the ball out of the crease. After that, it's 10 seconds to get the ball across the DCL (NFHS rules) or 20 seconds to cross midfield (2005 NCAA rules). The ball may be passed back into the crease as long as the 10- or 20-second time limits are adhered to.

[LCNlaxman]

I'm not sure to what you're referring, since the goalie is not allowed to enter the crease with possession of the ball (nor is anyone else), and he certainly can take as long as he wants to get back to the crease without the ball. He's got 4 seconds to get the ball out of the crease. After that, it's 10 seconds to get the ball across the DCL (NFHS rules) or 20 seconds to cross midfield (2005 NCAA rules). The ball may be passed back into the crease as long as the 10- or 20-second time limits are adhered to.

Alright it was just a misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing it up

[RockStar]

LaxRef and other rules experts:

Excuse my ignorance of US field rules, but just a question that came from this situation:

If we have the situation where a D-man has stepped into the crease to guard the net. He's not entitled to any goalkeeper priviledges, right?

Can I step into the crease to set a pick or screen on this guy?
(I doubt it, I think if my team's in possession, we'll lose possession as soon as I step in.)

Also if it's a loose ball, or the D-man's team gains possession, Can I step into the crease and flatten the D-man provided he's within 3 yards of the ball?

[LaxRef]

LaxRef and other rules experts:

Excuse my ignorance of US field rules, but just a question that came from this situation:

If we have the situation where a D-man has stepped into the crease to guard the net. He's not entitled to any goalkeeper priviledges, right?

Can I step into the crease to set a pick or screen on this guy?
(I doubt it, I think if my team's in possession, we'll lose possession as soon as I step in.)

Also if it's a loose ball, or the D-man's team gains possession, Can I step into the crease and flatten the D-man provided he's within 3 yards of the ball?

The D-man is not entitled to the goalie priviliges, meaning interference can't be called and he can't bat the ball with his hand. However, you can NEVER step in the opponent's crease during a live ball, whether it's loose or not, whether the d-man is in the crease or not.

[eme]

as an addendum to Laxref's comments:
Since the question came from Canada...their field game uses international rules. Interference with goalie (only the goalie, D men are fair game) in the crease with possession or raking the ball in the crease is a 30-second technical foul

[LaxRef]

Quick question- its a simple one but it should be easy for you guys.

Is it ever legal for an attackman to scoop a ball out of the crease (assuming the goalie doesnt have posession?) I have seen attackman take the ball out of the back fo the net multiple times in fall ball, but I never thought that was legal.

Legal, but if he contacts the goalie or his crosse inside the crease THEN it would be interference. And, of course, if the attackman steps in or on the crease it's a violation.

[eme]

The NCAA rules (and I assume the Federation, too) are a little unclear about the legaility of an attackman reaching in and scooping/securing/hitting the ball when the ball is in the webbing in the back of the net. If you peruse pages 45-48, goal crease privileges and prohibitions, there is nothing directly stated about that situation.

But approaching the problem indirectly, if you go to page 40 Rule 4-9 ARs 43 and 44. I will quote the pertinent info
"..."before the ball enters the goal, A1's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal..."

and the next one "...shooter's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal...before the ball enters the goal."

Both rulings say it is No goal. The reason and the signal you would give: crease violation. i.e ..there is a loose ball and the crosse hits the goal/net/webbing (any part of the goal). Let's apply this reasoning to the question above. Ball is loose in the webbing/net. Attackman's stick hits the net...would you not have a crease violation here as well?

[kryptic]

So lets say the goalie is in the crease, the ball is outside, and he clamps the ball down on the ground (with the back of his stick). While the ball is outside the crease I, an attackman, am entitled to be able to slide my stick under his and rake the ball out from under his stick? (We play with NFHS rules too..)

[LCNlaxman]

So lets say the goalie is in the crease, the ball is outside, and he clamps the ball down on the ground (with the back of his stick). While the ball is outside the crease I, an attackman, am entitled to be able to slide my stick under his and rake the ball out from under his stick? (We play with NFHS rules too..)

i may be wrong but i think it would be legal as long as the GK's crosse is outside the crease and you don't put your crosse inside the crease (to cause contact)

[eme]

You both are correct.

[Laxref_36]

eme

My interpretation of a physical goal includes the netting and the pipes that construct it. Thus any contact of the netting is a crease violation.

[LaxRef]

The NCAA rules (and I assume the Federation, too) are a little unclear about the legaility of an attackman reaching in and scooping/securing/hitting the ball when the ball is in the webbing in the back of the net. If you peruse pages 45-48, goal crease privileges and prohibitions, there is nothing directly stated about that situation.

But approaching the problem indirectly, if you go to page 40 Rule 4-9 ARs 43 and 44. I will quote the pertinent info
"..."before the ball enters the goal, A1's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal..."

and the next one "...shooter's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal...before the ball enters the goal."

Both rulings say it is No goal. The reason and the signal you would give: crease violation. i.e ..there is a loose ball and the crosse hits the goal/net/webbing (any part of the goal). Let's apply this reasoning to the question above. Ball is loose in the webbing/net. Attackman's stick hits the net...would you not have a crease violation here as well?

I'm going to take the position that you would not have a crease violation here. The ARs cited refer specifically to a shooting situation. If you make contact with the goal before the ball enters the goal while attempting to score, there's no goal; that's explicit.

It's also explicit that an offensive player may reach into the crease area with his crosse to try to play a loose ball, with the proviso that if he contacts the goalie or his stick he'll be called for interference. If the ball is lying in the crease behind the goal, you can scoop it.

Now, what about if it is on the netting behind the goal? Well, the rules don't say you can't scoop it, and we all know the rules tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. And we're not in a situation where the ball is entering the goal, so those ARs don't apply. Finally, what's the material difference between a ball that is on the ground behind the goal and one that is six inches over and resting on the netting on the back of the goal? None that I can see.

I think if they want this to be a violation, they need to make it explicit. And they may well have intended it to be a violation, but I don't think the current rules make it clear.

[eme]

As you (we) ponder what to do as the attackman swipes at the netting...
whistle..."Ball is ensnared in the netting..." and award to defense outside the box. That would be my plan B...and I am not sure I have a Plan A but I think I can sell my explanation (see above post) to the coaches as I run past

[LaxRef]

As you (we) ponder what to do as the attackman swipes at the netting...
whistle..."Ball is ensnared in the netting..." and award to defense outside the box. That would be my plan B...and I am not sure I have a Plan A but I think I can sell my explanation (see above post) to the coaches as I run past

I agree you'd have no trouble selling this call, and it's unlikely to make much difference in the game.

What would you do if the attackman was trying to scoop a ball on the ground in the crease but his stick hit the pipe whiile he was doing so?

[RockStar]

as an addendum to Laxref's comments:
Since the question came from Canada...their field game uses international rules. Interference with goalie (only the goalie, D men are fair game) in the crease with possession or raking the ball in the crease is a 30-second technical foul

Same as box then, I can stick check a D-man who has possession in the crease, but I can't step in to clobber him.....

Too bad, I was hoping to one day score by putting a D-man into his own net with the ball still in his stick!

As far as field rules here, I can't comment for sure since I've only ever played un-reffed pickup ball outdoors, but I think the rules depend on where you play your field ball, and which body's governing it.

I think OLA has a few mods for senior and junior field lacrosse vs. the ILF's rules. The refs are certainly casual about calling rough stuff in Ontario.....I guess most are also box refs, who are ruling on mostly box players. The level of what you can get away with looks very similar for box vs. field.

[LaxRef]

Same as box then, I can stick check a D-man who has possession in the crease, but I can't step in to clobber him.....

Too bad, I was hoping to one day score by putting a D-man into his own net with the ball still in his stick!

In NCAA, only a loose ball breaking the plane of the goal is a goal. In principle, if a defensive player had possession with one foot inside and one foot outside the crease and you checked them so hard they stumbled back into the goal--but never lost possession--it would not be a goal. In fact, they could get up and continue to play so long as the crease count didn't expire. If he started outside the crease, it would, of course, be an illegal re-entry violation if you checked him in back in. The goalie can't be checked if any part of his body is in the crease, so you really can't score by checking the goalie into the crease.

[eme]

I agree you'd have no trouble selling this call, and it's unlikely to make much difference in the game.

What would you do if the attackman was trying to scoop a ball on the ground in the crease but his stick hit the pipe whiile he was doing so?

Netting, pipe, supports...all part of the goal...I'd go with crease violation. One has to wonder as we ponder and discuss this: where is the goalie while all this is happening? He's either in the fray or soon to be.

[LaxRef]

Netting, pipe, supports...all part of the goal...I'd go with crease violation. One has to wonder as we ponder and discuss this: where is the goalie while all this is happening? He's either in the fray or soon to be.

Ah, but if he's only hitting the pipe while trying to scoop a ball not touching the goal, you can't use your "ball ensnared in the netting" call.

I still think that until the rules add a line saying that touching the crease is a crease violation, you have to let that contact go *unless* it's part of a shot (since there are ARs that specifically address that).

[CoachRob]

The goal is made of the piping and the netting. You cannot touch the GK, his crosse, or the goal and its components. So if the ball is laying on the netting behind the goal, an attacker cannot touch it. The GK essentially gets a free play on it, IMHO. If it is ensnared, award the ball after four seconds to the defense lateral to the goal outside of the goal area.

NFHS 1-4: The net shall be considered part of the goal.

NFHS Case 4.9-A: A1 shoots the ball, Before the ball enters the goal, A1's crosse makes contact with the goal post or net or the GK. Does the goal count? RULING: No.

NFHS Case 4.9-B: ...A1 leaps into the air and the shooter's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal, the GK in his crease or the crease before the ball enters the goal. RULING: No goal.

The PROBLEM arises out of a deficiency in the rulebook. Neither 4-9 (Goal Not Allowed) nor 6-2 (Crease Violations) SPECIFICALLY mentions touching the goal/piping/netting as illegal. Only in the case scanarios and AR's does one find this issue addressed. This should, and could, be easily corrected.

[CoachRob]

Also i have a quick question. If the goalkeeper were to run out of the crease with the ball, doesn't he have only a limited time to get back into the crease? (10 seconds i believe?)

I believe you are referring to NFHS 4-25: The GK shall be given a maximum of five seconds to re-enter the crease on any restart.

That means if he were to make a run upfield and then lose control, when the whistle blows, he is allowed five seconds to high tail it back to the crease. This rule was, I believe, added around 2001 to encourage GK's to try to advance the ball upfield themselves without fear or being caught out of goal. LaxRef may know better when this was added.

[Laxref_36]

CoachRob,

I take a slightly different angle on this issue. If the goalkeeper is out of his goal and he has NOT chased a shot. I'm not sure I'm giving him five seconds.

If the ball gets checked out of bounds and the opposing team is getting the ball. I'll check with my partners, if there is no horn and the awarded team is ready. We are going. A smart coach might see this and ask for a horn (sideline only) for substitutions to aid the goalkeeper.

If you delay the whistle for five seconds to allow the goalkeeper to run back to the goal, you are penalizing the team that has been awarded the ball. Why do this, they should be rewarded for a good defensive play.

Laxref_36

[eme]

LR36: rule says "..on any re-start." I think they changed this rule 10 years ago or so. I think the ref extended that five-second window for the goalie to return if he was chasing a shot out of bounds. Now, it's on any re-start.
In international rules, the goalie is plumb out of luck...if he clears it himself and then gets caught...tough luck.

If the opposing coach starts complaining you can say, "I will extend the same rule/courtesy to your keeper, too, Coach."

[Laxref_36]

Thanks eme

[LaxRef]

LR36: rule says "..on any re-start." I think they changed this rule 10 years ago or so. I think the ref extended that five-second window for the goalie to return if he was chasing a shot out of bounds. Now, it's on any re-start.
In international rules, the goalie is plumb out of luck...if he clears it himself and then gets caught...tough luck.

If the opposing coach starts complaining you can say, "I will extend the same rule/courtesy to your keeper, too, Coach."

Thanks for clearing this up. I think I blew this in a game last spring, since for some reason I, too, thought it only counted if he was chasing a shot. And I checked with my assignor after the game and he said not to wait if the goalie was out clearing, so perhaps this confusion is widespread.

[eme]

I screwed it up about 7 years ago as well in a hs game and there is no teacher like a brou=ha=ha when you discover you are wrong.
Goalie cleared it to top of his def. box...just as my partner as trail (two-man game) blew a failure to advance whistle. Goalie dropped the ball and then started to complain about the short ten seconds, etc. Meanwhile, attackman quickly picked up ball and said to me, "Im ready..."
I thought to myself "So am I..." and whistled it in. Goalie now sprints to his cage just as the ball arcs over his head into the goal. I started thinking to myself...something is amiss here...but no one said anything even as I collected the ball and proceeded to start the ensuing Fo. It was after the game that the coach gave me what-for....Of course, it was aone-goal game...

[LaxRef]

I screwed it up about 7 years ago as well in a hs game and there is no teacher like a brou=ha=ha when you discover you are wrong.
Goalie cleared it to top of his def. box...just as my partner as trail (two-man game) blew a failure to advance whistle. Goalie dropped the ball and then started to complain about the short ten seconds, etc. Meanwhile, attackman quickly picked up ball and said to me, "Im ready..."
I thought to myself "So am I..." and whistled it in. Goalie now sprints to his cage just as the ball arcs over his head into the goal. I started thinking to myself...something is amiss here...but no one said anything even as I collected the ball and proceeded to start the ensuing Fo. It was after the game that the coach gave me what-for....Of course, it was aone-goal game...

I suppose the thing to do would have been to start the 5-second count as soon as he started complaining. You don't have to wait until he gets back, you just have to give him the 5 seconds. If he wants to use it to try to get a call changed. . . .

Someone pointed out to me that if a team needs a few seconds to get ready, they can have someone go stand next to the guy with the ball before the restart. By the time you tell him to give him 5 yards and do your count, they're set back up. Better not try this more than once a game, though, or you're getting a USC from me.

[Snake~eyes]

I suppose the thing to do would have been to start the 5-second count as soon as he started complaining. You don't have to wait until he gets back, you just have to give him the 5 seconds. If he wants to use it to try to get a call changed. . . .

Someone pointed out to me that if a team needs a few seconds to get ready, they can have someone go stand next to the guy with the ball before the restart. By the time you tell him to give him 5 yards and do your count, they're set back up. Better not try this more than once a game, though, or you're getting a USC from me.
What would be your justification for USC? NFHS rules of course. :concerned

[LaxRef]

What would be your justification for USC? NFHS rules of course. :concerned

The "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause.

[Snake~eyes]

The "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause.
That's a tough one to argue that that's unsportsmanlike, maybe the kid is just dumb.

[LaxRef]

That's a tough one to argue that that's unsportsmanlike, maybe the kid is just dumb.

I'm talking about a situation where the team's defense is completely unsettled and the guy runs over and stands next to the kid with the ball and stands there so the official can't start play to give his team some extra time. That's very different from a dumb kid just standing a little closer than 5 yards. Anyway, nobody really uses this tactic, and they'd get a warning after the first time they tried it.

[Laxref_36]

One thing that might help to clarify this situation is, while talking to the teams at the pre-game lineup that they are now five yards from each other. This is the distance required on all re-starts. If you don't give this distance then you have delayed the game (30 seconds).

[LaxRef]

One thing that might help to clarify this situation is, while talking to the teams at the pre-game lineup that they are now five yards from each other. This is the distance required on all re-starts. If you don't give this distance then you have delayed the game (30 seconds).

For some reason I'd always thought that there was a 5-second count for them to back up if they were closer than 5 yards and you warned them, but it doesn't appear to be in the rules. I must have picked that up because I saw someone else do it.

[Snake~eyes]

For some reason I'd always thought that there was a 5-second count for them to back up if they were closer than 5 yards and you warned them, but it doesn't appear to be in the rules. I must have picked that up because I saw someone else do it.
Never heard that one, its a technical foul to be within 5 yards. That's the option I'd go with, instead of a USC.

[LaxRef]

Never heard that one, its a technical foul to be within 5 yards. That's the option I'd go with, instead of a USC.

Well, I said USC for the second offense, and we do have

d. Repeatedly commit the same technical foul.

under USC.

[eme]

There is no specific mention of a 5-sec. count in the rulebook save for defensive stalling page 71 ncaa book. But it is an accepted mechanic for officials. Since rules 4-25, 4-6a, and 6-6i specify that no player may be within 5 yards (the Gait Hidden Ball Trick Rule) of the player in possession on a re-start and that all re-starts should be within 5 seconds of the ref's signal that we are ready to go...officials have been doing a count not only when a defensive player delays the game by standing too close (count and warn him once, flag him for 30 the second time) but also for the offensive team when first Johnny runs to pick up the ball then is told to leave it for Billy who then rolls it over to Sam who nudges it back to Johnny, etc. etc.etc. Actually you see this on the endline sometimes when the goalie starts back to get the ball for the re-start on a clear only to be waved off by the middie who runs from the top of the box down to the endline so he can handle the ball. "C'mon guys, time's a wastin'"

Another not-inthe-rules mechanic is to allow the hustling, sprawling player who dives out of bounds on a shot time to get back onto the field (within reason, of course). You'd be within your purview (sp.?) to start a slow 5-sec. count here.

[LaxRef]

There is no specific mention of a 5-sec. count in the rulebook save for defensive stalling page 71 ncaa book. But it is an accepted mechanic for officials. Since rules 4-25, 4-6a, and 6-6i specify that no player may be within 5 yards (the Gait Hidden Ball Trick Rule)

Please explain this trick!

of the player in possession on a re-start and that all re-starts should be within 5 seconds of the ref's signal that we are ready to go...officials have been doing a count not only when a defensive player delays the game by standing too close (count and warn him once, flag him for 30 the second time) but also for the offensive team when first Johnny runs to pick up the ball then is told to leave it for Billy who then rolls it over to Sam who nudges it back to Johnny, etc. etc.etc. Actually you see this on the endline sometimes when the goalie starts back to get the ball for the re-start on a clear only to be waved off by the middie who runs from the top of the box down to the endline so he can handle the ball. "C'mon guys, time's a wastin'"

I had this come up: Team A was awarded the ball from a loose ball technical foul. The team A coach called his middies off to sub (no horn allowed on the technical, but he can do special sub if he wants to). However, when he called them off one of his middies as the closest one to the ball. As soon as he started running away, I started a 5-count and started yelling "Pick it up, team A, pick it up." None of the attackmen made any effort to get the ball, so I called delay of game and awarded the ball to team B. The team A coach thought I was an idiot.

[eme]

Gait Hidden Ball Trick. Up until about 1990 or so (I can't remember when Paul and Gary graduated from Syracuse), the rule stated that "no opposing player may be within 5 yards of the opponent putting the ball into play..."
Gary and Paul would huddle together just before the whistle...then each would break away cradling like crazy...or one would break away cradling while the other held the ball and then walked in on the goalie uncontested.
The rule changed the next year.

[LaxRef]

Gait Hidden Ball Trick. Up until about 1990 or so (I can't remember when Paul and Gary graduated from Syracuse), the rule stated that "no opposing player may be within 5 yards of the opponent putting the ball into play..."
Gary and Paul would huddle together just before the whistle...then each would break away cradling like crazy...or one would break away cradling while the other held the ball and then walked in on the goalie uncontested.
The rule changed the next year.

They got that from the "Bad News Bears" movie! I can also recall seeing footage from a long-ago football kickoff where half the receiving team essentially huddled during the kickoff return and then they all ran off in different directions pretending they had the ball.

That's what it sounded like when you said "hidden ball trick," but I wasn't aware that you used to be allowed to have a teammate within 5 yards.

[ref4ee]

The goal is made of the piping and the netting. You cannot touch the GK, his crosse, or the goal and its components. So if the ball is laying on the netting behind the goal, an attacker cannot touch it. The GK essentially gets a free play on it, IMHO. If it is ensnared, award the ball after four seconds to the defense lateral to the goal outside of the goal area.

NFHS 1-4: The net shall be considered part of the goal.

NFHS Case 4.9-A: A1 shoots the ball, Before the ball enters the goal, A1's crosse makes contact with the goal post or net or the GK. Does the goal count? RULING: No.

NFHS Case 4.9-B: ...A1 leaps into the air and the shooter's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal, the GK in his crease or the crease before the ball enters the goal. RULING: No goal.

The PROBLEM arises out of a deficiency in the rulebook. Neither 4-9 (Goal Not Allowed) nor 6-2 (Crease Violations) SPECIFICALLY mentions touching the goal/piping/netting as illegal. Only in the case scanarios and AR's does one find this issue addressed. This should, and could, be easily corrected.

Just dredging up old posts......I think in this case the ARs are all about having possession of the ball and then shooting the ball, the crosse touching the goal (pipe, but also net by the extended definition) and then the ball going in....result-no-goal. If the ball is loose in the back of the crease, and an offensive player is trying to scrape it off the net to gain possession, I can see no rule or AR to disallow this. Let's say he then gains possession, now the ARs would apply on his shot. The ARs are dealing with a different sequence of events, so therefore I think it is a perfectly legal play to be trying to get the ball of the back of the net.....of course the goalie and d-men would (should) probably not let this happen uncontested.

[michaeldwilson]

I screwed it up about 7 years ago as well in a hs game and there is no teacher like a brou=ha=ha when you discover you are wrong.
Goalie cleared it to top of his def. box...just as my partner as trail (two-man game) blew a failure to advance whistle. Goalie dropped the ball and then started to complain about the short ten seconds, etc. Meanwhile, attackman quickly picked up ball and said to me, "Im ready..."
I thought to myself "So am I..." and whistled it in. Goalie now sprints to his cage just as the ball arcs over his head into the goal. I started thinking to myself...something is amiss here...but no one said anything even as I collected the ball and proceeded to start the ensuing Fo. It was after the game that the coach gave me what-for....Of course, it was aone-goal game...

I made a goal just like this against Marquette when the ref blew the whistle a little quickly. It wasn't my finest moment, but we needed that goal.

Mike

[CoachRob]

Originally Posted by CoachRob
The goal is made of the piping and the netting. You cannot touch the GK, his crosse, or the goal and its components. So if the ball is laying on the netting behind the goal, an attacker cannot touch it. The GK essentially gets a free play on it, IMHO. If it is ensnared, award the ball after four seconds to the defense lateral to the goal outside of the goal area.

NFHS 1-4: The net shall be considered part of the goal.
NFHS Case 4.9-A: A1 shoots the ball, Before the ball enters the goal, A1's crosse makes contact with the goal post or net or the GK. Does the goal count? RULING: No.
NFHS Case 4.9-B: ...A1 leaps into the air and the shooter's crosse makes contact with any part of the goal, the GK in his crease or the crease before the ball enters the goal. RULING: No goal.

The PROBLEM arises out of a deficiency in the rulebook. Neither 4-9 (Goal Not Allowed) nor 6-2 (Crease Violations) SPECIFICALLY mentions touching the goal/piping/netting as illegal. Only in the case scanarios and AR's does one find this issue addressed. This should, and could, be easily corrected.
================
Just dredging up old posts......I think in this case the ARs are all about having possession of the ball and then shooting the ball, the crosse touching the goal (pipe, but also net by the extended definition) and then the ball going in....result-no-goal. If the ball is loose in the back of the crease, and an offensive player is trying to scrape it off the net to gain possession, I can see no rule or AR to disallow this. Let's say he then gains possession, now the ARs would apply on his shot. The ARs are dealing with a different sequence of events, so therefore I think it is a perfectly legal play to be trying to get the ball of the back of the net.....of course the goalie and d-men would (should) probably not let this happen uncontested.


So, you had to dredge up MINE??? I agree, you can touch the goal/net if it is NOT part of a shot. If the ball is in the netting, the attacker has every right to get that sucker if he can. Funny, but I was just yesterday thinking of posting this issue. You saved me a step.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Attacker is reaching for the ball on the back of the netting. Keeper gets there a second later and contests for the ball.

Stick contact is sure to happen.

Is it interference with the goalie even if the attacker was engaged with the ball first and the keeper checks the attacker's stick?

[Snake~eyes]

Attacker is reaching for the ball on the back of the netting. Keeper gets there a second later and contests for the ball.

Stick contact is sure to happen.

Is it interference with the goalie even if the attacker was engaged with the ball first and the keeper checks the attacker's stick?
No. The goalie initiated contact.

[CoachRob]

No. The goalie initiated contact.

No Snake, I don’t believe that’s how the rule reads. NFHS 4-19.2: No opposing player may make contact with the GK or his crosse while the GK is within the goal-crease area, regardless of whether the GK has the ball in his possession. An attacking player may reach within the crease to play a loose ball as long as he does not make contact with the GK or the GK’s crosse.

There is NO mention of who INITIATES the contact because it doesn't matter. So long as there is contact, it is GK interference. That’s one of the GK privileges; the crease is his domain, and if you enter it, watch out. It’s the same thing with standing outside the crease when he’s throwing a pass. You are legally standing outside the crease, but if he hits you with his normal throwing motion, you are now in violation of HIS space--->Interference, So if you’re going to reach into the crease for that loose ball, you had better get the ball quickly and your crosse out a.s.a.p.

[ref4ee]

No Snake, I don’t believe that’s how the rule reads. NFHS 4-19.2: No opposing player may make contact with the GK or his crosse while the GK is within the goal-crease area, regardless of whether the GK has the ball in his possession. An attacking player may reach within the crease to play a loose ball as long as he does not make contact with the GK or the GK’s crosse.

There is NO mention of who INITIATES the contact because it doesn't matter. So long as there is contact, it is GK interference. That’s one of the GK privileges; the crease is his domain, and if you enter it, watch out. It’s the same thing with standing outside the crease when he’s throwing a pass. You are legally standing outside the crease, but if he hits you with his normal throwing motion, you are now in violation of HIS space--->Interference, So if you’re going to reach into the crease for that loose ball, you had better get the ball quickly and your crosse out a.s.a.p.

Ah, but there is a mention of this....AR 4.19.K....There is a loose ball in the crease. A1 covers the the ball to rake it back. Goalkeeper checks A1's crosse Ruling: No interference.

If the goalie initates the contact, then there is no interference...

[Snake~eyes]

No Snake, I don’t believe that’s how the rule reads. NFHS 4-19.2: No opposing player may make contact with the GK or his crosse while the GK is within the goal-crease area, regardless of whether the GK has the ball in his possession. An attacking player may reach within the crease to play a loose ball as long as he does not make contact with the GK or the GK’s crosse.

There is NO mention of who INITIATES the contact because it doesn't matter. So long as there is contact, it is GK interference. That’s one of the GK privileges; the crease is his domain, and if you enter it, watch out. It’s the same thing with standing outside the crease when he’s throwing a pass. You are legally standing outside the crease, but if he hits you with his normal throwing motion, you are now in violation of HIS space--->Interference, So if you’re going to reach into the crease for that loose ball, you had better get the ball quickly and your crosse out a.s.a.p.
Sorry CoachRob, you are incorrect. Ref4ee posted the exact case play I was going to bring up.

[CoachRob]

You're right. It's also a NFHS case, 4-19.k. No interference.

So, if he hits the attacker's crosse, then the attacker pulls his stick back and reaches for the ball again and makes contact with the GK crosse, is it interference then? It gets VERY tough to determine when the attacker stops making the initial play for the ball, and when he starts interfering with the GK's crosse. Do you agree?

I think the only way it remains NO interfernce is if A1 rakes it out without ever lifting his stick.

[michaeldwilson]

You're right. It's also a NFHS case, 4-19.k. No interference.

So, if he hits the attacker's crosse, then the attacker pulls his stick back and reaches for the ball again and makes contact with the GK crosse, is it interference then? It gets VERY tough to determine when the attacker stops making the initial play for the ball, and when he starts interfering with the GK's crosse. Do you agree?

I think the only way it remains NO interfernce is if A1 rakes it out without ever lifting his stick.

That's how I read this rule, and it's pretty specific about raking. If, for example, the attacker was scooping the ball and hit the keeper's stick, is that interference? The rules suggest that it is.

Mike

[eme]

page 71 Federation rules. 4-19 situation L. "There is a loose ball in the crease. A1 covers the ball to rake it back. Goalie check's A1's crosse. Ruling. No interference."It's important to remember who initiated the contact.

[LaxRef]

When I first read this A.R., I interpreted as them saying the GK was not guilty of interference with the attackman. I thought, "That's odd; shouldn't that be obvious." It wasn't until I started reading this forum last year that I figured out what they were getting at.

[CoachRob]

When I first read this A.R., I interpreted as them saying the GK was not guilty of interference with the attackman. I thought, "That's odd; shouldn't that be obvious." It wasn't until I started reading this forum last year that I figured out what they were getting at.

What do they think they're getting at? I don't follow you here.

[LaxRef]

What do they think they're getting at? I don't follow you here.

They're saying the attackman is not guilty of interference iff his stick is in the crease trying to rake a loose ball and the goalie checks the attackman's stick. When I first read it, I thought they were saying the goalie is not guilty of interfering with the attackman.

[CoachRob]

But at what point does the GK initiating contact become the attacker making contact with the GK crosse?

Again, NFHS 4-19.2: No opposing player may make contact with the GK or his crosse while the GK is within the goal-crease area, regardless of whether the GK has the ball in his possession. An attacking player may reach within the crease to play a loose ball as long as he does not make contact with the GK or the GK’s crosse.

If the attacker reaches in and tries to rake it, the GK hits across his stick, and the attacker lifts his stick into the GK's stick (which is now on top of his) to gain leverage, I believe he has now initiated contact, and that IS GK interference. Unless he makes a rake, keeps his crosse along the ground throughout the rake, and pulls it out without reaching back in, I think we have a problem discerning when the GK contact gives way to the attacker initiating contact. And I favor the GK in such a case. This can get awfully tricky.

Think of it another way. A person goes to punch you, and you parry his punch with your arm. You pull your arm back in and parry his arm again, even though he has not thrown another punch. In the initial case, it was self defense. But when you parried his arm again, even though he had not thrown a second punch, YOU have initiated contact and that should be a foul.