Releasing from the Box

[thedamnedfan]

From what I had experienced when I played in high-school, if a player were serving a penalty and your coach had decided to sub someone else in instead of sending the player that received the penalty, that the player that received the penalty had to touch the field before the substituted player could go in. Was this a misunderstanding of the rule that my team did, or is it something that has changed or is no longer an issue?

Also... a question that doesn't deal with releasing from the box. If a player is called to have a stick check and appears to alter or pull strings, as well as has an illegal crosse, what is the call or calls. See examples below.

1.) Pulls strings, pocket is too deep.
2.) Pulls strings, widest point measures 6 inches.
3.) Pulls strings, head is legal.

[MElaxRef]

From what I had experienced when I played in high-school, if a player were serving a penalty and your coach had decided to sub someone else in instead of sending the player that received the penalty, that the player that received the penalty had to touch the field before the substituted player could go in. Was this a misunderstanding of the rule that my team did, or is it something that has changed or is no longer an issue?

Misunderstanding. The player who was penalized needs to remain in the penalty area until a few seconds remain in the penalty, at which point he can exchange positions with a substitute from the team area.

Also... a question that doesn't deal with releasing from the box. If a player is called to have a stick check and appears to alter or pull strings, as well as has an illegal crosse, what is the call or calls. See examples below.

1.) Pulls strings, pocket is too deep.
2.) Pulls strings, widest point measures 6 inches.
3.) Pulls strings, head is legal.

This depends upon whether you are playing under NCAA jurisdiction (NCAA or MCLA college games) or not.

NCAA jurisdiction: Officials have been instructed to immediately terminate a stick check when a player jams his stick or pulls the strings. The player gets 1 minute nonreleasable USC and his stick is not examined.

Other jurisdictions: The player gets 1-minute nonreleasable USC for pulling strings / jamming head. The stick check continues.
1.) If pocket is too deep, he gets a second minute nonreleasable (total of 2 minutes).
2.) If stick fails dimensions or dislodgement test, he gets 3 more minutes of nonreleasable (total of 4 minutes).
3.) If stick is legal, he serves the USC (total of 1 minute).

[LaxRef]

Other jurisdictions: The player gets 1-minute nonreleasable USC for pulling strings / jamming head. The stick check continues.
1.) If pocket is too deep, he gets a second minute nonreleasable (total of 2 minutes).
2.) If stick fails dimensions or dislodgement test, he gets 3 more minutes of nonreleasable (total of 4 minutes).
3.) If stick is legal, he serves the USC (total of 1 minute).

And all of these are plus another NR minute if there is a personal foul for an equipment violation (e.g., no shoulder pads).

[eme]

LR raises an interesting point here that I am not sure is clarified explicitly in the NFHS book.

I take pages 54 and 55 5.4 Sit. B and 5.5 Sit. B...to mean that if you have one or more violations with a crosse AND one or more equipment violations on the same player...you would assess only the most severe (max. would be 3 min.)
Remember that in NFHS there is no such thing as a "stick check"...it is properly called an "Equipment check" and it is a full service check including stick, gloves, mouthpieces, etc.

[LaxRef]

LR raises an interesting point here that I am not sure is clarified explicitly in the NFHS book.

I take pages 54 and 55 5.4 Sit. B and 5.5 Sit. B...to mean that if you have one or more violations with a crosse AND one or more equipment violations on the same player...you would assess only the most severe (max. would be 3 min.)
Remember that in NFHS there is no such thing as a "stick check"...it is properly called an "Equipment check" and it is a full service check including stick, gloves, mouthpieces, etc.

I don't take those to mean that at all. 5.4 Sit. B just says you don't penalize multiple crosse violations, and 5.5 Sit. B isn't on-point since it doesn't address a stick violations. We do have:

*1.9.1 SITUATION A: B1 is not wearing shoulder pads, arm pads, mouthpiece or other required protective equipment. RULING: One-minute NR personal foul even if multiple equipment violations are found.

So this says we just penalize a minute even if multiple violations are found, not that we shouldn't penalize if the player already has a crosse violation. And in the absence of something that specifically says "don't penalize both," I think we have to penalize both.

[eme]

I guess we need to tighten up that language for 2009. You have the 4-30-Art. 3 on page 39 which can be read two ways. It doesn't clarify what happens when you have both an illegal stick and a piece of illegal equipment (not a stick).

The way 4-30 is written with sticks and equipment lumped together under Illegal Equipment and the fact that on an equipment check we go through the stick and then proceed to the mouthpiece and helmet and pads and cleats I still think it is implied thatwe assess only the most severe infraction we discover during all of this process. I am not sure I have ever heard of an official assessing for a stick infraction AND a mouthpiece infraction (for a total of 2 or 4 minutes) during one Equipment Check.

[MElaxRef]

I am not sure I have ever heard of an official assessing for a stick infraction AND a mouthpiece infraction (for a total of 2 or 4 minutes) during one Equipment Check.

Don't give the "Mouthguard Nazi" any ideas, please. :ahhno:

[LaxRef]

I was told by the NCAA Rules Interpreter to do just this: penalize the most severe stick infraction and the most severe equipment infraction.

[pboyd]

I think we have an opportunity to make a call here and I would suggest that we accept eme's interpretation and only penalize the most severe violation during an equipment check recognizing a maximum of 3 mins NR. I ink there is enough latitude within the current rules to agree on this interpretation - wish I had thought of it.

[LaxRef]

I think we have an opportunity to make a call here and I would suggest that we accept eme's interpretation and only penalize the most severe violation during an equipment check recognizing a maximum of 3 mins NR. I ink there is enough latitude within the current rules to agree on this interpretation - wish I had thought of it.

So, wait, you're saying to I should ignore what the NCAA rules interpreter says? No, I don't think so.

[pboyd]

I think you would be the first to agree that what sounds like a verbal conversation doesn't hold water for the rest of us who were not in the conversation and only have the Rule book and this forum to guide us. I've been at National Conventions where they say it is blue and come out months later to indcate that it is indeed red - trust but verify - was the interpretation formally issued?

[LaxRef]

I think you would be the first to agree that what sounds like a verbal conversation doesn't hold water for the rest of us who were not in the conversation and only have the Rule book and this forum to guide us. I've been at National Conventions where they say it is blue and come out months later to indcate that it is indeed red - trust but verify - was the interpretation formally issued?

Well, a verbal conversation combined with the fact that there's nothing in the rules that actually says "enforce only the most serious penalty from column A and column B." Similarly, if someone has no shoulder pads and commits a slash, there's nothing that says "enforce only the most serious penalty."

Look, if you want to apply your interpretation to your games, there's nothing to stop you. I respect your knowledge of the game, and you can do what you think is right. The rules clearly don't cover every possibility. But I do take issue with this:

I think we have an opportunity to make a call here and I would suggest that we accept eme's interpretation and only penalize the most severe violation during an equipment check recognizing a maximum of 3 mins NR. I ink there is enough latitude within the current rules to agree on this interpretation - wish I had thought of it.

Here, you seem to be saying that we should be stating that this is the officially correct interpretation. There is nothing further from the truth. Now, if you want to run this up the chain of command and get an official statement, great. That will simplify life for all of us, and you're right: it may well end up being the opposite of what I was told. But you can't expect me to do the opposite of what the national rules interpreter told me to do and what the rulebook supports based on your interpretation.

Fair enough?