Playing W/O Crosse or Push? [Archive]

eme

12-27-2004, 05:27 PM

A FO has commenced and six middies are scrambling for the loose ball on the ground. A1 loses his stick and bends down to pick it up. Just before he does so, B1 pushes him from the rear in an attempt to get to the ball...all are within five yards of the ball and A1's body position blocks several players', including B1's, best line to the ball.
Your call?

shrekjr

12-27-2004, 09:37 PM

Here goes another one of my football season guesses (I suppose I lose that excuse after the first of the year, like it's even a good excuse now, huh?)......

If after a faceoff, a player loses required equipment before possession is gained, then the whistle is blown and a new faceoff takes place if plays is stopped before the ball crosses a restraining line. If the ball crosses a restraining line and play is stopped, then the ball is awarded by alternate possession. However........

In this scenario, a stick is not defined as required equipment so what I described above does not apply here. I think in this case, the official has to make a judgement call...was A1 making a legitimate attempt to pick up his stick without intentionally trying to interfere with the other players in which case I would have a push on B1 and award the ball to A, or was A1 playing the other players more than he was trying to get his stick in which case I would have a foul on A1 and award the ball to B.

Is that anywhere close or did I forget something that just totally blows my answer?

CoachRob

12-27-2004, 09:59 PM

Case 4.3-M states Reface if the whistle is blown while the ball is in the area between the defensive area lines. Award the ball according to AP rule if the ball crosses the defensive area line.

As soon as A1 drops his crosse he is ineligible to participate in play. So, I rule this as contact with a non-player, and I don'y believe there can be a foul under such a circumstance. No flag, no whistle, play on.

eme

12-28-2004, 07:26 AM

My answer never included thinking about re-facing. Yes, there is a rule about re-facing if a player loses required equipment in the scrimmage area before possession is gained so long as ball hasn't crossed def. clear line. What, then, is to prevent B1, seeing that A1 is just about to scoop the ball and gain possession, from "losing" a stick or glove in order to stop that possible A possession and have a re-face? "Sir, I lost my (fill in the blank) so there must be a reface!!!!!"
My question was solely about whether it's a push on B or playing without a stick on A.

CoachRob

12-28-2004, 07:56 AM

My answer never included thinking about re-facing...My question was solely about whether it's a push on B or playing without a stick on A.

eme,
All calls require some form of restart, so that is the reason for the comments about a face-off. When you write "Your call?", it is generally read as "What, if anything, does the ref need to do to get this game going again?". That includes restart with a FO, awarding the ball to team A or B, etc.

In my answer, I was just verifying the rule relating to how to restart when equipment has been lost, so everybody is aware of what to do in such a case.

In your scenario, I do not find any foul on B, nor is A playing without his crosse as he did not commit an act but was instead the recipient of an act. Had he MOVED into the path of B1, that would be a different story. But in your case, he has every right to pick up his crosse. What else COULD he do but retrieve his stick from the playing field? Fall to the ground and not move?

And since A1 did not have a crosse at the time, he is not a player and I don't believe can be offended by a loose ball push any more than a referee caught in a scrum can be.

So, play on with no call for a loose ball push from behind. A1 was not a player at the time.

shrekjr

12-28-2004, 10:53 PM

CoachRob

12-29-2004, 06:53 AM

Rob, I agree with your initial comments, but I disagree with the no call on B since, as you said, "A1 was not a player at the time." Would you allow B to commit a personal foul on A1 in this situation and not call it? A1 is not allowed to participate in the play without his stick, but that doesn't give B the freedom to do as he pleases to A1.

Shrek,
It sort of gets back to the post about whether a technical foul can occur during a dead ball. I don't think a technical foul of this incidental nature during a live ball should be called considering A1 is in my mind a part of the field like a ref so long as he is not a player at the time. If instead B1 committed a PERSONAL foul (illegal body check for example) against A1, whether or not A1 had his crosse or was even on the field of play, I'd flag that (just as I would during a dead ball situation, when neither is an active player as the ball is not in play).

I just don't get the feelng that this warrants awarding possession to team A. But it really gets down to B1's intention and it's also a "...you had to be there..." situation to say for sure.

But while I certainly would not argue against a push against B1, I WOULD argue against any call against A1 unless he purposely dropped his stick and PURPOSELY blocked the path of B1. But that would make little sense as loss of his crosse eliminates his chance of gaining possession. Also, A1 can block B1's path just as easily WITH as WITHOUT his crosse so why drop it to block B1?

Laxref_36

12-29-2004, 02:02 PM

The High School Rule book addresses the play:

Page 77 of NFHS 2004 Situation 6.5 H: "B1 participates or attempts to participate in a play without a crosse. RULING: Technical foul. This also applies to goalkeeper while in or out of the crease."

If A1 in the original scenario is on the field in the middle of a scrum without a crosse, they are guilty of a technical foul. You should award the ball to the B team at the spot that the ball was in, OR allow for play on, if appropriate.

However, if B1 should slash him or commit a personal foul, I would blow the whistle, penalize the personal foul and award the ball to team A.

eme

12-29-2004, 04:07 PM

In the scenario I described, "A was in the way, his body was blocking several players' best line to the ball, including b1's."

Thus, inadvertently or not, unintentionally or not, I have A "taking part in play without his crosse." His "taking part in play" is that his body is blocking B's clean pickup, or chance at a pickup, of the ball.

Thus, "play on!" or kill it and award to B.
A is SUPPOSED TO AND IS REQUIRED to hold on to his stick. The fact that he doesn't, or has it checked out his hand by a smart opponent, should not grant him favored status.

Taken to an absurd level...you could have several members of A team scrumming for a ball...all lose their sticks and with their bodies blocking the path tothe ball. And the ref is supposed to say, "Oh you poor boys, you have no choice but to bend down and pick up those sticks and we'll give you the oportunity to do it even if B is frantically trying to dodge you or get around you and get to the ball"????

Of course, if A loses his stick outside the scrum area and no advantage gained...no call.

CoachRob

12-29-2004, 04:36 PM

Thus, inadvertently or not, unintentionally or not, I have A "taking part in play without his crosse." His "taking part in play" is that his body is blocking B's clean pickup, or chance at a pickup, of the ball.

Thus, "play on!" or kill it and award to B.
A is SUPPOSED TO AND IS REQUIRED to hold on to his stick. The fact that he doesn't, or has it checked out his hand by a smart opponent, should not grant him favored status.

Can't agree as if A1 loses his crosse and is in the process of going to retrieve it, he is not participating in the play. Again, it comes down to intention. I see your point eme, but in the case of an incidental drop and retrieval, I'm not calling him for participating, nor B1 for a push. What shoud he do; leave it on the field until the ball is scooped up and on the way towards his goal in B1's stick, THEN pick it up and give chase? I don't think so. If he des it repeatedly then you have a repeated technical foul, but just once?

Again, to me, it comes down to intention. But you have much more experience than I do.

eme

12-29-2004, 08:11 PM

The stickless attackman cannot violate the offsides rule...so he has to wait
until his teamates either retrieve his stick (don't throw it!) or cross the midline so he can cross it to get his stick. Or there is a whistle (dead ball) and then he can sheepishly go over and pick up the stick he never should have dropped (or had checked out of his hands) in the first place.

eme

12-30-2004, 09:57 AM

an ancillary situation would be this:

a shot heads for the end line. It is chased by attackman A1 with d-man B1 right behind him. B1 checks A1's stick from his hands, within 5 yards of the ball, and A1's stick drops to ground as ball goes out of bounds...A1 closest to ball with B1 right behind him. I would say you would give it to B team because A was playing without his stick.

CoachRob

12-30-2004, 10:01 AM

Yes, you would have to as A1 is not a player so long as he lacks a stick. And it is the closest PLAYER, not just a warm body, that claims possession.

Laxref_36

12-30-2004, 10:56 AM

Along the lines of this, A1 hits B1s stick out of his hands. B1s stick falls across the midfield line and B1 is an attacker. Is he just to stand there out of play until a teammate picks up his stick or can he retrieve it then is once in play again when he reenters the offensive half of the field?

One other option for the attackman is to go to the special substitution box and have someone else enter the field with a crosse, or obtain a crosse from the bench and re-enter the field.

CTLaxer

12-30-2004, 11:15 AM

Random question....is Coachrob's interpretation correct that once a player loses his stick in a scrum or for whatever reason that he ceases to be a "player" and loses all rights and is immune to rule infractions carried out by him or onto him? This to me seems absurd. It has always been my understanding as a player and a coach that if one loses his stick, he immediately goes to retrieve it and anything even close to trying to participate in anything is blown dead with a call of playing without a crosse.

eme

12-30-2004, 11:44 AM

CTLaxer and I agree.

Laxref_36

12-30-2004, 04:05 PM

CTlaxer, eme and I agree. Regardless of whether or not a player has a crosse, if they are on the field, they are a participant. There is no such thing as a non-participant, if the player is on the field.

shrekjr

12-30-2004, 04:41 PM

And I agree, as stated in my first post on this thread.

CoachRob

12-31-2004, 07:46 AM

I think PARTICIPATING means ACTIVELY tring to carry out the duties of a field player. That is, making a play for the ball, playing defense against an attacker, putting your body in the path of a shot so as to block the goal, etc.

If, on the other hand, A1 loses his crosse through the normal course of play, and makes an effort to retrieve the crosse in a normal manner without making a play for the ball or against another player, is he participating in play?

The key is "participating", and I really didn't see this occurring unless there was some intent in his actions. But I can certainly see a case to the contrary of what I'm saying. Assume A1 is a defender, and he drops his stick. He bends over to pick it up and in the process, B1's shot on goal hits A1 in the back. That would be participation IMO.

So, it does come down to the situation and I do agree that in eme's case, A1 did participate, intentionally or otherwise.

I guess I am overruled!! The weight of eme, shrekjr (is there a shrekSR???), and LR_36 was simply too much for my 140 lb frame to bear.

CTLaxer

12-31-2004, 09:03 AM

coachrob: your example raises the issue of a team intentionally interfering with a player without a stick to remove him from the field of play for "participating" without a crosse, which I doubt is the intent of the rules. My judgement in that case of a player without a stick who is bending down to retreive it and in the process gets hit with a shot or a pass is to do nothing, especially if he didn't even see it coming. Now if the defensemen lost his stick, and intentionally got in the way of a shot and stuck his butt in the air or something to stop it, that's a different story.

Your example also brings to light another issue of when a player breaks his stick. A player breaks his stick and immediately drops it and goes to leave the field of play to either get subbed out or get a stick from a player in the box. All the other team would have to do is initiate contact or hit him with the ball by your interpretation of the rules to cause a penalty on the stickless player. Once a player loses a stick either by dropping it accidentily or from breaking, they don't have to turn into dodgeball players and avoid everyone and everything before retreiving a stick. In fact, I would be inclined to call a USC to a team that did try to single out a player(s) when they lost a stick in an effort to get a flag out of the play, but that's just me.

eme

12-31-2004, 09:54 AM

CoachRob

12-31-2004, 10:04 AM

Ah, the gray just keeps getting grayer.

I think it again comes down to intention. While eme's case of A1 losing and retrieving is crosse in the FO area is unintentional, and I don't think I would call it, I CAN see how somebody would.

It really is a case-by-case evaluation. If there is intention, you have to call it. If not intentional but his actions alter the course of the game (as in blocking a shot when bending over the pick up his crosse), I would call it.

I agree that such a player should NOT be required to play dodge ball.

shrekjr

12-31-2004, 10:07 AM

I guess I am overruled!! The weight of eme, shrekjr (is there a shrekSR???), and LR_36 was simply too much for my 140 lb frame to bear.

The original Shrek is Sr. I'm just a slightly smaller version of ugly. :)

CoachRob

12-31-2004, 10:40 AM

Shrek,
You're not ugly. Bad looking? Yes. Ugly? Never! (You need to see my GK for UGLY!!)

LaxRef

01-02-2005, 06:36 PM

CTLaxer:
go to ncaa rule 6-6 b. (2) page 65 in 2004 book.

"Take part in the play of the game in any manner without his crosse, EXCEPT FOR SUBSTITUTION."

i.e he can drop the stick and go to bench for a new one or to be subbed...no call as long as he goes directly without taking part in the play

I called a player for participating without a glove (it went into the crease) because as he ran down the field, presumably to sub, he veered toward the middle to cover an opposing player. My referee overruled me because he said he wasn't near the ball so he wasn't in the play; my counter was that if he is covering someone, he's preventing an open pass to that player, so he is participating in the play.

I agree with the consensus that a player without a stick or required equipment is still a player in the game; I'd have to be shown specific wording in the rules to believe that dropping a crosse or glove makes you persona non grata.

Finally, it does say "in any manner," so I think if you're standing there without a crosse and that affects the play then you should make the call (unless, as people suggested, the other team is intentionally trying to get a call by making it look like the player is participating when he really isn't).