View Full Version : NCAA Rules "Stacking" Question
Laxref_36
01-07-2005, 05:12 PM
I have had this happen to me once since the stacking rule has come into play. Thought I'd pass it by all of you for your opinion.
Scenario:
Team A has the ball and is being played tightly by team B. B1 slashs A1 who retains the ball, B2, B3 slashs A1 with the same result. B4 slashs A1 who shoots on goal, killing the play on situation. Now Team B will be four players down, but the "Stacking" principle allows for only three players to serve their time in the penalty area at any given time. During the penalty time being served by Team B (twenty seconds into their one minute penalty) a goal is scored. B4 has not yet started started to serve his time.
? How many players are released from their respective penalties?
Please remember that all of the fouls were of the "releaseable" variety.
LaxRef
01-10-2005, 12:14 PM
LaxRef36 posted this here at my request since we'd had an off-line discussion about this question. This was my initial response:
My reading of the rules is that a goal by team B releases ALL releasable penalties by team A. I don't think this is fair, nor do I think it's what was intended, but I think it's what the rules say.
One way of looking at it is that if there were 3 releasabale penalties for 3 minutes each and B scored in 2 seconds then team B is not getting the full benefit of the penalty either; they just had the potential for more help scoring later if they needed it.
However, eme had this to say:
Stacking was covered in Phillips memo Jan, 24, 2000.
A4's penalty doesn't start until there is space in the box for him; therefore he can't be released on that first goal.
My question is, why hasn't this made it into the rulebook in the subsequent 5 years?!
Laxref_36
02-13-2005, 12:05 AM
LaxRef36 posted this here at my request since we'd had an off-line discussion about this question. This was my initial response:
However, eme had this to say:
My question is, why hasn't this made it into the rulebook in the subsequent 5 years?!
In essence, B4's penalty is almost non-releaseable until the first goal or one of the players exits the penalty box on time served.
think of it as B4's penalty does not exist/strt until there's room in the box. So he can't be released.
it's logical...we've given the offending team a break by having them not be more than 3 men down...whyshould they also get a break by having that fourth guy released on the first goal?
LaxRef
02-13-2005, 12:16 PM
think of it as B4's penalty does not exist/strt until there's room in the box. So he can't be released.
it's logical...we've given the offending team a break by having them not be more than 3 men down...whyshould they also get a break by having that fourth guy released on the first goal?
As usual, I agree with everything you're saying here, but I think we need to have this spelled out in the rulebook.
I never liked the stacking rule; I always felt like if you were dumb enough to have 4 or 5 or 6 guys out on penalties, the other team should get a huge advantage.
I suppose the flip side is that it makes more of a punishment when really good teams play because they're going to score close to 100% of the time when 3 men up for a minute or more, and then they'll still be man-up after the first penalties are released and the other guys start serving (even if the penalties are releaseable, which they often aren't in this situation).
Stonewall35
02-14-2005, 01:27 AM
Here in Canada (ILF rules), under the same situation, if a team has four or more players in the penalty box, then the off-side rule stays in effect on the attack side only. The rule here states that once the middies are gone, then you start picking away from the defensemen, and then the attackmen. In essence, if team A has seven penalties from seven different players at the same time and team B has no penalties, then team A would only have the goalie and two attackmen on the field.
As for penalty time, all the penalties would run simultaneously, whether they are personals (non-releaseable) or technicals (releaseable).
shrekjr
02-14-2005, 10:59 PM
I'm still the new guy on the block, but EME's explanation was the way I was taught.