Kicked "shot"

[dislaxxic]

If an attackman deliberately kicks a loose ball in front of the crease towards the goal mouth, it misses the goal and goes out of bounds behind the goal, is it awarded like a "regular" shot, to the team whose player is closest to the point the ball exits the field?

[lehighvalleylax]

I would say no as there is no possession, hence no shot. Anyone else??

[cdlax_08]

I would call it a shot and award to closest person. Maybe i'm wrong, then the ball would be awarded to the other team.

[CoachRob]

That would have to be a heck of a kick for it to travel over 15 yards. But it's not a shot, as it was not in his possession. Award it the same as if he kicked it OOB over the side line. That is, to the opposing team.

I don't see any case scenario on point, but I don't see any ref allowing the rules regarding shots apply to kicked balls.

[CoachRob]

Then he should be in the circus, not on a lacrosse field.

[shrekjr]

I don't see any case scenario on point, but I don't see any ref allowing the rules regarding shots apply to kicked balls.
Okay, now you're going to make me go look for something in the book because I probably would call it a shot.

[CoachRob]

Look all you want, you're not going to find anything that states kicking a ball constitutes a shot. And again, to kick it THAT hard that it travels 15 yards and OOB is quite unlikely. As a ref, I simply rule he was trying to kick it free from a scrum, it went OOB, and award the ball to the defensive team.

Further, under 4-5.2: Player Possession: A player who can perform any of the normal functions of control, such as carrying, cradling, passing, or shooting.

I would take that to mean that shooting requires possession. A loose ball is not in any player's possession, therefore it is not a shot. Circular logic? Perhaps. But it works for me.

While a player may indeed kick the ball into the goal, I don't consider this a "shot" by the standard definition, so I cannot see applying the rules of possession after a shot in the standard manner.

But let us know what you find out shrekjr.

[Stonewall35]

Under ILF rules, goals can be scored if a player kicks the ball into the net. Using this logic, if I see a player kick the ball towards the goal, I would probably call "shot".

[moondog]

Change of possession. I don't want to sound like a bully, but anytime someone questions one of my calls in baseball or lacrosse, it is very easy to "put people in their place." If a team complains, I'd reply "You'll get nothing with that weak Pele stuff." Same thing with a close play at first base>if offensive team complains about an out call, I reply "Is it MY fault you hit a weak grounder?" There's more complaining in lacrosse, though.

[shrekjr]

Under ILF rules, goals can be scored if a player kicks the ball into the net. Using this logic, if I see a player kick the ball towards the goal, I would probably call "shot".
Without looking for something in the book yet, that's what I'm thinking. If you can award a goal when the ball was kicked, it didn't just magically appear in the goal, there was a specific action that caused to ball to go into the goal and I would call that a shot. I don't see how you can call it a shot if it goes in, but not a shot if it misses.

[moondog]

Yes, shrek, but by that rationale, what if a passed ball (across the crease) hits a defender's helmet and deflects into the goal? Just because a goal is allowed, it does not necessarily mean it was via a traditional, legitimate shot, now, does it? I deconstruct literature, and the language of baseball and lacrosse rules is very reductive. Think about how confusing or tricky some of those licensing questions are--they try to trick or mislead you with language.
*What kind of a hack tries to kick the ball in from the doorstep, anyway? I'd have more respect for someone who hockeys the ball on net.

[eme]

Federation rules do not define a shot.
NCAA rules define a shot twice. Each is different.
Page 38: "A ball thrown at the goal with the intent of scoring, as judged by the official."
Page 95 under Records Keeping: "A ball propelled toward the goal by an offensive player, either by being thrown from a crosse, kicked or otherwise physically directed." There is more language here that addresses some of the comments made above.

Therefore, if the official thinks that the kicked ball was a shot.......it's a shot.

By noting this contradictory language, I have given LaxRef more work.

[ploaref]

To take CoachRob's upthread point a question further...Coach, if the ball is loose on the ground and swept in with a stick, ("hockey shot")without the player having gained possession, is THAT a shot? If that happens and the ball goes OOB instead, NOW how are you awarding it? Shot? No shot? Will you come back with "because the stick was involved" it's now a shot when a kicked ball is not?

[CoachRob]

If the NCAA rules state that a kicked ball can be considered a shot, then that suits me for NFHS purposes, so I guess we have to rule it a shot. I'm not happy about it, but the lack of definition in NFHS makes me defer to NCAA. The hockey shot must also be considered a shot and awarded appropriately.

[tjslax]

Coach Rob,
I actually agreed with your previous point about posession being required for a shot. A kicked loose ball does not denote posession in the wording I see in Federation rules. I do also agree that it is up to the determination of the official if it was a shot.

Basically as far as I am concerned, it's going to have to really (really) stick out in my mind that he was attempting to kick the ball in the goal for a shot to be called, I am going to be more likely to call a shot when the player is demonstarting posession of the ball, and more likely to call the ball out of bounds off the foot, knee, elbow etc.

[tjslax]

Now that I think more about it. The wording of rule4-5 art 2 would seem to indicate that if you can shoot the ball, you are demonstrating control, which indicates posession. Therefore, if you can kick the ball towards the goal and be shooting (posession), then: a loose ball on a face off, if you kick the ball up field toward another player (pass also requiring posession) we should call release as soon as the ball is kicked.

I may be reading into this too much but unless I hear a better argument, I will not call a kicked ball a shot, because posession has not been established.

[WHEELAX2]

Ok.. simple.. does the player who kicked the ball have posession of the ball?

If you answer is no.. then the ball should be given to the other team. the guy did kick it out of bounds.. if he kicked it out of bounds on the sideline.. could you say that he was shooting? I don't hardly think so

[eme]

Where's my linguistic expert LaxRef when I need him? Shooting is used to help define player possession Fed. rules 4-5. This, then, does not mean that player possession helps define shooting.

Cold weather is a pre-requisite for it to snow
Snow is not, necessarily, a pre-requisite for cold weather

[WHEELAX2]

so you are saying that a player does not have to have posession to be a shooter?

[eme]

"so you are saying that a player does not have to have posession to be a shooter?"

That is correct.
1. player soccer kicks a loose ball in the air into the goal.
2. player hits ball with his shaft into the goal.
3. Player "hockey slap shots" the ball into goal
4. a ball ricochets off another player and scores a goal will be awarded as a shot by the player deemed to have scored the goal (Ncaa. page 85)
5. A ball physically directed (Ncaa language) toward the goal is a shot
(no hand balls, please)

In all the above, if the officials thinks these are shots...they are shots. Possession is irrelevant.

[WHEELAX2]

apples to oranges.., you are seriously using soccer as an example.. a sport where the object is to kick the ball??

All i'm saying is that you have to have pretty conclusive evidence to say that someone was "shooting" a ball with his foot..

"awarded as a shot" or awarded as a goal??

[tjslax]

EME,
I don't have an NCAA rulebook. Does the NCAA have language indicating that the situations listed are shots, or does it leave it to the officials descretion?

[WHEELAX2]

I was also wondering how much experience you have in lacrosse..
Has this ever happened to you ?? have you ever seen it happen??
i'm going to have to go on experience here..

No posession, No shot, posession change. simple as that.. too much grey area for a ref to say otherwise..

what if it happens in overtime.. not conclusive enough..

[shrekjr]

Therefore, if you can kick the ball towards the goal and be shooting (posession), then: a loose ball on a face off, if you kick the ball up field toward another player (pass also requiring posession) we should call release as soon as the ball is kicked.
I hate logic!

[dislaxxic]

No posession, No shot, posession change. simple as that.. too much grey area for a ref to say otherwise..

What's your feeling about the loose ball in the crease that gets batted with a crosse into, or at, the goal, Wheel? Like a hockey shot. Surely you've seen "garbage goals" like that!? Do you feel differently about the possession thing in that case? If thats not a shot, what is it?

[shrekjr]

Cold weather is a pre-requisite for it to snow
Snow is not, necessarily, a pre-requisite for cold weather
Shorts are meant for warm weather.
Lacrosse players wear shorts.
So why do we play in snow, and wear shorts while doing it???

[WHEELAX2]

I wouldn't say a shot.. i would call it just that, a garbage goal..
I would call it a deflected ball that happened to go in the goal. .just like when a goalie winds up to clear the ball and the ball falls in the goal.. was it a shot.> no way.. just like when someone passes the ball to a crease man and the guy misses the ball,, then the ball goes in the goal .. no real shot was made, but it's a goal.. a garbage goal that happened when someone wasn't making a shooting motion.. technically it shouldn't happen.. that's why it's called a garbage goal.

[ploaref]

Shorts are meant for warm weather.
Lacrosse players wear shorts.
So why do we play in snow, and wear shorts while doing it???

See what you started now, EME!?! Now we've turned this forum into a philosophical mosh pit! :laugh:

[Vector_Joe]

I went back and got the full text of the rule that EME posted:

e. Shot—A ball propelled toward the goal by an offensive player, either by being thrown from a crosse, kicked or otherwise physically directed.
A shot can be awarded only when possession of the ball can be reasonably
said to have occurred, by ricochet or when a controlled effort can
be construed (similar to a controlled tip in basketball). A ball that enters the goal as a result of being propelled by the offensive team must be credited as a shot. A ball that ricochets off another player and scores will be awarded as a shot by the player deemed to have scored the goal. In the case of an own goal, no shot is awarded.

The text addresses what Wheelax brings up. If it was obvious to me, I would call a kick a shot. Even if you took the work 'kicked' out, you would still have the language of 'ac controlled effort' to cover it.

[WHEELAX2]

Thanks for that..

It's just a very very odd situation.. Posessions in lacrosse are so crucial, that it would be hard to rule it a shot.. even though the intention was to try to score.

[tjslax]

would we use the same rules in Federation? That quote is from NCAA correct?

[LaxRef]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but here are a few thoughts:

The definitions in the statistical section don't always coincide with the definition we use as officials. For example, we'll yell "Clear" in NCAA ball when a loose ball passes midfield or when a player in possession steps over with both feet, but that need not constitute a clear for statistical purposes. This makes the use of the definitions in the statistical section questionable, although not irrelevant.

The defintion of possession includes the ability to cradle, pass, or shoot. As some have pointed out, that cannot be used to say that you can't have been shooting because you didn't have possession.

A ball kicked into the goal must be ruled a shot, at least for statistical purposes, so you can't say the player didn't have possession just because the ball wasn't in his stick, because you can apparently shoot without the ball in your stick. However, it's obvious that no one intended a ball kicked on the faceoff to be ruled a shot (and hence possession). Thus, for the first time ever, I think we've discovered an inaccuracy in the wording of the rules.

This situation--kicking the ball 20 yards or so out of bounds--is extremely unlikely to occur, especially on natural turf. If it does happen, I just hope the defense is closest when it goes out of bounds. My instinct in this situation is to make the determination that it was not actually a shot, just an inadvertant kick or an attempt to clear the ball from the ground-ball scrum, and award the ball to the defense. But if you wanted to call it a shot, I wouldn't argue with you.

Personally, I think you have to rule the "hockey shot" a shot if you believe the player was attempting to direct the ball at the goal.

Did I miss anything?

[moondog]

Can we agree to disagree--or should we just call it a "judgement call" a la "official jurisdiction?"

A skilled or advanced player shouldn't be kicking the ball (in the NET) in the first place. Not to sound like a bully, but if you don't have fundamentals or skills, don't complain; especially not to an official.

[LaxRef]

Can we agree to disagree--or should we just call it a "judgement call" a la "official jurisdiction?"

A skilled or advanced player shouldn't be kicking the ball (in the NET) in the first place. Not to sound like a bully, but if you don't have fundamentals or skills, don't complain; especially not to an official.

I agree that you shouldn't be complaining to the officials about whether it's ruled a shot. But, heck, if you can kick the ball into the goal you score just as many points as the guy who shoots it in with his stick or the guy who does three killer fakes and then shoots it in behind the back and between the legs while doing a cartwheel.

I think if Michael Powell kicked the ball in the goal, he'd be just as happy as with any other goal. I know I would be!

[Shorelax]

A skilled or advanced player shouldn't be kicking the ball (in the NET) in the first place. Not to sound like a bully, but if you don't have fundamentals or skills, don't complain; especially not to an official.

I have no issue with any player kicking the ball into the goal or anywhere else on the a field. At the end of the day - a win is a win. Heck - I still play masters ball and have been know to kick the ball out of bounds to avoid a fast break or unsettled man-down situation to hopefully reduce my opponents advantage.

[Shorelax]

"
4. a ball ricochets off another player and scores a goal will be awarded as a shot by the player deemed to have scored the goal (Ncaa. page 85)

In all the above, if the officials thinks these are shots...they are shots. Possession is irrelevant.

I had a high school game this past weekend - where a shoot ricocheted off of a d-man helmet and into the goal.

DooDoo happens!

[laxref39]

Can we agree to disagree--or should we just call it a "judgement call" a la "official jurisdiction?"

A skilled or advanced player shouldn't be kicking the ball (in the NET) in the first place. Not to sound like a bully, but if you don't have fundamentals or skills, don't complain; especially not to an official.
It is fair to say it is a judgement call but I would agree if a kicked ball is not on goal I would not call it a shot. You may want to defer to your local interpreter as all officials in an individual district should try to be on the same page. As for kicking the ball into the goal, if the d man does his job and checks up on your stick, you use whatever legal advantage you can gain!

[LaxRef]

It is fair to say it is a judgement call but I would agree if a kicked ball is not on goal I would not call it a shot.

Would you apply the same logic to a ball thrown toward the goal that was not on goal? That is, if kicking the ball in an attempt to score is not a shot unless on goal, why isn't a ball thrown at the goal not a shot unless it was on goal?

(I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of logic and what the rules say; like I said, if you want to rule it not a shot, I'm not going to argue with you about it on the field.)

[laxref39]

I think it is easier to determine intent on a possesed ball coming from the stick of a player and a loose ball being kicked, and that's where judgement comes in! Even if a player is directly in front of the goal and kicks the ball out and it doesn't go near the goal how do you determine intent, many times it is out of frustration or anxiety just trying to get the ball to a spot to pick it up out of a scrum. When a player is cranking it up you can usually judge intent!
I am guessing you are playing devils advocate hear, but that's a judgement call on my part!!!

[PaLaxRef]

Any "loose" ball can score, but is not necessarily a "shot". A pass can inadvertently cross the goal line and count as a goal, but it wouldn't be a "shot".

[LaxRef]

Any "loose" ball can score, but is not necessarily a "shot". A pass can inadvertently cross the goal line and count as a goal, but it wouldn't be a "shot".

Not true, at least statistically, according to:

e. Shot—A ball propelled toward the goal by an offensive player, either by being thrown from a crosse, kicked or otherwise physically directed. A shot can be awarded only when possession of the ball can be reasonably said to have occurred, by ricochet or when a controlled effort can be construed (similar to a controlled tip in basketball). A ball that enters the goal as a result of being propelled by the offensive team must be credited as a shot. A ball that ricochets off another player and scores will be awarded as a shot by the player deemed to have scored the goal. In the case of an own goal, no shot is awarded.

[PaLaxRef]

Is that NCAA? Can we apply that to NFHS?

[LaxRef]

Is that NCAA? Can we apply that to NFHS?

I don't think anyone specified at the beginning of the thread which code we were discussing, but the section I quoted above is NCAA. However, there is an A.R. in NCAA, and I think in NFHS, that says

A.R. 38. During slow whistle, A1 shoots the ball toward goal. A2 catches ball and shoots it into the goal. RULING: Legal goal. What appeared to be a shot turned out to be a pass.

So if a shot can turn into a pass if it's caught, it's logical--though not explicit--that a pass can turn into a shot if it goes into the goal.

[WHEELAX2]

This is getting really annoying... you are jumbling words around to fit your point of view.

A pass, is a pass, is a pass.. If a pass goes in the goal, it is a goal, not a shot.. It may be considered a shot for statistical purposes but is not a shot.. Likewise, if a pass missed its intended target and does not go in the goal but by the goal, it can not be ruled as a shot.. !
Hence, a kicked ball, intended to be a "shot" that misses a goal can not be considered a shot.
Even if it does go in the goal, it is still a kicked ball, and only ruled a shot for statistical purposes.

[WHEELAX2]

edited per your request

[LaxRef]

This is getting really annoying... you are jumbling words around to fit your point of view..

I'm doing no such thing. I'm reading what the rules say and applying the principles of logic to them. There are clearly contradictions here, both between what we think and what the rules say and between what the rules say in one place and another. Don't point the finger at me, point it at the poorly worded rulebook.

I don't even think you know what my "point of view" (opinion) on the matter is.

A pass, is a pass, is a pass.. If a pass goes in the goal, it is a goal, not a shot.. It may be considered a shot for statistical purposes but is not a shot.. Likewise, if a pass missed its intended target and does not go in the goal but by the goal, it can not be ruled as a shot.. !
Hence, a kicked ball, intended to be a "shot" that misses a goal can not be considered a shot.
Even if it does go in the goal, it is still a kicked ball, and only ruled a shot for statistical purposes.

This argument would not pass muster in even the lowest-level logic class, and you're actually the one jumbling words to support your point of view. You have an opinion, and that's fine. But you're not supporting that opinion by quoting rules; you're just stating your opinion and pretending it is an argument.

My point of view is that they should just say "A kicked ball cannot be ruled a shot for the purposes of determining possession when the ball goes out of bounds." I think that would make everyone happy, or at least make things clear. But the rules are not clear on the point.

Also, it is important to note that, while some of what we're using in the argument comes from the statistical section, there are other definitions appearing only in the statistical section which are necessary to apply the body of the rules in practice (notably, the definition of an extra-man situation).

[WHEELAX2]

By lower level logic class, are you suggesting that I have no grasp on logic and language?

I understand fully how to use the English language and how to debate on a subject.

Your references do not answer the question posed.

you are correct.. "A kicked ball cannot be ruled a shot for the purposes of determining possession when the ball goes out of bounds.". Just like when someone kicks the ball out of bounds anywhere on the field, posession should be given to the other team.

I would like for you to use real game situations when making your argument.. I have many years of national and international experience both playing and coaching. Every single time the ball has gone out of bounds by way of someone's foot (unless a deflected shot) it was ruled to be a kicked ball and posession given to the opposing team. Drop the books and the low blows, do not attack the person attack the question.

[WHEELAX2]

"This argument would not pass muster in even the lowest-level logic class, and you're actually the one jumbling words to support your point of view. You have an opinion, and that's fine. But you're not supporting that opinion by quoting rules; you're just stating your opinion and pretending it is an argument."


Pretending..

Ok I'll pretend that you really know what you are talking about, how would you rule this in a game?
That's the question.. No need to cite any sources.
Based on your understanding of the rules,
How would you rule a kicked ball that appears to be "shot" toward the goal that goes out of bounds?
As soon as you blow your whistle, what call do you make?
That's what needs to be answered here.. no need to explain the wording of the rules here.. just WHAT IS YOUR RULING.. ??

IF I WERE REFFING THE GAME.. I WOULD BLOW THE WHISTLE, GIVE THE BALL TO THE OPPOSING TEAM AND GO ON WITH LIFE.

I THINK YOU TAKE YOUR SCREEN NAME A LITTLE TO SERIOUSLY, MAKE THE CALL IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
OH... AND REALIZE YOU MAY NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

[CoachRob]

Guys, it's over now. It won't happen in a game so don't get so upset about it. Please, let's stop this thread. There is no answer. It's a discretionary call, and leave it at that. Neither of you "lost". How does that sound? I went both ways on the issue. Call it a shot if you like, not a shot if you don't. It has no bearing on things in the long run, and we're already into page 2 of an innocent question that the rules don't define for us. So, please, let it rest for now. The next person who posts "...but I was only trying to say..." is only rehashing a dead issue.

[WHEELAX2]

Not trying to rehash, but what if this.. just kidding..

I think we both had the same opinion, laxref just wanted to assert dominance and question my language skills, isn't laxref a moderator????

[Vector_Joe]

Here's a situation (keep in mind that this is my first year reffing, but not my first year playing).

Attackman A1, defenseman B1 and goalie B2 are in front of the goal.
Attackman A2(behind goal line extended) passes to the front of the crease.
http://knight-tac.com/laxkick.jpg

It is a bouncepass and when it gets to A1 it is about 2.5 feet off the ground. The ball is within 5 yards of A1 and B1 so B1 has A1's stick checked and A1 cannot get his stick to the ball. But he can get his foot up to kick it.
A1 makes contact with the ball 2.5' off the ground and the ball goes toward the goal in a rising fashion, but misses the goal by 2 inches.
At the goal line extended, the ball is 3.5' off the ground, bounces on the ground 30 feet behind the goal and proceeds out of bounds.:nut:

I could see this happening in a game and I could see calling this both ways. In fact, I would probably call this a shot unless someone can give a definitive rule that says not to.

[WHEELAX2]

Not a shot.. Though the ball may seem to be "propelled" toward the goal by an offensive player, How can you determine intent?

[LaxRef]

Not a shot.. Though the ball may seem to be "propelled" toward the goal by an offensive player, How can you determine intent?

The same way we always do: by using our judgment. We are often asked to judge intent, especially on shots. Coaches and players don't always agree with us, but that's part of the game.

To appease CoachRob, I'll lay off the original question and state exactly what my issue is at this point.

On this forum, we engage in spirited discussion and debate of the rules. We state opinions and back up those opinions with facts: the rules explicitly say this, A.R. 35 says this, the bulletin from the NCAA sent out on 1/15/04 says this. There are then logial implications of these facts. Sometimes the conclusions are inescapable, and sometimes the conclusions are open to deabte because rules are muddled and unclear because they were poorly written or because someone has come up with a case that no one ever thought of before (which is how many new rules get put into the rulebook). It's almost always civil, although sometimes we get a little frustrated with each other.

There are sometimes differences between (1) what the rules actually say, (2) what we think the rules say, (3) what we think the rules should actually say, and (4) how we'd rule if we saw the situation in a game. All I've been doing here is what I always do: trying to cite rules and apply logic to come to a conclusion about what the rules really say about this situation. I've admitted several times that I think this is a situation in which the rules are not clear, and the answers to all four of these questions may be different.

I posted the rules and drew some conclusions, and I pointed out that there were contradictions in the implications, some of which supported one side of the argument. Then I'm faced with the accusatory comment "This is getting really annoying... you are jumbling words around to fit your point of view" followed by an opinion that ignores all of the points made thus far. Perhaps I took that post too personally, and if I did, I apologize. But it seemed to me at the time, and later posts did nothing to dispel the notion, that I was being told "Shut up, this is the way it is because I say so regardless of what the rules say." And, to me, that seems counter to the whole idea of what a discussion forum, and this one in particular, is about.

We often debate issues that have almost no chance of coming up in a game. However, we all occasionally face game situations that no one ever thought of before. My belief is that by carefully considering what the rules say about these oddball situations, we prepare ourselves to make good decisions, based on the rules, when these oddball situations come up in games. But my belief is that we can't have these discussions without referring to what the rules actually say right now. The next step is often "what should the rules say," and I'm extremely diligent about cataloging these cases and bringing them to the attention of the rules committee.

There is certainly room for a variety of conflicting opinions in this case, and in others, but it's important to place these opinions in the right category (1-4 above). I think much of the conflict here has people arguing at cross purposes.

[CoachRob]

Well said. Issue resolved. Amicably I might add.