Dangerous Player

[KoachKream]

What is the definition of a dangeruos player? In my teams last game the refs came and talked to the coaches about one of our d-men. He said that he was hitting more than 5 yards from a ground ball and he was "Hitting while we (the officals) have our back turned". He warned our player that he was involved in extracuricular activites. Can someone help me to understand why they were doing this.. He didnt hurt anyone, he is just playing tough d. He did say that it was at the point that he was about to throw him out of the game, but our guy just kept playing the same way in the second half and the refs didnt say anything

[zebra618]

It sounds like they were looking for your assistance in controlling a player. I would call it "preventative officiating."

Perception and judgement vary - what may be "tough-d" to you is "dangerous" play to someone else.

Hope this helps.

[Vector_Joe]

Can someone help me to understand why they were doing this.. He didnt hurt anyone, ...

Just because he didn't hurt anyone, doesn't make all his hits legal.

[CoachRob]

It was preventive officiating. A dangerous play is an avoidable hit, or taking a run of over five yards to clear out a scrum for a loose ball. These are some common examples. And agreed: just because nobody is hurt doesn't make it legal. We have a 74 pound 8th grader on our team who got flagged for UR because he took about a 10 yard run, but actually BOUNCED OFF the 6-foot attacker he hit. It was funny to see, but was indeed a dangerous play calling for an appropriate UR penalty.

[SDS416]

the 74lb. 8th grader gets an A for heart and effort, but an F for result I guess. But in my eyes, thats OK. It shows a drive and desire that you just can't teach someone. As he gets older he'll mature and use it a bit better hopefully but as a coach its a penalty I can live with to a certain extent.

[LaxRef]

Just because he didn't hurt anyone, doesn't make all his hits legal.

And, of course, just because someone gets hurt doesn't mean the hit was illegal, either. There are some people out there who have problems with this concept. :chuckle:

[KoachKream]

i understood that, but he always played like that, and non of the other officals said anything

[LaxRef]

i understood that, but he always played like that, and non of the other officals said anything

I didn't mean you in particular; I specifically said "out there" to make it clear I wasn't impugning anyone on this board.

Unfortunately, we don't have standardization of officials. We don't even really have standardized training--although we're getting closer--but there will always be variability in how officials call things, both from region to region and official to official. The simple answer may be that these officials should have called something but didn't. As always, I can't even say for sure what I would have done because I didn't see it happen.

I will say that if I see a defensive player checking someone more than 5 yards from a loose ball or checking someone other than the player in possession if it's not a loose ball, I'll call interference at a minumum and will call an illegal body check if it's a real hit and not just a bump. It is the player's responsibility to know if he's within 5 yards of a loose ball or if possession has been gained.

And if I see someone hitting people clearly away from the play (e.g., the ball is at the other end of the field) I'll call USC. Neither of these situations constitute "just playing tough D," they are blatant fouls which should be called.

[KoachKream]

thank you. and the thing that got me is that the officals said he was hitting kids while they wernt looking. how could they think that? i understand that the other teams coach could say something, but how would they know and warn him about it. i asked him after the game and he said he didnt, i know he could be lying

[LaxRef]

thank you. and the thing that got me is that the officals said he was hitting kids while they wernt looking. how could they think that? i understand that the other teams coach could say something, but how would they know and warn him about it. i asked him after the game and he said he didnt, i know he could be lying

I can think of ways they'd know. The players getting hit illegally could have complained, spectators could have mentioned it, the scorer or timer could have mentioned it, the officials could have heard a hit and looked back to see your player standing over a player who'd apparently just been knocked to the ground, and so on. Not to say that any of these happened in your game, but sometimes you just know someone took a cheap shot and didn't see it, so you can't call it.

[Shorelax]

And if I see someone hitting people clearly away from the play (e.g., the ball is at the other end of the field) I'll call USC. Neither of these situations constitute "just playing tough D," they are blatant fouls which should be called.

Laxref - I have been taught that USC is a non-contact foul and in the situation described above the proper call would be unnecessary roughness 1-3 minutes releasable depending on the severity.

USC creates a greater advantage because it is nonreleasble.

What is your opinion?

[LaxRef]

Laxref - I have been taught that USC is a non-contact foul and in the situation described above the proper call would be unnecessary roughness 1-3 minutes releasable depending on the severity.

USC creates a greater advantage because it is nonreleasble.

What is your opinion?

USC fouls need not involve contact, but they can under the "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause in that rule. If I see a really bad foul, I will call it USC if I think a NR penalty is appropriate. For example, a slash to the head might be called a slash, but if I see a player run onto the field and run up behind an unsuspecting player and intentionally hit him in the head, that's USC. Actually, that's probably flagrant misconduct and an ejection, but the point is the same: just because you *could* call it a slash doesn't mean it can't be USC or flagrant misconduct instead.

I'll tend to call USC for contact fouls when the fouls appear to be intentional cheap shots or extremely dangerous plays. Intentionally body-checking an unsuspecting player 70 yards away from the ball deserves more than a garden-variety personal foul call of illegal body check or unnecessary roughness, IMO.

[Snake~eyes]

Laxref - I have been taught that USC is a non-contact foul and in the situation described above the proper call would be unnecessary roughness 1-3 minutes releasable depending on the severity.

USC creates a greater advantage because it is nonreleasble.

What is your opinion?
Sorry I disagree, if a play slugs another player in the head then I have a USC. Same for a push during a dead ball or a player swinging his stick at someone.