Second Federation USC Penalty

[eme]

Grab your reading glasses, gentlemen and your Federation rulebook and help me out.

PLayer B1 has had one USC earlier in the game. Now, upon an equipment check, you discover B1 has a stick of 38 inches.
Alas...that's a 3-minute USC penalty. But wait...that is ALSO his SECOND USC penalty of the game. And the penalty for a Second
USC penalty (Rule 5-11 page 36) is a 3-min USC and ejection.

So is Team B now down one man for SIX minutes? That seems a bit excessive. I'd go with the ejection and the 3-minutes myself...but as always I await your collective wisdom.

[LaxRef]

Grab your reading glasses, gentlemen and your Federation rulebook and help me out.

PLayer B1 has had one USC earlier in the game. Now, upon an equipment check, you discover B1 has a stick of 38 inches.
Alas...that's a 3-minute USC penalty. But wait...that is ALSO his SECOND USC penalty of the game. And the penalty for a Second
USC penalty (Rule 5-11 page 36) is a 3-min USC and ejection.

So is Team B now down one man for SIX minutes? That seems a bit excessive. I'd go with the ejection and the 3-minutes myself...but as always I await your collective wisdom.

I don't believe that a stick violation is a USC, I think it's an "illegal crosse penalty," so no ejection. Ditto for other equipment violations; when I started officiating I was calling mouthpiece violations USC until someone set me straight (they're both 1:00 NR penalties, so it's easy to get confused).

But, in any case, my understanding is that the second USC penalty is an ejection and a 3:00 NR penalty, NOT a 3:00 NR penalty on top of whatever you would normally have given the player (for example, if he says something that you would normally have given a 1:00 NR USC foul and he has already had one USC foul in the game, he gets a 3:00 NR, and NOT 3:00 + 1:00 = 4:00 NR).

[CoachRob]

Player B1 has had one USC earlier in the game. Now, upon an equipment check, you discover B1 has a stick of 38 inches. Alas...that's a 3-minute USC penalty.

No, not as I read it.

A NR for a equipment violation is not listed under USC fouls. It IS non-releasable, but it's NOT a USC, so no ejection. The three NR USC's counting towards expulsion are A, B, C: Arguing, Baiting, and Calling attention to oneself (my mnemonic, but feel free to use it). He he adjusted his crosse before handing it to you, THAT would be a USC.

The issue about stacking the penalties is difficult to know from the rulebook. It says it's a Three-minute NR penalty and ejection for the remainder of the game. But if you don't add together the two penalties, it can be unfair. For example:

Player A1 gets a 1-minute NR USC, his second of the game. Expulsion
Player B1 gets a 3-minute NR USC, also his second of the game. Expulsion

If both serve only 3 NR minutes, then team A is "relatively" disadvantaged because their player committed a less severe penalty, yet his team is penalized the same amount of time (3 minutes) as team B. Doesn't seem fair

On the other hand, if the penalty time is stacked, team B is now short six minutes, quite a long time to be a man down. If the rule stated Three-minute NR penalty IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY TIME ASSESSED and ejection for the remainder of the game it would be clear. But it does not say that.

Snake, PLOAREF or LR-36, what do you say? It has never come up in a game I've attended, although this weekend our opponent had five PF's and was ejected. Never had that before.

Interestingly, the ref was possibly considering ejecting the player when he had four PF's and received his first NR USC. I told him this didn't qualify. It's either five PF's OR two NR USC's; they don't get combined. He was their best player, but ever the sportsman, I pointed out the proper ruling. My head coach was kind of ticked at me. I don't know if the ref would have actually done it as he was sort of puzzled, but it would not have been fair.

[LaxRef]

Snake, PLOAREF or LR-36, what do you say? It has never come up in a game I've attended, although this weekend our opponent had five PF's and was ejected. Never had that before.

Nope, he was "disqualified"; this is NOT the same as an expulsion. It does not carry a 3:00 NR penalty, and there is no suspension to be served (suspensions are served for all expulsions under NCAA rules and are determined by local rules for NFHS).

Interestingly, the ref was possibly considering ejecting the player when he had four PF's and received his first NR USC. I told him this didn't qualify. It's either five PF's OR two NR USC's; they don't get combined. He was their best player, but ever the sportsman, I pointed out the proper ruling. My head coach was kind of ticked at me. I don't know if the ref would have actually done it as he was sort of puzzled, but it would not have been fair.

This is incorrect. A USC is a personal foul, so if you got, say, 4 slashes and a USC, you're disqualified for 5 personals (but, as stated above, not expelled).

[tjslax]

My take is also that this would not be a USC penalty if the stick was too short.

I also think that once a players gets his second USC, that penalty becomes 3 min NR, not stacking the penalties on top of each other.

However if the player in question "attempts to fix his stick" (I don't know how you would "fix" a stick that is 2 inches too short but humor me...) before he gives it to the official: Bang second USC 3 min NR and ejection, now that stick is also found to be illegal, I feel you add the appropriate penalty (in this case another 3 min).

[LaxRef]

My take is also that this would not be a USC penalty if the stick was too short.

I also think that once a players gets his second USC, that penalty becomes 3 min NR, not stacking the penalties on top of each other.

However if the player in question "attempts to fix his stick" (I don't know how you would "fix" a stick that is 2 inches too short but humor me...) before he gives it to the official: Bang second USC 3 min NR and ejection, now that stick is also found to be illegal, I feel you add the appropriate penalty (in this case another 3 min).

I think this is reasonable. Look at it this way: if you checked the stick and gave it a 3:00 NR penalty and then the player launched into a profane tirade, getting his second USC, you'd have to penalize 3:00 NR + 3:00 NR, right? And in the case you describe, the stick was illegal before the USC for attempting to fix the stick and merely discovered afterwards,

[tjslax]

I'll agree with that. In the case where the player had one USC previously, then when asked for his stick, he pulls on the laces before giving it to you, then you find his stick is too short what do you penalize?

[eme]

Thank you all for reminding me that an illegal stick, although it carries a NR penalty, is NOT USC.

Talking aloud here:
B1 has an earlier USC. On a later equipment check B1's stick is too short.
3 Min. NR. Then he launches into a tirade. Now comes his second USC.
Now he, indeed, will have 6 mins. of NR time and he is ejected.

Second scenario. B1 has an earlier USC penalty. On an equipment check he adjusts his stick before handing it to you. Bingo. That's his second USC so it's 3-min. NR and he is ejected. No more measuring or checking at that point.

[LaxRef]

Thank you all for reminding me that an illegal stick, although it carries a NR penalty, is NOT USC.

Talking aloud here:
B1 has an earlier USC. On a later equipment check B1's stick is too short.
3 Min. NR. Then he launches into a tirade. Now comes his second USC.
Now he, indeed, will have 6 mins. of NR time and he is ejected.

Second scenario. B1 has an earlier USC penalty. On an equipment check he adjusts his stick before handing it to you. Bingo. That's his second USC so it's 3-min. NR and he is ejected. No more measuring or checking at that point.

Suppose I'm coach A, and I requested the equipment check. If B1 does not have a prior USC, he adjusts the stick and gets 1:00 NR, then the stick is too short and he gets 3:00 NR for a total of 4:00 NR.

Now suppose he did have a prior USC. You're saying he should now get a lesser penalty time (3:00 NR for the ejection only instead of 4:00)? I'm not sure I buy that. I think you still need to complete the equipment check.

This may be a philosophical point, and one people may not agree with, but I feel the equipment violation occurred before the USC even though it isn't discovered until afterward. Thus, I have no problem penalizing the stick after the ejection. Otherwise, team B can end up with less penalty time for a more serious foul.

[tjslax]

Sounds reasonable, thanx

[tjslax]

Would you grab another stick then? We are supposed to measure a stick between periods.

[Snake~eyes]

Now, for a stumper... Are there any USCs that do not count toward ejection? If so, name em.

[LaxRef]

Now, for a stumper... Are there any USCs that do not count toward ejection? If so, name em.

For NFHS, any releasable USC does not count toward expulsion. This includes repeatedly committing the same technical foul, deliberately delaying return to the field after going out of bounds, and. . . I can't remember the third one offhand, but I know it's the one that still in the NFHS rulebook but not in the NCAA rulebook. If pressed, I'd say delayed sub, since NCAA added the silent play-on last year and I think that used to be USC.

For NCAA, no USC counts toward expulsion--flagrant misconduct is not USC and carries its own ejection penalty--since they don't have that rule, but all USCs count toward disqualification in both codes.

[eme]

Laxref wrote: "Now suppose he did have a prior USC. You're saying he should now get a lesser penalty time (3:00 NR for the ejection only instead of 4:00)? I'm not sure I buy that. I think you still need to complete the equipment check.

This may be a philosophical point, and one people may not agree with, but I feel the equipment violation occurred before the USC even though it isn't discovered until afterward. Thus, I have no problem penalizing the stick after the ejection. Otherwise, team B can end up with less penalty time for a more serious foul."

I will disagree here. I'd say once he's ejected, that's it. He at this time is no longer a player in the game and we have gone over that thought in another thread. From a logistics point of view, getting him off the field in the presence of a team adult and informing the table and getting everyone calmed down to resume the high-school game will be enough of a chore. To keep him around while you check all his equipment seems to be an invitation for trouble.

[LaxRef]

Laxref wrote: "Now suppose he did have a prior USC. You're saying he should now get a lesser penalty time (3:00 NR for the ejection only instead of 4:00)? I'm not sure I buy that. I think you still need to complete the equipment check.

This may be a philosophical point, and one people may not agree with, but I feel the equipment violation occurred before the USC even though it isn't discovered until afterward. Thus, I have no problem penalizing the stick after the ejection. Otherwise, team B can end up with less penalty time for a more serious foul."

I will disagree here. I'd say once he's ejected, that's it. He at this time is no longer a player in the game and we have gone over that thought in another thread. From a logistics point of view, getting him off the field in the presence of a team adult and informing the table and getting everyone calmed down to resume the high-school game will be enough of a chore. To keep him around while you check all his equipment seems to be an invitation for trouble.

That's a good point, but what do you say to the coach who called for the equipment check, certain that the stick was illegal, when the 4:00 NR turns into 3:00 NR because of a technicality?

And what if it was a check at the end of the period, and A1's stick was also illegal, in which case you've checked one player from team A and no players from team B (so each team has a guy in the penalty area for 3:00 NR, even though team B actually has an illegal stick in addition to two USCs? That hardly seems fair, either. It seems like at a minimum you need to pcik another team B player to check.

Of course--and this is going to sound sarcastic, but I really don't mean it this way--there are times when certain concerns override doing what's really "fair," but I like to speak out on behalf of fair until I'm roundly convinced that it's not the most important concern. And you may well be right that getting things settled down is more important here, but that doesn't mean it doesn't bug me.

[Section III Lax]

So if your not going to do the stick check the coach requested does that mean you will charge his timeout or give him a pass ?
you have to check the stick and if found illegal add the time on to the usc otherwise your giving him unfair advatage . Supose it was after a goal and the stick was illegal you need to pull the goal dont you.

[eme]

"you have to check the stick and if found illegal add the time on to the usc otherwise your giving him unfair advatage . Supose it was after a goal and the stick was illegal you need to pull the goal dont you."

Remember that in Federation rules if you the goal-scorer adjust the stick before handing it to the ref...the goal will come off anyway at that point (see Fed. rule 5-4 Situation D page 75). This is different from NCAA rules...

I certainly see the argument for giving Mr. Ejected six minutes in NR penalty time if his stick is also illegal after you've ejected him...but it sure sounds like a lot.

[CoachRob]

This is incorrect. A USC is a personal foul, so if you got, say, 4 slashes and a USC, you're disqualified for 5 personals (but, as stated above, not expelled).

What I meant to say was that the ref wanted to EXPEL the player, while I said he had only fouled out, sparing him the 3-minute ejection foul. I wasn't too clear in my description.

Of course a USC (NR or not) is a PF and does count toward the five required to be DQ'd from the game.

Sorry 'bout the terminology blunder.

[LaxRef]

What I meant to say was that the ref wanted to EXPEL the player, while I said he had only fouled out, sparing him the 3-minute ejection foul. I wasn't too clear in my description.

Of course a USC (NR or not) is a PF and does count toward the five required to be DQ'd from the game.

Sorry 'bout the terminology blunder.


That makes more sense. I couldn't figure out how you'd get that wrong. If you hadn't said anything, the other coach should have called for a coacehs conference!