What is legal?

[Blsbball]

I just recieved a video entitled "Developing the great Dman".I play long pole D and middie for my high school team. On it they talked about how to ride a player out from around the crease. My coach had told me that I had to keep my hands together but in the video they had their hands apart and were pushing him away. What is legal?

[WHEELAX2]

If you have your hands apart, and push, it's technically a cross check.

you can, however, have your hands apart and keep the stick on your opponent if you do not push/extend your arms. This is called a cross check hold and is not illegal. very similar to a V-hold.

[eme]

A cross check hold is illegal.Page 37 Federation rules: A player may not use the portion of the handle that is between his hands to hold an opponent."

But I will say it is the most common infraction not called at all levels of lacrosse.

[WHEELAX2]

In any lacrosse, you can use this maneuver.. you aren't holding your opponent.

if you do hold using your shaft with your hands apart it is a hold but if you are playing d on someone with your hands apart using a cross check hold, you are fine.
for example, if you have your forearm on a player's shoulder/upper arm with both hands on the stick, this is a v-hold. you are not "holding" per say, this is just a term for this maneuver. likewise, if you have your hands apart and you have your shaft on his shoulder/upper arm (and do not push), this is called a cross check hold, though you aren't technically holding this player, the maneuver is called a cross check hold. it is a fundamental defensive maneuver.

[WHEELAX2]

It's a tatical maneuver called a "cross check hold" you aren't really holding, you're using your stick as you would your hands.. and not pushing..
obviously, holding is illegal

[LaxRef]

Federation rules.. we're talking NCAA..

No one in this thread specified NCAA or NFHS, but the NCAA rules say the same thing:

A.R. 10. May a player use the portion of the handle of his crosse that is between his hands to hold an opponent? RULING: No.

IIRC, the NCAA even tried making the cross-check hold a point of emphasis, but it still doesn't get called very often.

[LaxRef]

It's a tatical maneuver called a "cross check hold" you aren't really holding, you're using your stick as you would your hands.. and not pushing..
obviously, holding is illegal

The cross check hold is illegal because the rulebook says its illegal.

[WHEELAX2]

oh my god! i am saying that this maneuver is called a cross check hold.. you aren't holding your player you are using your stick like you would your hands.!!!

obviously any attempt to hold a player is illegal, this maneuver is simply called a hold and is not illegal.

[Snake~eyes]

oh my god! i am saying that this maneuver is called a cross check hold.. you aren't holding your player you are using your stick like you would your hands.!!!

obviously any attempt to hold a player is illegal, this maneuver is simply called a hold and is not illegal.
You are incorrect, what you describe is illegal. It is a hold.

[WHEELAX2]

and i'm certainly not talking about having your hands 3 or four feet apart.. in most cases your hands should only be about 4-6 inches apart.. sometimes you use your gloves sometimes you use your shaft.

Obviously if you have your hands two feet apart that's illegal..

Once again, i'm talking game scenario, not straight from the text rules. I know very well that when you have your hands apart it's illegal.
But a cross check hold is such a minor thing that it is very common and not called a hold or a push/hence legal.

[WHEELAX2]

Has anyone in here ever played lacrosse???
Do you understand what I am trying to tell you?

[LaxRef]

oh my god! i am saying that this maneuver is called a cross check hold.. you aren't holding your player you are using your stick like you would your hands.!!!

obviously any attempt to hold a player is illegal, this maneuver is simply called a hold and is not illegal.

Actually, that's not true. Holding is permitted under some circumstances:

b. Holding is permitted under the following conditions:
(1) An opponent with possession of the ball or within five yards of a loose ball may be held from the front or side.

A.R. 10. May a player use the portion of the handle of his crosse that is between his hands to hold an opponent? RULING: No.

(2) An opponent in possession of the ball may be played with a hold check from the rear if the hold exerts no more than equal pressure.

For (1) and (2), a hold check must be done with either closed hand, shoulder or forearm; and both hands must be on the crosse.

(3) A player may hold the crosse of an opponent with his crosse when that opponent has possession of the ball.

(4) A player within five yards of a loose ball may hold the crosse of his opponent with his own crosse.

Clearly, a cross-check hold--holding with the portion of the stick between the hands--is not legal, because the rules (A.R. 10 above) say it is not legal. I don't know what could be clearer than that.

[LaxRef]

and i'm certainly not talking about having your hands 3 or four feet apart.. in most cases your hands should only be about 4-6 inches apart.. sometimes you use your gloves sometimes you use your shaft.

Obviously if you have your hands two feet apart that's illegal..

That's the first admission you've made that it's ever illegal.

Once again, i'm talking game scenario, not straight from the text rules. I know very well that when you have your hands apart it's illegal.
But a cross check hold is such a minor thing that it is very common and not called a hold or a push/hence legal.

Applying TPOAD to the hands being 4-6 inches apart is certainly prudent, and not many officials at any level would call this even though it is technically illegal. But the fact that something is not called does not in any way make it legal, any more than driving 10 mph over the speed limit and not getting a ticket makes it legal. If the police want to give you a ticket for it, they can, because it is illegal.

As I pointed out in another thread, it's important to keep separate (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. You seem focused on (4), when we're mostly focused on (1) at this point. It's fine to discuss (4), and we often do that, but to say something is "legal" or "illegal" clearly relates to (1), and they are not the same thing.

[WHEELAX2]

Why would someone be coached to use an illegal maneuver?

[WHEELAX2]

I have obviously been taught a very different brand of Lacrosse. I have played this game for most of my adult life. Originally I started playing defense, then middie d, now I play midfield for an international squad. I have four years of NCAA experience, I have played in multiple tournaments and leagues. I also played high school for a program that is always at the top of the state and national rankings. I lost two games in my high school career, went to the playoffs twice in college, and I have never been penalized nor have I seen anyone penalized for this maneuver. We are obviously talking about two different things. What you are describing is obviously illegal.. Of course you can't hold someone with your hands apart. You can play defense on someone using your shaft for help. Though it is called a "hold" for namesake, it is not really a hold, but a simple defensive maneuver.

I wasn't coached to do illegal things.. Winning programs do not have to stoop to cheating because of the net benefits.

[WHEELAX2]

I am not questioning the rules, I am merely pointing out a discrepancy between the words of penalties/rules, and the words of technique.

a cross check hold is a maneuver not a penalty, and a cross check hold looks completely different than a hold with your hands apart.

Holding someone with your hands apart is a penalty.

Do you see what I am getting at?

I am talking about a legal maneuver as opposed to an illegal maneuver.

[LaxRef]

Why would someone be coached to use an illegal maneuver?

Because the coach thinks they'll be able to get away with it most of the time, and that the net benefit from the illegal maneuver outweighs the negatives from the occasional penalties?

Surely, you can't believe that there aren't coaches that coach players to commit illegal acts in order to help the team win? Look no further than the end of an NCAA basketball game when one team starts intentionally fouling. Can you imagine one of these players saying, "That's not illegal! My coach told me to foul him, and he wouldn't coach me to do something illegal!"

[WHEELAX2]

I simply do not understand your side of this.. I was coached to perform a legal maneuver. Not because we could get away with it.. It is a defensive tool. You do not understand the difference between the words of rules and the words of tactics.

[eme]

The "V-hold" is fine because you use the "notch" formed by your upper arm and forearm/glove on the back/shoulder of an opponent. This has been taught for ages.

But when you hold that attackman's back with the shaft located between your gloves, you run the risk of being called for a "cross-check hold."
It's why we officials often say to D-men: "get your hands together."

At least once or twice a game in NCAA play, coaches will yell to officials: "That's a cross-check hold!!!"

International rules are no different and are in fact, more explicit:
Page 33: "If a player holds an opponent with that portion of the handle of his crosse which is between his hands, then a cross-check hold has been committed."

[eme]

Cross-check holds were a point of emphasis for the 2004 NCAA rules. In fact, AR 10 was added to the rulebook that year: "May a player use the portion of the handle of his crosse that is between his hands to hold an opponent? Ruling: No." page 64.

A few sentences later comes..." a hold check must be done with either closed hand, shoulder or forearm; and both hands must be on the crosse."
This is reference to that V-Hold technique

[LaxRef]

I simply do not understand your side of this.. I was coached to perform a legal maneuver. Not because we could get away with it.. It is a defensive tool. You do not understand the difference between the words of rules and the words of tactics.

I understand the following just fine:

The "words of rules" determine what is legal.

The "words of tactics" have no bearing on what is legal.

If the coach coaches you to do something that violates the rules, he has coached you to perform an illegal maneuver.

Defensive tools may be legal or illegal; the fact that a coach--or even more than one coach--teaches something has no bearing on whether it is legal.

[CoachRob]

I simply do not understand your side of this.. I was coached to perform a legal maneuver. Not because we could get away with it. It is a defensive tool. You do not understand the difference between the words of rules and the words of tactics.

You have been coached an illegal maneuver. It is illegal because the rules state it is illegal.

Many coaches do not know the rules and teach, while well intentioned, maneuvers they BELIEVE to be legal. However, under the microscope of the rules, they find it is not true and have unfortunately disseminated improper techniques to their young players.

So while I understand your frustration, and it may NOT be called or is entirely missed, it does not change the fact that it is illegal.

And the "words of tactics" when taken outside of the written rules are "words of illegality".

We're not attacking YOU, just a maneuver we know to be illegal.