Push With(out) Possession

[shrekjr]

How many of you regularly "downgrade" a push with possession to a loose ball push just so you don't have to put a player in the box early in the game? I'm seeing it more and more and it really hacks me off!!! I understand MAYBE doing it late in the game for a team that is way behind and you don't want to make the situation any worse for them, but to do it early in the game serves no positive purpose at all.

For example, last night, I saw this done three times in the first half. Player obviously in possession is pushed from behind, the player falls, ball comes loose, and the call is loose ball push. Then in the fourth quarter, same play but now it is called a push with possession and the coach goes ballistic.

If this were a one time thing related to the officials in this one game, it wouldn't be as big a deal. However, I'm seeing this consistently in a lot of games. In my mind, if called correctly early in the game, it won't be a problem later.

Thoughts?

[CoachRob]

Downgrading a foul is a peril to all involved and is inappropriate. If they push with possession, a 30-second penalty is not a 1 minute PF, doesn't count towards the five required for disqualification, and makes no sense not to call it. Putting a player in the box EARLY in the game is much easier to stomach than late in a tightly contested match.

Sounds like bad officiating, IMO.

[rilax]

I will down grade when two things happen almost simultaneous: the push (or free hand hold etc) and a stick check that causes the ball to come out; as long as I feel the defender is legitimately trying to get and the ball in a legal manner. Other examples are when a team is up by a large enough margin that the game is out of reach I will just (re) award possession. Third possibility is when a player is in the act of scooping the ball and has possession when he gets pushed I am willing to play on that.

In general I try to stay away from downgrading when it is the push that causes the ball to come loose and there is no stick check or other legitimate play on the ball (except in the blow out situation).

One thing about the blow out situation, if I fell that the player is using the fact that the push is normally downgraded to push the opponent then I will call it (and maybe upgrade it)

[LaxRef]

I'll call the loose-ball push if the player's back is to me and I can't see whether the ball was already coming out or if it came out as a result of the push. I figure if I'm not certain the ball was in possession, I'm not going to put a guy in the box. Sometimes the coach will freak because he had a different angle and could see that there was in fact possession, or at least he wants me to think that there was.

But knowingly calling it a loose-ball foul when I know there was possession? No.

[3rdPersonPlural]

This loose ball push issue vexes me. Particularly when officiating games with less skilled players (frequent in my neck of the woods) you get a school of players descending on a loose ball and the two or three players who are standing there dilligently trying to shovel the ball up get blasted by the tidal wave. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency of players to turn their backs to the onrush as soon as they sense it coming.

All one can do is call a play on and award the ball to whichever team seemed to be most likely to legimately pick up the ball. I swear that there is no more frustrating circumstance for a new ref than a self perpetuating fluster-cluck.

The other issue I'd like to get some feedback on is the first year player who is also an all state linebacker. As a former linebacker/defenseman, I am as appreciative of a nice hit as the next guy, but the new programs which feature these one-dimensional defenders usually play the JV squads of the more mature programs, and a guy who expects to get playing time on USC's football team next year punting a 140 pound soph. attackman is too much for an official charged with safety concerns to bear. What do you call? Illegal body check? Unnecessary roughness? a clean but 'outclassed' hit doesn't fit perfectly into either of those penalties, but it can't be endorsed, either.

?????

Thanks!

[LaxRef]

This loose ball push issue vexes me.

Isn't "me" first person singular? :chuckle:

The other issue I'd like to get some feedback on is the first year player who is also an all state linebacker. As a former linebacker/defenseman, I am as appreciative of a nice hit as the next guy, but the new programs which feature these one-dimensional defenders usually play the JV squads of the more mature programs, and a guy who expects to get playing time on USC's football team next year punting a 140 pound soph. attackman is too much for an official charged with safety concerns to bear. What do you call? Illegal body check? Unnecessary roughness? a clean but 'outclassed' hit doesn't fit perfectly into either of those penalties, but it can't be endorsed, either.

My interpretation of "unnecessary roughness" is that if he's hitting the kid significantly harder than he needs to to knock out the ball, then it's unneccessary. In the case you describe, the all-state linebacker knows that he can blast the 140-pound kid hard enough to put him out of the game, and he needs to understand that he has to dial it down. If the hit is clean--in that it conforms to the rules regarding body-checking--but you think there's a safety issue, you have to call the UN.

(Um, that's the "unnecessary roughness penalty," not the United Nations, but I guess you could call them if the play involved people from different countries.)

As to your other point, yes, when there's a big old scrum, especially in a youth or even a bad JV game, you want to get the ball off the ground, so you call something even if it's really petty. That's better than letting the play go on until someone it hurt.

BTW, welcome to the group!

[3rdPersonPlural]

Isn't "me" first person singular? :chuckle:

I am not me I am they so me does not refer to they who is me but not here get it?



My interpretation of "unnecessary roughness" is that if he's hitting the kid significantly harder than he needs to to knock out the ball, then it's unneccessary.

'Significantly' is the key judgement, though, isn't it?

As to your other point, yes, when there's a big old scrum, especially in a youth or even a bad JV game, you want to get the ball off the ground, so you call something even if it's really petty. That's better than letting the play go on until someone it hurt.

That concurs with the advise I've gotten from the local senior refs. I'm glad that there's some concordance between us out on the left coast and y'all, wherever you're posting from.

BTW, welcome to the group!

Glad to be here!

[SDS416]

Well on the subject of with and without posession, let me say this, speaking as a coach:

Please call it one way or another right from the outset of the game. Don't try to avoid a call later in the game that you would have made earlier. I would much rather have a referee who is consistant, regardless of the fact I may disagree with his approach to the game. Its not fair to kids, and they often have trouble understanding, why what just happened to them in the 4th quarter was the same as what happened in the 1st quarter but the call is different. It leads to the perception of inconsistant rulings, which is accurate in some instances and leads to frustration on the behalf of players, coaches and fans. I mean after all how is a coach or a player to know when a ref is going to put his whistle in his pocket or start downgrading or upgrading calls?

The other point I wanted to touch on was the question regarding the all state linebacker who makes a big hit on a small attackman. To me the UN call is totally incorrect and as a coach I would be livid. You are essentially saying that regardless of the fact that the scenario mentions that NONE of the rules regarding contact were broken that you would penalize the kid, if it was a particularly big hit. You are penalizing him for taking advantage of his physical size and a particular skill within the rules of the sport. That to me is both incorrect and unprofessional. You tread on very thin ice when you start trying to determine fouls based on arbitrary things like size. The fact that he is an allstate football player should have ZERO impact on how he is judged on the lax field. Whats next, telling the larger defensemen that they can't hit attackmen or middies who are X height or X weight? Its just ridiculous IMHO. Legal contact is both well defined by the rules and part of the sport.

[3rdPersonPlural]

You are essentially saying that regardless of the fact that the scenario mentions that NONE of the rules regarding contact were broken that you would penalize the kid, if it was a particularly big hit. You are penalizing him for taking advantage of his physical size and a particular skill within the rules of the sport. That to me is both incorrect and unprofessional.....Legal contact is both well defined by the rules and part of the sport.

Coach, keep in mind that my query and LaxRef's answer referred to a JV vs. first year club issue. At the varsity level I call it pure, but at developmental levels we refs have to keep in mind that our primary role is safety and that we have leeway to adjust our calls to the level of play and the circumstances of the game. I was trying to find out the sensitive and sanctioned way to address this. UNR seems to be the best call, because if you were a JV coach at an established program and you played a first year club that had a few linebackers on it looking for some fun before hitting the college program, you'd be all about safety too.

On a personal note, I turned down 4 division 1 football scholarships to play lacrosse so you can imagine what my playing style was like. I cringe every time I flag a beautiful hit, but now that I'm a grown up I have to think like my attorney is scampering up and down the field with me.

[LaxRef]

Please call it one way or another right from the outset of the game. Don't try to avoid a call later in the game that you would have made earlier. I would much rather have a referee who is consistant, regardless of the fact I may disagree with his approach to the game. Its not fair to kids, and they often have trouble understanding, why what just happened to them in the 4th quarter was the same as what happened in the 1st quarter but the call is different. It leads to the perception of inconsistant rulings, which is accurate in some instances and leads to frustration on the behalf of players, coaches and fans. I mean after all how is a coach or a player to know when a ref is going to put his whistle in his pocket or start downgrading or upgrading calls?

I've never been a fan of putting the whistle in the pocket late in the game, and I try to call things consistently. However, sometimes coaches and players who don't understand TPOAD will think we're being inconsistent when we really are (see the sticky thread on acronyms for the definition of TPOAD and a link to a thread about it).

The other point I wanted to touch on was the question regarding the all state linebacker who makes a big hit on a small attackman. To me the UN call is totally incorrect and as a coach I would be livid. You are essentially saying that regardless of the fact that the scenario mentions that NONE of the rules regarding contact were broken that you would penalize the kid, if it was a particularly big hit. You are penalizing him for taking advantage of his physical size and a particular skill within the rules of the sport. That to me is both incorrect and unprofessional. You tread on very thin ice when you start trying to determine fouls based on arbitrary things like size. The fact that he is an allstate football player should have ZERO impact on how he is judged on the lax field. Whats next, telling the larger defensemen that they can't hit attackmen or middies who are X height or X weight? Its just ridiculous IMHO. Legal contact is both well defined by the rules and part of the sport.

I'm not going to make a UN call because one guy is bigger, I'm going to make the UN call because the contact, in my judgment meets the standard:

Any act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or crosse.

I also agree that the fact that he is an all-state linebacker has no bearing on how he is judged on the lacrosse field. It is, however, relevant to explaining the difference in physical abilities that lead to the concern about player safety when posting a question her.

Coaches and officials should both be on the same page when we say "Safety first." When you have a guy running around on the field trying to hit people hard enough to hurt them, you have to do something about it. I don't care if the guy is big or little, I'm just not going to let it go.

As to the charge that we're "penalizing him for taking advantage of his physical size and a particular skill within the rules of the sport," I disagree. If I'm calling it UN, it's because he could have achieved the same result--dislodging the ball, knocking the guy over--without hitting him so hard as to create an unreasonable risk of injury.

[SDS416]

I've never been a fan of putting the whistle in the pocket late in the game, and I try to call things consistently. However, sometimes coaches and players who don't understand TPOAD will think we're being inconsistent when we really are (see the sticky thread on acronyms for the definition of TPOAD and a link to a thread about it).



I'm not going to make a UN call because one guy is bigger, I'm going to make the UN call because the contact, in my judgment meets the standard:



I also agree that the fact that he is an all-state linebacker has no bearing on how he is judged on the lacrosse field. It is, however, relevant to explaining the difference in physical abilities that lead to the concern about player safety when posting a question her.

Coaches and officials should both be on the same page when we say "Safety first." When you have a guy running around on the field trying to hit people hard enough to hurt them, you have to do something about it. I don't care if the guy is big or little, I'm just not going to let it go.

As to the charge that we're "penalizing him for taking advantage of his physical size and a particular skill within the rules of the sport," I disagree. If I'm calling it UN, it's because he could have achieved the same result--dislodging the ball, knocking the guy over--without hitting him so hard as to create an unreasonable risk of injury.

I really wasn't referring to TPOAD in my statement, although there are clearly times where I think TPOAD probably ends up hurting the perception of officials more than helps them conduct the game. What I was really referring to was officials who will make a call early in a game, before the flow of the game is really established, who later in the game won't make the call in the same exact situation, unrelated to TPOAD. For example I saw a game yesterday where it looked like the refs had their whistles stolen at halftime. High hits that were called in the first half, got nothing in the second half, etc. I actually heard one ref tell a coach, we don't want to be "part of the game"....well guess what, you are supposed to be to a certain extent. And those guys lost total control of the game, and it got very ugly. Thats the kind of thing that bothers me when it comes to being consistant.

As for the contact deal, I can see where you guys are trying to come from. I guess I've seen attackmen take some pretty big hits and hold on to the ball and seen similar sized attackmen take similar looking hits and appear as though they had just been hit by a speeding truck. I guess there is where I see the arbitrary part...exactly how is the D-man to determine how hard he needs to make contact legally with the attacker to dislodge the ball?

[LaxRef]

I really wasn't referring to TPOAD in my statement, although there are clearly times where I think TPOAD probably ends up hurting the perception of officials more than helps them conduct the game.

Well, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's only fair to let play continue if a push from behind doesn't affect the play but to flag it if the same push makes a player go offsides or out of bounds or into the crease. If we consistently called all pushes the same way, I don't think you'd like the game flow very much.


What I was really referring to was officials who will make a call early in a game, before the flow of the game is really established, who later in the game won't make the call in the same exact situation, unrelated to TPOAD. For example I saw a game yesterday where it looked like the refs had their whistles stolen at halftime. High hits that were called in the first half, got nothing in the second half, etc. I actually heard one ref tell a coach, we don't want to be "part of the game"....well guess what, you are supposed to be to a certain extent. And those guys lost total control of the game, and it got very ugly. Thats the kind of thing that bothers me when it comes to being consistant.

It bothers me, too. Personally, I think when you decide not to enforce the rules you're affecting the outcome of the game as surely as if you make a lot of calls. One of my favorite exchanges ever between TV commentators (in a hockey game):

A: They're really letting them play!

B: Well, they're letting one guy play. The other guy is getting the crap beaten out of him.

As for the contact deal, I can see where you guys are trying to come from. I guess I've seen attackmen take some pretty big hits and hold on to the ball and seen similar sized attackmen take similar looking hits and appear as though they had just been hit by a speeding truck. I guess there is where I see the arbitrary part...exactly how is the D-man to determine how hard he needs to make contact legally with the attacker to dislodge the ball?

In the same way he's supposed to know how hard he can hack the guy before the slash is called? :chuckle:

You ask a good question, and there's no good answer. But I know I'm not going to call unecessary roughness if he hits the guy just a little bit harder than he needs to to knock down the guy; I'm going to call it when he blasts the guy (it's the old "pornography standard": I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it).

Does this make it more likely that a big guy will get that call than a little guy? Probably. But the big guy already has an advantage; it's his responsibility to avoid putting other people in danger by abusing that advanntage.

Another point is that the same hit may deliver different results depending on whether the attacker is ready for the hit or whether he's on the receiving end of a hospital pass. I'd argue that the defender needs to realize the the guy receiving the hospital pass is in a vulnerable position and that he doesn't need to drill him to break up the play.

I don't make these calls often, but I don't feel bad about making them when there's a safety issue even though they're usually not popular with the players and coaches.

[3rdPersonPlural]

While I've got y'all cornered, let me lob another question out there.

A lot of players, especially middies, play defense by sliding their hands together and punching the guy they're defending. It's not a cross-check because there is no stick visible between the gloves, and it's not a push from behind because they aim their blows at the front and side of the attacker. Most of the blows connect with the upper arm, it seems.

This pushing technique also flourishes during loose ball situations, and it seems to be the preferred 'man' check for players who have no inclination to duck their shoulders and endeavor to scoop up the ball.

Do I just have to tolerate this affront to my sensibilities or is there a way to whistlle it?

[LaxRef]

While I've got y'all cornered, let me lob another question out there.

A lot of players, especially middies, play defense by sliding their hands together and punching the guy they're defending. It's not a cross-check because there is no stick visible between the gloves, and it's not a push from behind because they aim their blows at the front and side of the attacker. Most of the blows connect with the upper arm, it seems.

This pushing technique also flourishes during loose ball situations, and it seems to be the preferred 'man' check for players who have no inclination to duck their shoulders and endeavor to scoop up the ball.

Do I just have to tolerate this affront to my sensibilities or is there a way to whistlle it?

Note: A check delivered with the gloved hand or hands may not be delivered with a punching blow. This should not be construed as pushing under 6-10.

So, no, you don't have to tolerate it; it's unnecessary roughness. Of course, if they make contact first and then push from the front or side, it's fine, provided the hands are together and the man they're pushing is holding the ball or within 5 yards of a loose ball.

[Snake~eyes]

So, no, you don't have to tolerate it; it's unnecessary roughness. Of course, if they make contact first and then push from the front or side, it's fine, provided the hands are together and the man they're pushing is holding the ball or within 5 yards of a loose ball.
I had what you described happen the other day actually, player comes in and pushes the guy in the neck, easy call for me. I signalled illegal body check because he knocked the guy over, although unnecessary roughness is probably the better signal choice, same result though.

[3rdPersonPlural]

LaxRef, have you noticed that 'Unnecessary Roughness' is the catch-all flag for a myriad of apparent but undefined infractions? I imagine that the JV and developmental league games that I have remaining on my schedule will make me feel like private in a room full of generals - a salute a minute. (little smiley thing)

[CoachRob]

But if he LEADS with his hands, and does not thrust them out at the time of contact, why would this be considered illegal? On all my teaching tapes, defenders are taught that as the attacker shoots, if you can get in close with your hands on the stick together, it is acceptable to lead into his frontal (chest) area with the gloves, so long as you do not thurst them at him. I don't see this as illegal or an issue. An attacker needs to undrstand that he may be legally hit during his throwing motion, and leading with your hands is no different, IMO, than leading with your shoulder. This is a judgement call, and so long as there is no thrusting or any "punching" motion, I don't see this as an issue. There is SOME contact in lax; punching is not contact, it is battery.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Coach, the way I see it (and LaxRef will correct me if I'm wrong) is that once a defender has his gloves on an attacker he can rock him back all he wants, but if the effect of the check comes from the initial impact of the gloves, not the subsequent push, then it's boxing and scowled upon.

[LaxRef]

But if he LEADS with his hands, and does not thrust them out at the time of contact, why would this be considered illegal?

I would not construe this to be a "punching blow"; however, he'd better have his hands together so he doesn't hit with the crosse.

In the case at hand, I believe it was described as a "punch."

[LaxRef]

Coach, the way I see it (and LaxRef will correct me if I'm wrong) is that once a defender has his gloves on an attacker he can rock him back all he wants, but if the effect of the check comes from the initial impact of the gloves, not the subsequent push, then it's boxing and scowled upon.

I'm not so sure. I don't think I can generate much more force* by running into something with my arms extended than I can by hitting with my shoulder, but if run and punch at the same time I can really generate something extra. They don't define "punching blow," so I guess it's open to interpretation. Again, I'm more concerned about the hands being apart and the hit coming from the crosse.

-LaxRef

*I should probably really be talking about "pressure," but I don't think the surface area of my shoulder is significantly bigger than two gloved hands held together.

[CoachRob]

Hitting with the closed hands together on the crosse is a body check. Thrusting is a push, and punching is punching. A defender has to have something at his disposal for close contact and using his closed hands together on his crosse is, IMO, legal.

As LR points out, the REAL issue is when the hands become separated, or when they are thrust into the player. Those are both illegal in my book.

[laxfan25]

LaxRef, I actually used the search! Looking for unnecessary roughness. First rule of searches, you have to know how to spell!
Regarding this topic, I always try to call the push with possession as the 30 sec TF. What sometimes happens, as you noted, is the player is moving away from you - you see the push, you see the ball loose, so you call LBTF. There is probably a good chance he had the ball however. My bad.
In my area, I feel I am one of the more vigilant officials at watching for cross-checks, holds (cross-check variety), and late hits on passers or shooters. It is imperative that one of the officials keep their eye on the shooter and not both follow the ball! I am sometimes guilty, and I don't like it when I fail to protect the player.
A true cross-check is pretty easy to see. What is humorous is how they always respond with "my hands were together!" Typically repeated to their coach as they head to the box. It takes a LOT of effort to make sure your hands are together, especially for a larger defenseman. The natural position is shoulder-width apart, and I'll call it when I see the gleam of metal hitting the attacker.
I also think that most players are not aware of the Unnecessary Roughness delivered with a punching blow call. Even if the hands are together, if they come in with the hands in front and thrust out into the attacker, I will be watching closely. In severe cases they will hit the chest and the hands will slide up into the head as the player is decked. IMM, should be called UR. Safety first, after all. In HS games, during the lineup I remind them to keep both hands on the stick and lead with the shoulder, it will avoid most issues.
While "punching blow" may not be defined, it is no different than many other calls we make in the game where it is our judgement that must be used. While I've always felt that a firm grasp of the rules is needed, I think good judgement, considering many aspects (level of game/ quality of play in the game/ severity of the contact) is equally vital.
In high school in particular, I think you are more prone to get into trouble with spiraling violence and retaliation by undercalling the game. Keep good control of the play, call it the same on both ends and throughout the game and you will have a firm basis for saying you called a good game, and the coaches will almost always agree.
I must be doing something right, being selected to officiate the Division 1 State Finals this weekend!