View Full Version : Defender without a stick as goalie
shrekjr
04-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Goalie is out of the crease. A defender drops his stick, races to the front of the goal, and throws his arms up in the air like he is being robbed. As the official, now what are you going to do, if anything? Would it make a difference if it were the goalie who dropped his stick out of the crease and ran back to stop the shot?
After a few responses, I'll tell what was done in this game after both of those situations occured.
oregon D
04-10-2005, 02:23 AM
hmm thats a toughie, i got in goal one time but i had my stick.
CoachRob
04-10-2005, 06:50 AM
Playing without a stick. Technical foul with possession, flag down.
Or, USC for intentionally tossing his stick so as to deny a sure goal (like the GK who pulls the goal down over his head). Flag down.
In such a case, I might blow the whistle immediately to stop play and protect the defender from injury.
LaxRef
04-10-2005, 07:35 AM
Goalie is out of the crease. A defender drops his stick, races to the front of the goal, and throws his arms up in the air like he is being robbed. As the official, now what are you going to do, if anything? Would it make a difference if it were the goalie who dropped his stick out of the crease and ran back to stop the shot?
It has to be at least illegal procedure for playing without a stick. But it sounds like he's intentionally trying to take advantage of the rules about stopping play when the goalie loses equipment to prevent a goal. I'd go with either a 1:00 NR USC + 0:30 IP or a 2:00 NR USC + 0:30 IP, probably the latter since I think I'd feel the need to blow the play dead, in which case the attacking team has been disadvantaged heavily (losing a scoring opportunity with the goalie out oof the crease).
If either the defender or the goalie, both without sticks, enters crease to start playing...flag down and kill immediately. Both NCAA and Fed. rules...both of which emphasized this year that it's a safety issue.
Technical foul playing without the crosse. Bothsets of rules committees agree (can you believe this?) that they didn't want unprotected players in there stopping shots with their hands, etc.
shrekjr
04-10-2005, 09:27 AM
The first of these two plays that happened was the goalie running into the crease without his stick. The officials allowed the play to continue, a goal was scored and that was the end of it.
The second play where the defender ran into the crease without his stick, play continued, the defender stopped the shot, became the hero of the team, the goalie finally made it back, the defender goes out and picks up his stick, lays out the attacker with the ball (from behind), picks up the loose ball and throws it to the other end of the field. Obviously, there were many things done wrong on this play.
I have to agree with everyone who said technical foul on either the goalie or defender, and to kill the play immediately for safety reasons. 30 second penalty.
The scary part of this is that the defender told me after the game they actually practice this play and are taught to drop their stick and get to the crease as quick as they can. Not only is that philosophically wrong, that is the exact intent of the new safety concerns trying to prevent such a play. Seems to me some coaches, players, and unfortunately officials still haven't learned this yet.
LaxRef
04-10-2005, 09:45 AM
The scary part of this is that the defender told me after the game they actually practice this play and are taught to drop their stick and get to the crease as quick as they can. Not only is that philosophically wrong, that is the exact intent of the new safety concerns trying to prevent such a play. Seems to me some coaches, players, and unfortunately officials still haven't learned this yet.
How is this any different from the goalie deliberately losing equipment or breaking his stick to kill the play, which I thought we all agreed was USC?
shrekjr
04-10-2005, 04:40 PM
It's not different if you can tell it was deliberate.
LaxRef
04-10-2005, 05:25 PM
It's not different if you can tell it was deliberate.
I was judging intent from "A defender drops his stick, races to the front of the goal, and throws his arms up in the air like he is being robbed." :chuckle:
shrekjr
04-10-2005, 05:30 PM
In that case you are correct. I am not responsible for anything I may say late at night or early in the morning.
goalieskcickay
04-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Why wouldn't the defender just take his stick with him? It can't slow him down that much. And if he's able to get there he might be able to knock the attackman's stick away to pervent the goal. It just doesn't make sense to risk a 1:30-2:30 min. NR just to stop a goal that could be preventated just as easily without the penalty.
LaxRef
04-10-2005, 07:28 PM
Why wouldn't the defender just take his stick with him? It can't slow him down that much. And if he's able to get there he might be able to knock the attackman's stick away to pervent the goal. It just doesn't make sense to risk a 1:30-2:30 min. NR just to stop a goal that could be preventated just as easily without the penalty.
He's trying to take advantage of the officials' need to stop a dangerous play in order to get the play stopped and then get the goalie back in the crease and get the defense set up. He's gambling that the officials won't call anything or that they'll just call the 0:30 illegal procedure. If he makes that gamble in my game, he'll lose.