Late Reversal of Call-- Disallowing Goal

[The Trojan]

Here's the situation from our first HS game of the year. Team A is clearing off a save and Team B is riding hard. Team A is nearing the 10 count but looks to have cleared the restraining line. This is a turf field with multiple lines painted on it. The ref whistles Team A for failure to advance but he probably got confused on where the time line /restraining line actually was. Now for the tricky part.

Team B's riding player collects the ball and is ready to restart. Ref gives him the restart whistle and B's player fires the ball into the A goal from 30 yards out. (A's Goalie who had been a part of the failed clear did not hustle back but it was not the goalie with the ball on the alleged failure to advance violation. A's goalie was in the box and the commotion from A's bench protesting the call caused great indecision for A's players).

Team A's coach is ballistic-he has been screaming since the original call and he comes storming 15 yards onto the field incensed that the ref made a mistake in calling the failure to advance due to a mistake over which line was the box restraining line. Team A's coach did not call a timeout after the first disputed call nor did he call a timeout after the goal. He just comes out screaming as the refs are giving the score to the scorer's table and it goes on the scoreboard.

Refs hear Team A's coach protest, and do not involve Team B's coach. Refs confer then disallow Team B's goal (take it off the scoreboard) and award team A the ball on an alternating possession call.

I do not doubt that the original failure to advance call might have been challenged with a speedy timeout call by Team A. But that is not what happened -- no timeout was called and the refs allowed the restart for Team B. No question that Team B scored on a proper restart, regardless of what you think of the original failure to advance call that caused the turnover.

Question-- Does the restart and the subsequent play (a score) prevent a review or correction of the alleged blown call on the timeline issue? By taking Team B's goal off the board the "correction" being made based on Team A's protest is now two plays old. Doesn't team A have to use the timeout to prevent the restart and question the original disputed call right then and there? Yelling and protesting the call from the bench without using a timeout is not enough is it?

And of course this occurred late in the second half and team A was already down 1 goal but came back to tie and won the game in overtime 8-7 so disallowing the score for Team B really impacts the outcome.

Discuss.

[tjslax]

Here's the situation from our first HS game of the year. Team A is clearing off a save and Team B is riding hard. Team A is nearing the 10 count but looks to have cleared the restraining line. This is a turf field with multiple lines painted on it. The ref whistles Team A for failure to advance but he probably got confused on where the time line /restraining line actually was. Now for the tricky part.

Team B's riding player collects the ball and is ready to restart. Ref gives him the restart whistle and B's player fires the ball into the A goal from 30 yards out. (A's Goalie who had been a part of the failed clear did not hustle back but it was not the goalie with the ball on the alleged failure to advance violation. A's goalie was in the box and the commotion from A's bench protesting the call caused great indecision for A's players).

Team A's coach is ballistic-he has been screaming since the original call and he comes storming 15 yards onto the field incensed that the ref made a mistake in calling the failure to advance due to a mistake over which line was the box restraining line. Team A's coach did not call a timeout after the first disputed call nor did he call a timeout after the goal. He just comes out screaming as the refs are giving the score to the scorer's table and it goes on the scoreboard.

Refs hear Team A's coach protest, and do not involve Team B's coach. Refs confer then disallow Team B's goal (take it off the scoreboard) and award team A the ball on an alternating possession call.

I do not doubt that the original failure to advance call might have been challenged with a speedy timeout call by Team A. But that is not what happened -- no timeout was called and the refs allowed the restart for Team B. No question that Team B scored on a proper restart, regardless of what you think of the original failure to advance call that caused the turnover.

Question-- Does the restart and the subsequent play (a score) prevent a review or correction of the alleged blown call on the timeline issue? By taking Team B's goal off the board the "correction" being made based on Team A's protest is now two plays old. Doesn't team A have to use the timeout to prevent the restart and question the original disputed call right then and there? Yelling and protesting the call from the bench without using a timeout is not enough is it?

And of course this occurred late in the second half and team A was already down 1 goal but came back to tie and won the game in overtime 8-7 so disallowing the score for Team B really impacts the outcome.

Discuss.
It appears that poor knowledge of the rules on your coaches part may have also affected the outcome of the game. This year under federation rules if a coach wants to question application of a rule he asks for a double horn. The officials will then meet in the box with both head coaches and hear what the challanging coach wants considered. (the other coach does not get to talk, only listen to what's going on). The officials will then confer with each other and in 2 minutes...bang a decision will be made as to how to continue. This rule IS NOT to be used to contest a call, only to ensure the rule was aoolied properly.

As for the rest of your question, I'll let snake, lax ref, coach rob etc. get to that

[tjslax]

that's applied...sorry

[eme]

What a nightmare. Team A was whistled for Failure to advance. Officials should have a) brought ball out of the box and b) given goalie 5 seconds to re-enter the crease before re-starting play.
Alas, it sounds as if they didn't do (b). Once they re-start that play...coach cannot challenge the former play. BUT...as a ref I would disallow goal...award ball back to B in the proper position. Now...this does not address the Team A coach flying/screaming onto the field.
He gets an USC.
Soooo...disallow goal, ball goes to Team B at center X and they are up a man.

[LaxRef]

What a nightmare. Team A was whistled for Failure to advance. Officials should have a) brought ball out of the box and b) given goalie 5 seconds to re-enter the crease before re-starting play.
Alas, it sounds as if they didn't do (b). Once they re-start that play...coach cannot challenge the former play. BUT...as a ref I would disallow goal...award ball back to B in the proper position. Now...this does not address the Team A coach flying/screaming onto the field.
He gets an USC.
Soooo...disallow goal, ball goes to Team B at center X and they are up a man.
Agreed; he can no longer challenge the failure to advance (if he can at all; it's a judgment call, but the official might be willing to admit he used the wrong line, or not), but he can challenge the goal based on the goalie not being given 5 seconds to return. And the coach should challenge with a double-horn (NFHS rules), not a screaming, field-charging tirade (NCAA :chuckle:).

[dislaxxic]

b) given goalie 5 seconds to re-enter the crease before re-starting play.

eme, could you briefly discuss why you'd do this? The original post said that the goalie was taking part in the original clear and was out of the crease for this reason. He was not chasing down a shot. Why do you give him time to return to the goal crease in this situation?

Would the answer be different if he WAS the man with possession of the ball when the failure-to-advance call was made?

[LaxRef]

eme, could you briefly discuss why you'd do this? The original post said that the goalie was taking part in the original clear and was out of the crease for this reason. He was not chasing down a shot. Why do you give him time to return to the goal crease in this situation?

Would the answer be different if he WAS the man with possession of the ball when the failure-to-advance call was made?
I don't have the rules handy, so I'll quote from memory as best as I can:

The goalie is to be given up to 5 seconds to re-enter the crease on any restart. (Emphasis mine)

[Snake~eyes]

I don't have the rules handy, so I'll quote from memory as best as I can:

The goalie is to be given up to 5 seconds to re-enter the crease on any restart. (Emphasis mine)
That's pretty close, read this thread for the exact rule: http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=16992

[3rdPersonPlural]

I don't have the rules handy, so I'll quote from memory as best as I can:



Tweet! Illegal procedure on LaxRef!

When you enter this forum you step on ready to help! That means your thinking cap is on, you've got your rule book in hand and a full four points of contact on the keyboard! Give the floor to SnakeEyes! Restart on my whistle.

[eme]

Goalie gets 5 seconds on any restart. Believe me, I have erred in the past on this one and got burned. It is forever seared into my frontal lobe.

[laxref39]

Tweet! Illegal procedure on LaxRef!

When you enter this forum you step on ready to help! That means your thinking cap is on, you've got your rule book in hand and a full four points of contact on the keyboard! Give the floor to SnakeEyes! Restart on my whistle.
Conduct foul on 3rdPersonPlural! No arguing with the official ball goes back the other way.
Agreed that you can't reverse the originall 10 second violation. As stated in the post, "goalie was taking his time getting back to the crease" did that in fact use up the 5 seconds?
To answer the other question of why does the goalie get 5 seconds, besides what's in the rule book, I don't think you want a restart without the designated keeper in the goal and you don't want to punish him for chasing a shot out of bounds! :bye:

[The Trojan]

That is one sure to produce a lot of debate. The 10 second rule clearly applies to a defensive zone clear. How do you classify a ref mistaking which line is the restraining boundary? Mistaken application or mistake in judgment?

Team A's coach deserved an USC -- even if he had a valid point to argue-- his histrionics and getting 15-20 yards out on to the field made it a circus.

Good point on the 5 second allowance for Team A's keeper to reset himself. This was not a "quick" whistle really and I gotta think all of Team A was distracted by what their coach was doing over the sideline. IF THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THEN DISALLOW THE GOAL BUT GIVE TEAM B THE BALL FOR ANOTHER RESTART. The crazy part was to give the ball to Team A.

This officiating squad was not on its "A" game for the opener.
---A goal was scored by B on a delayed whistle personal foul (slash)and yet Team B was not given the man advantage on the next faceoff.

--One ref called "keep it in" (i.e. offensive stalling rule) upon Team B's entry into the attacking zone with 30 seconds left IN A TIE GAME. Game stopped and restarted at this point.

-- Team B pulled an attacker off on a ride that did not succeed (i.e Team A cleared successfully) but no one subbed ON for the attacker so Team B had 6 players in the defensive end plus their goalie (that's okay) but had only 2 attackers on the offensive end. Team B was whistled and penalized for "offsides" -- it was not offsides-- but was still a player short in the offensive end.

AH, IT'S EARLY IN THE SEASON.

[laxref39]

Agreed! Will always give the goalie the 5 to get back in even as the opposing team screams relentlessly "BLOW THE WHISTLE, BLOW THE WHISTLE, WE'RE READY TO GO"

[Snake~eyes]

Okay, lets take out the coach coming onto the field, take out giving the goalie 5 seconds. Lets assume that everything was done correct except for the fact of using the wrong line. It's oviously too late for the Coach to challenge. But can the official correct the problem if he realizes it himself after the goal or is it too late? This leads to another thing the rulebook seems to be weak on. When can we and can we not correct an error? Brings up an ineresting debate.

[eme]

Federation rule 7-13 Situation C page 88 and NCAA page 86 Rule 7-12 (wording of the rule: " If goals are scored during the mistake made by the official and it is brought to the attention of the referee BEFORE THE NEXT KIVE BALL..the ref must allow or disallow the goal, depending on circumstances.") and NCAA 7-12 AR 59...all indicate

you can go back to the previous play leading up to the whistle signalling goal...and disallow the goal if an official has erred.
That makes sense for errors that DON"T result in a goal as well because the next dead ball is when a double horn may be sounded.

[laxref39]

The ball in this sitution had already been put back into play therefore you could not reverse it based on the whole line scenario. Also if in the officials judgemnt (which is in question) there was a failure to advance based on his count and determination of the lines(how far off could he be on a turf field, it should be at the 30 yard line) it can not be addressed under 7-13 as it is a judgement call!

[michaeldwilson]

The ball in this sitution had already been put back into play therefore you could not reverse it based on the whole line scenario. Also if in the officials judgemnt (which is in question) there was a failure to advance based on his count and determination of the lines(how far off could he be on a turf field, it should be at the 30 yard line) it can not be addressed under 7-13 as it is a judgement call!

That's how I see it. From the original scenerio, there is some question as to whether the 10 second rule was violated. If that ref wants to reverse his call, fine, but the only clear reversal is the improper restart of play. I absolutely drop the flag on the coach for an unsportsmanlike. Refs must keep control of the game.

My question, though, is the idea that a coach can ask for a double horn or a timeout to question a call. It's been awhile since I read the rulebook, but neither of these options ring a bell to me.

Mike

[tjslax]

New rule in federation play regarding the double horn:

7-13 Head coach may request a double horn for the purpose of reviewing the misapplication of a rule. The request, made via double horn, must be made at the next dead ball situation and must involve only the play during the last live ball. Only misapplication or interpretation of the rule may be challanged; judgement calls or missed calls may not be challanged. If there was no error in rule application , the requesting team loses a timeout (they may take the remander of the TO). If they have TO's remaining, , they will be assessed a tech. foul and play will be resumed promptly.

[michaeldwilson]

New rule in federation play regarding the double horn:

7-13 Head coach may request a double horn for the purpose of reviewing the misapplication of a rule. The request, made via double horn, must be made at the next dead ball situation and must involve only the play during the last live ball. Only misapplication or interpretation of the rule may be challanged; judgement calls or missed calls may not be challanged. If there was no error in rule application , the requesting team loses a timeout (they may take the remander of the TO). If they have TO's remaining, , they will be assessed a tech. foul and play will be resumed promptly.

Got it, thanks. Did you ever ref with Sid in Vermont?

[tjslax]

Nope, my first game is today! Had a scrimmage last week but no Sid.

[CoachRob]

Boy, a real mess. The ref erred by misreading the lines AND not allowing the GK 5 seconds to return to the crease, which the GK is entitled to on ANY restart. Multiple lined field are a real nightmare.

After the goal, coach A SHOULD have asked for a double horn for misapplication of the rule of not allowing the GK time to return to the crease. He CANNOT question the failure to advance call, as play has already restarted. There is no going back on that call, so his team has lost possession for FTA.

So, if he gets the double horn, questions the failure of allowing 5 seconds for his GK to return and wins the challenge, the goal is DISALLOWED and team B still gets the ball for the failure to advance call (even though it was an error, but it is too late to correct it as play had already restarted). But at least on the new restart from outside of the box, team A has the GK in net.

Now, for running onto the field, coach A is assessed a 1-3 minute NR USC to be served by his in-home player.

So...assuming he wins the challenge, goal is disallowed, team B restarts with the ball outside the box, and team A is one man down as a result of the coach's behavior. Even if you wanted to award it to team A (don't see why you would), since their coach committed a dead ball foul, it turns the ball over to team B anyway.

[ref4ee]

How about a similar scenario to the GK's 5 second entitlement. The ball is out of bounds on the sideline...a horn is requested, the defensive team subs in, but is still getting in place (and is still inside the 20 scecond buzzer), when the official blows the whistle to restart. In this case the players are still not lined up against the attackers, and are actually still trailing the play. The result is an instant fast break and a goal.

Can a coach request a double horn on this restart, as it was clearly not a fair restart and the subbing team had clearly not used even half of the 20 seconds that it should be entitled to for substitution? Can or should the goal be disallowed in this case?

[CoachRob]

If not given the 20 seconds, wave off the goal, call the ball back and restart it at the same spot. This has happened to us a coupleof times when the official restarted play early.

But most officials allow enough time for subs to get into position.

[michaeldwilson]

New rule in federation play regarding the double horn:

7-13 Head coach may request a double horn for the purpose of reviewing the misapplication of a rule. The request, made via double horn, must be made at the next dead ball situation and must involve only the play during the last live ball. Only misapplication or interpretation of the rule may be challanged; judgement calls or missed calls may not be challanged. If there was no error in rule application , the requesting team loses a timeout (they may take the remander of the TO). If they have TO's remaining, , they will be assessed a tech. foul and play will be resumed promptly.

I've got the rule book in my hand now, and in the 2004 NFHS Boys Lacrosse Rules, under 7.13, there is no provision for the coach to request a double horn to check on the application of rules.

Is this new? Is this only NCAA?

If new, what other rules are new in 2005?

Thanks,

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

Check here for 2005 rule changes:
http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va_Custom/vimdisplays/newspage.cfm?Category_ID=25&Content_ID=481&showarchive=No&itemtitle=Item&Title=Boys%20Lacrosse%20Sports/Rules%20Information&NewsHeader=BL&NewsFooter=BL_FOOT&NewsImage=

[michaeldwilson]

Check here for 2005 rule changes:
http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va_Custom/vimdisplays/newspage.cfm?Category_ID=25&Content_ID=481&showarchive=No&itemtitle=Item&Title=Boys%20Lacrosse%20Sports/Rules%20Information&NewsHeader=BL&NewsFooter=BL_FOOT&NewsImage=

Thanks, Snake. I appreciate it.

Mike

[michaeldwilson]

There's nothing in the link or the addenda, TJSLax, that says a coach uses a double horn. The addendum reads as follows for the 2004-5 NFHS rules: When a coach believes a rule has been misapplied, a time out may be requested for the purpose of review."

When I hear a double horn, I think of three things: substitution problem, crosse count, illegal stick exchange.

But what if a coach wants an equipment check of a specific player? The rules don't say how he does this except that it occurs during a dead ball. Does he call a time out? Ask for a double horn?

Thanks,

Mike

[LaxRef]

-- Team B pulled an attacker off on a ride that did not succeed (i.e Team A cleared successfully) but no one subbed ON for the attacker so Team B had 6 players in the defensive end plus their goalie (that's okay) but had only 2 attackers on the offensive end. Team B was whistled and penalized for "offsides" -- it was not offsides-- but was still a player short in the offensive end.

d. The substitute must wait until such player is off the field of play, and the substitute may not delay his entry onto the field.

A.R. 108. During a special substitution, A1 delays his entrance onto the field. The trailing official sees the delay. RULING: Play-on unless A1 is involved, technical foul. [b]This does not remove the responsibility of a team to adhere to the offsides rule.[b]

Thus, in NCAA at least, it is offsides if you delay substitution and it leaves you short on one end. And NFHS does not have the "silent play on" for delayed sub, as far as I know.

In any case, your team B is guilty of a technical foul, so I'm not going to fault them too much (kind of like when someone calls interference when they should really call illegal screen; they might be wrong, but not in any meaningful way). The only real difference in enforcement is that in NFHS the offsides results in a free clear.

[LaxRef]

So, if he gets the double horn, questions the failure of allowing 5 seconds for his GK to return and wins the challenge, the goal is DISALLOWED and team B still gets the ball for the failure to advance call (even though it was an error, but it is too late to correct it as play had already restarted). But at least on the new restart from outside of the box, team A has the GK in net.

This assumes, of course, that the official doesn't believe he's given the goalie 5 seconds. If he thinks the goalie got 5 seconds, it becomes a judgment call. I'll always do a visual count so everyone knows I'm giving the 5 seconds.

BTW, I don't think the NFHS rules mention a double horn for the coach's challenge, but that's the mechanic we're using for it.

[CoachRob]

NFHS 7-13: ..The timer shall sound the horn when there is no significant action..."

Since single horns are generally reserved for end of periods and regular subs, I am assuming they are referring to a double horn here LR.