"Play the Ball!!"

[3rdPersonPlural]

It seems at times that ground balls are seen as an opportunity for EVERY player to enact his tough-guy fantasy and clear all opposing players out from the vicinity of a ground ball, enabling his teammate to cleanly scoop the ball and scamper for a fast breal goal.

"Play the Ball!" I holler, parroting the admonitions of senior refs and even college refs I've watched, all the while scanning for the slightest illegal stick or body check so I can call 'play on' and get the ball into a stick where it belongs.

My nightmare scenario is that nobody heeds my order, the ball sits quietly like the homely girl at a school dance, utterly ignored by the swarm of players who metronomically shout 'Man!' but never 'Ball!' and never venture into illegal check territory.

Besides throwing up a faux 'play on', what can we do to fix this? Does anybody have an artful way to use flag and whistle to correct poor coaching?

[Newt]

"Play the Ball" is coaching, not reffing. It's not a call a ref makes. Coaching stink? Deal with it. Coaches do it all the time when refs stink.

[roycegracie47]

Yeah it's a coaching thing. My last coach emphasised calling man and ball as such an importance that they carried the heaviest penalty for screwing up in practice. Continue your emphasis on playing the ball as well and as those hits turn into flags, their coaches will hopefully take notice if it's leading to more and more man downs for them...of course that's just wishful thinking on my part.

[michaeldwilson]

Yeah it's a coaching thing. My last coach emphasised calling man and ball as such an importance that they carried the heaviest penalty for screwing up in practice. Continue your emphasis on playing the ball as well and as those hits turn into flags, their coaches will hopefully take notice if it's leading to more and more man downs for them...of course that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Yeah, good ground ball play often includes NOT playing the ball, but knocking the opponents off the ball so your guy can get it.

In those scrums, I look for the ever-present push from behind. The first one to do it will stop play and will give the ball to the other team.

Mike

[shrekjr]

It's a fine line. Telling them to play the ball and not the man could be misunderstood. Telling a defender to "stay off the back and go for the stick" is not coaching but preventive officiating. You just have to be careful what you say and to who.

[WHEELAX2]

you really have to be fundamentally sound when it comes to ground ball play. It seems that the best ground-ballers tend to just know when to go for the ball, or the man. When it's two on one, obviously one should go for man while the other goes for the ball.
If you know you have no chance at a ground ball, you can body up a guy who's within five yards of the ball, you can lift the guys arm who is scooping the ball up, or you can lift his hands/stick from the side if you can't go for the ball. If no one takes another player on physically, then a major scrum for the ball will take place with the ball just getting batted around.

[roycegracie47]

A thing that gets overlooked is aside from lifting a stick when taking man, is just simply picking a guy and push him away from the scrum. By this I mean both hands on the stick right in the numbers (from the front of course) and just walk, nothing heavy-handed, just taking an extra guy away from the ball with out having to try and deck him.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Yeah, there's a fine line between preventative officiating and forensic coaching, isn't there? That line is in a different place, however, when officiating a Wilton or Hotchkiss game than when officiating predominantly first year players. All man and no ball scrums can degrade into something unpleasant in the wink of an eye, and a few well placed admonitions go a long way to achieving our primary mission, which is player safety.

[RiLaxFan]

Playing the body is one thing, but what about one player going for the ball and the other coming in full speed takes him out? Who is supposed to control that, the coach or the refs?

[3rdPersonPlural]

Playing the body is one thing, but what about one player going for the ball and the other coming in full speed takes him out? Who is supposed to control that, the coach or the refs?

Judgement call for the official. The devil on one shoulder whispers "It's a contact sport, dude. Clean hit, let' em play.'

Meanwhile the angel on the other shoulder is muttering about our preeminent responsibility for the safety of the kids and insisting that an Unnecessary Roughness whistle needs to be blown.

Coaches can't control the instincts or on-field aggressiveness of the kids, which is why we get paid the big bucks to establish the boundaries.

The answer is that how each official calls it is entirely a matter of context. UNR is like porn, I can't define it but I know it when I (theoretically :bull:) see it.

[Todd_conners]

I teach my kids to always get the ball. I teach support your teammates not "man-ball". A ref's job is not easy, you have to believe in their judgement. It is how the ref see's the game. The ref see's the game different than you do. That's it. You don't always agree but that is how it goes.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Todd, That's the attitude!

RLS is in Monterey, as I recall.

Splendid program........

[WHEELAX2]

Playing the body is one thing, but what about one player going for the ball and the other coming in full speed takes him out? Who is supposed to control that, the coach or the refs?


depends on if it's a legal hit. full speed body checking when the ball is down is perfectly legal if done correctly and within the five yard boundary.

[RiLaxFan]

Unnecessary Roughness: Section 9-c, "Any act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or crosse."

A.R. 21- "B1 is playing A1. A1 dodges B1 while driving to the goal and takes a shot. B2 slides and body checks A1 after the shot is taken, Ruling: (2) Unnecessary Roughness if the body check is late or avoidable."

Todd- Hats off to you. You are a credit to the sport and until recently, the only kind of lacrosse coach tolerated in our area. I don't agree with the final part of your post though. Refs have someone to answer to also. If they are a danger to the kids on the field they must be corrected or replaced. With the rapid expansion of lacrosse in my state experienced lax refs are at a premium. The new refs should be first and foremost instructed that safety is job #1. That of course is just my opinion.

Wheellax2: How can a full speed body check be "done correctly" and not be "deliberate and excessively violent"?

3rdPerson: I think for new refs, or refs new to lacrosse, there has to be some way of defining what is acceptable. There will always be grey areas, but extreme examples have to be dealt with. I truly fear the "pee-wee football coach" mentality is creeping into lacrosse. "When we were kids we'd spend 2 hours after the game pulling splinters out of each other and the field went up hill both ways"

Thanks for all your replies. The more you post, the more I learn.

[WHEELAX2]

I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. Man ball is a fundamental of lacrosse.

Full speed body checks if done legally are just that: Violent and not illegal.
Obviously if someone hits someone late it's a penalty, if you body check someone within five yards from a ground ball it's not illegal.. and you don't have to body check someone to have good man ball play. very often man ball play shouldn't involve body checking. good man ball play involves a move similar techniques like rebounding a basketball: you can box out your guy. or, like hockey, you can clear your guy out with a shoulder to the chest.
All perfectly legal and all Fundamentals of lacrosse.

and to answer your question: 'how can a full speed body check be done correctly and legally?'
I suggest this question: how can a full speed body check be done illegally? I would answer by saying: if the body check occurs away from the ball, if the body check is obviously late, if the body check involves a high or low hit, and if the body check is from behind.

once again i want to stress to you that body checks are a fundamental of lacrosse. Lacrosse is a full contact sport.. let me say it again, a full contact sport. if you look at legal hits, sure they are violent, but they are a part of the game of lacrosse. And any ref can certainly spot illegal body checking.

[WHEELAX2]

[QUOTE=RiLaxFan]Unnecessary Roughness: Section 9-c, "Any act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or crosse."

A.R. 21- "B1 is playing A1. A1 dodges B1 while driving to the goal and takes a shot. B2 slides and body checks A1 after the shot is taken, Ruling: (2) Unnecessary Roughness if the body check is late or avoidable."

Ok.. you just said "Unnecessary Roughness if the body check is late or unavoidable"
Exactly. but what if it is not late?
then it's legal even if it's full speed.
:banghead:

[CoachRob]

"Avoidable" is debatable, but generally if a player takes a few steps, he could have controlled his body a little better to avoid the hit. But the myth that "you get xxx steps" before it is illegal (xxx being 2 or 3, you choose) is just that: a myth. If the kid puts his head down and just barrels into the player, he had no intention of avoiding the check, and I believe he deserve UR or illegal BC, even if it is just one step, because he never could have avoided the late hit because he was not looking up to see if the player he is beading down on has passed/shot the ball.

[WHEELAX2]

I agree.. Like I said.. It's pretty easy to recognize a bad/late body check.
I would suggest that lowering the head is extremely dangerous for the person lowering the head. In my opinion, the only real way to body check, is to drop the shoulder into the chest, or shoulder to shoulder.

[RiLaxFan]

Ok Wheelax2 throw the flag on me this time, I messed up. The part about A.R.21 was supposed to refer to a second point I intended to bring up but didn't. Turns out CoachRob answered the question I would have asked anyway, thanks :). I understand fully what you are saying, Wheelax. I still think "deliberate and excessively violent" are key factors and should be considered especially when the check is against a player not carrying the ball. A player carrying the ball will (or should ) expect contact coming. A player going for a loose ball or standing near the loose ball pile doesn't expect the same impact. Wheelax, before you start banging your head again, hold on a second ;). Maybe you can help me better word the question I'm trying to ask. I noticed you are from upstate NY. I think this is where part of our miscommunication lies. Lacrosse here in RI is fairly new at the high school level. To be honest, the level of play is nowhere near what you are used to I'm sure. Not even close. This year a division II was added. The players at this level are beginners who have never seen the game before or players who don't have the skills to compete at a higher level. Even our div I teams pale in comparison to our h.s. teams that play in the more elite regional leagues. So maybe my question should be, "Should there be rule changes or more stricter enforcement of the rules for lower level lacrosse"? This is where the problems are happening. Ground balls are not scooped up in one try and are sometimes shoved out of bounds or across midfield before they are ever picked up. Some players have learned (hopefully not instructed by their coaches) that if they ignore the ball they can easily cream the guy trying pick it up. We have Brown University here, a perennial Div I top 20, and this situation almost never comes up because the incoming player on a ground ball knows he will catch nothing but air if he tries to wipe out another player of that skill level. So any thoughts? Should we make play on the ball mandatory or go completely Darwinian and let the strongest survive?

[WHEELAX2]

You should probably emphasize playing the ball, and you should teach technique for quickly scooping the ball up.. these "scrums" occur when no one can successfully pick a ground ball up; however, if you are just standing around and are about 5 yards from the ball, you should be hit as hard as you can be hit, but that's beside the point.
The main point here is that players should go for the ball if they have a real chance; otherwise, they should try to at least screen opposing players instead of trying to lay them out.

[michaeldwilson]

"Avoidable" is debatable, but generally if a player takes a few steps, he could have controlled his body a little better to avoid the hit. But the myth that "you get xxx steps" before it is illegal (xxx being 2 or 3, you choose) is just that: a myth. If the kid puts his head down and just barrels into the player, he had no intention of avoiding the check, and I believe he deserve UR or illegal BC, even if it is just one step, because he never could have avoided the late hit because he was not looking up to see if the player he is beading down on has passed/shot the ball.

I heard this one a lot when I reffed club games: "I took two (or three) steps!" My response always was: The words "two (or three) steps are not in the rules of lacrosse."

If a player puts his head down, that's spearing, illegal body check, non-releasable.

My personal rule for "avoidable" hits I determine by the distance the ball travels from the shooter. If the ball is still within five yards, maybe even ten yards, that's probably a legal hit. If the ball goes further than that, it's probably an illegal hit. An inexact science to be sure. What's your criteria?

Mike

[roaminump]

I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. Man ball is a fundamental of lacrosse.

Full speed body checks if done legally are just that: Violent and not illegal.

Unfortunately, the rules don't back you up here. FED 5-8-3: "Unnecessary roughness includes the following ... Any avoidable act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or crosse. This may include a legal body check." (emphasis mine)

It is possible that a full-speed body check is ok, if it is unavoidable. I take this to mean that either there's literally no time to stop, or there's no other way for the player to make the play - letting up would let the opponent get a pass away, etc.

NCAA rules are even more strict - rule 5-9c is exactly the same as the FED rule, but without the word "avoidable."


Obviously if someone hits someone late it's a penalty, if you body check someone within five yards from a ground ball it's not illegal.. and you don't have to body check someone to have good man ball play. very often man ball play shouldn't involve body checking. good man ball play involves a move similar techniques like rebounding a basketball: you can box out your guy. or, like hockey, you can clear your guy out with a shoulder to the chest.
All perfectly legal and all Fundamentals of lacrosse.

and to answer your question: 'how can a full speed body check be done correctly and legally?'
I suggest this question: how can a full speed body check be done illegally? I would answer by saying: if the body check occurs away from the ball, if the body check is obviously late, if the body check involves a high or low hit, and if the body check is from behind.

All true and good points.

once again i want to stress to you that body checks are a fundamental of lacrosse. Lacrosse is a full contact sport.. let me say it again, a full contact sport. if you look at legal hits, sure they are violent, but they are a part of the game of lacrosse. And any ref can certainly spot illegal body checking.

Yes, it's full contact. But the rules charge the officials with ensuring the safety of the players by penalizing unnecessarily (in the officials' judgement) violent hits.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I note that WheeLax is from Corning New York. This leads me to assume that he is familiar with mature lacrosse programs and I'd bet this day old Bagel on my desk that he hasn't seen a team with a LaxPower rating less that 90 play for some time. He's absolutely correct that in the context of his region, hitting is hard and clean and never really that one-sided. The higher the skill level, the less opportunity to line someone up.

The problem that those of us in developing areas is that teams are often uneven and matchups are often one sided. A JV team from a local prep school will play a first year club stocked with athletes who've committed to division 1 football programs but never held a stick before. Inevitably, the big jocks get frustrated that they're losing to a bunch of 130 pound freshmen and start to play the only trump card in their deck.

Don't even try to visualize it, WheeLax - it'll give you indigestion, but it is a scenario we see a lot of out here in the third world of lacrosse. This is why we refs with developmental responsibilities puzzle about this stuff.....

[WHEELAX2]

ahhh.. I see.... I have played a couple of teams both in college and high school full of football players just waiting to take your head off. I guess in these situations, you have to let them get all the penalties and not make it a hitting contest.
I would hope in these games, refs would understand that they need to control the game and protect your players.
It's unfortunate that coaches/players try to take advantage of the "rules" and body check whenever and wherever they can. I guess if these teams wanted to improve, they would work on their lax skills as opposed to their football skills.. can you immagine their practices?

[LaxRef]

NCAA rules are even more strict - rule 5-9c is exactly the same as the FED rule, but without the word "avoidable.".

NCAA took out the word "avoidable" this year (they missed it in an A.R., but otherwise it's gone) because the feeling is that players should always be in control of their bodies and that no body check is unavoidable. I agree.

I will flag "excessively violent" hits that are otherwise legal because that is what the rules instruct me to do, These are, of course, judgment calls.