My Officiating Today - 16 Apr 2005

[michaeldwilson]

High school lacrosse in Wisconsin. The game went very well overall. I have just a couple of questions.

1) Player A1 had his back to me with the ball. Defensive player B2 checked his crosse and A1 went down, holding his throat. I didn't see the foul, so I didn't drop a flag. What do you do in this situation? Clearly, A1 had been fouled by all evidence, but I didn't call it because I didn't see it. What do you do?

2) I don't call your basic poke and slap checks that might miss the stick and hit the offensive player on the arm. But the defensive player wound up pretty well and hit the offensive guy with the ball on the arm. I threw a flag for a slash. Do you do the same?

3) I actually called a moving screen on an off-ball screen. Away from the ball, team A was trying to get a cutter free. As A1 moved around his teammate A2, the teammate A2 moved in the path of defensive man B1 who was guarding A1. I wonder if I was being too picky calling that one.

4) One of the things that kind of bugged me today was the late substitution horn on the dead ball. I would prefer the horn to blow right away after the dead ball, but I think the coaches were both asking for a horn after the dead ball, instead of asking the timekeeper to blow the horn at the next dead ball. Has this happened to you? Do you care? Do you do anything about it?

Thanks,

Mike

[shrekjr]

1) Player A1 had his back to me with the ball. Defensive player B2 checked his crosse and A1 went down, holding his throat. I didn't see the foul, so I didn't drop a flag. What do you do in this situation? Clearly, A1 had been fouled by all evidence, but I didn't call it because I didn't see it. What do you do?
Can't call it if you didn't see it.

2) I don't call your basic poke and slap checks that might miss the stick and hit the offensive player on the arm. But the defensive player wound up pretty well and hit the offensive guy with the ball on the arm. I threw a flag for a slash. Do you do the same?
Yep.

3) I actually called a moving screen on an off-ball screen. Away from the ball, team A was trying to get a cutter free. As A1 moved around his teammate A2, the teammate A2 moved in the path of defensive man B1 who was guarding A1. I wonder if I was being too picky calling that one.
Picky, no. Possibly could have called interference since it was away from the ball, but the result is the same.

4) One of the things that kind of bugged me today was the late substitution horn on the dead ball. I would prefer the horn to blow right away after the dead ball, but I think the coaches were both asking for a horn after the dead ball, instead of asking the timekeeper to blow the horn at the next dead ball. Has this happened to you? Do you care? Do you do anything about it?
Get used to it, it is very hard to manage. I actually had a coach call for a horn this week after the whistle had already blown, then was upset when the other team scored because he still wanted his horn. You do need to wait long enough to give them the opportunity to call for a horn. I usually wait at least 5-10 seconds and will not restart that quick. But if I don't hear or see anything to make me think a team wants to substitute, and the players on the field are ready, then I'm blowing the whistle and away we go. I will not stand there and wait 20 seconds. And just when you think you're slowing down enough to give them time to call for a horn, then the coach will yell at you because he wanted a quick restart. You can't win.

[Snake~eyes]

One thing is it sounds like you could use your voice more instead of flagging. Like when you called a gy who hit him in the arm. Sometimes you have a player whos continually beating a kid in the arm not even trying to get stick, after the second time I might yell "get the stick" and then flag if he continues. Same case goes for the interference, "let him move white." That's what I would do in this case. And as shrek said I would have called interference instead of illegal screen.

[michaeldwilson]

One thing is it sounds like you could use your voice more instead of flagging. Like when you called a gy who hit him in the arm. Sometimes you have a player whos continually beating a kid in the arm not even trying to get stick, after the second time I might yell "get the stick" and then flag if he continues. Same case goes for the interference, "let him move white." That's what I would do in this case. And as shrek said I would have called interference instead of illegal screen.

Snake, I remember you talking about this last year, how you call a game by often using a voice instead of a flag. I have to say that I think that is really unfair to ref a game that way. If you see a foul and you don't call it, especially something like interference where you disadvantage a team, I don't think that's legal or right.

If players come close to a foul, I might say something just so they know ("watch the cross check, hands together"), especially if they are a new or young team. But if they commit a foul, no matter who they are, I think it's our duty to call it, if only as a simple matter of fairness.

Imagine if you are the coach and the ref tells you he's not going to call all fouls, just the ones he thinks he should. I imagine the coach would have a fundamental philosophical problem with that approach.

Mike

[michaeldwilson]

One more thing about today: I think I screwed up an illegal stick foul. Checking the crosses of the leading scorers, I found that one leading scorer had added too much tape to about 6 inches at the top of the shaft of his crosse so that it was 3 3/4 inches in circumference. I gave him a 1 minute non-releasable and told him to fix it and that would be fine.

I don't know if I had that kind of disgression here, though. It probably should have been a three-minute non-releasable and the stick out of the game.

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Jpettit25]

It's my understanding that any illegality(?) with the stick that can be fixed on the spot is a 1min N-R, and anything that cannot immediately be fixed gets 3.

[eme]

Compliance through cooperation and communication is preferable to compliance by coercion. To achieve the former you need to use all your tools: your physical presence and poise, flag, whistle, and, yes, your voice. At some times your voice needs to be heard by many; more often, the communication needs to be ONLY between you and the nearby players so you are avoiding the perception that you are "coaching" them.

[michaeldwilson]

Compliance through cooperation and communication is preferable to compliance by coercion. To achieve the former you need to use all your tools: your physical presence and poise, flag, whistle, and, yes, your voice. At some times your voice needs to be heard by many; more often, the communication needs to be ONLY between you and the nearby players so you are avoiding the perception that you are "coaching" them.

I guess it depends on your fundamental view of what officials are supposed to do. Is it our goal to achieve compliance, cooperation, control, safety; or is it our goal to call all fouls according to the rules of lacrosse?

I really think it's the latter, and these rules are designed -- in part -- to take care of the former. (The former is a subset of the latter.) In any other sport, all fouls are called if a ref sees them. In football, referees call offsides or pass interference every time he sees them, not just those fouls that he feels, for whatever reason, he should call at the moment to achieve a milder form of compliance.

Mike

[eme]

Let me restate my philosophy another way and try to answer your question about using your voice in a game. Our job is to make the game, in order or priority: safe, fair, and fun. To do that we use all the resources we have including flag, whistle, physical presence/positioning/personality, and our voices. Obviously, we call the fouls as we see them by the book. But a referee who ONLY uses a flag and whistle to achieve the above goals
will, in the long run, not be as effective.

[michaeldwilson]

Let me restate my philosophy another way and try to answer your question about using your voice in a game. Our job is to make the game, in order or priority: safe, fair, and fun. To do that we use all the resources we have including flag, whistle, physical presence/positioning/personality, and our voices. Obviously, we call the fouls as we see them by the book. But a referee who ONLY uses a flag and whistle to achieve the above goals
will, in the long run, not be as effective.

I think I could be persuaded to ref this way if there was a rule in the book as follows: "In the interest of fun, officials should feel free to disregard the rules of lacrosse at their discretion." Until then, I call all fouls, which are designed to be safe and fair.

If an official doesn't call the game according to the rules, he (or she) is putting himself (egotistically, I would say) above the rules that everyone has implicity agreed upon. Why should an official be above the rules? Why would he feel he has the authority to let some players break the rules and others not? I don't see the fairness in that approach.

Mike

[eme]

Let me give some examples of how a ref's presence and voice can be the most effective tool in your repertoire (the limit of my French).

NFHS rule 6-6 Art. 2 says that all other personnel (players) shall stay behind the restraining line outside the coaches area.
If, during a game, you notice early on that some players are indeed encroaching into that coaches box. By rule you could assess a technical foul. Instead, it would be more effective to politely say, "Guys, help us out here by staying in back of that line. It helps the table see the field and makes the box cleaner for us. Thanks a lot, guys." Of course, if they continue to ignore your request, you can go to another tool in your quiver (to mix a metaphor) and indeed assess a technical. But if you rigidly assess that picky technical in that situation early in the game, it's going to be a long afternoon.

Here's another one where a voice and presence can manage the game.

Two players from opposing teams go down tangled up in a clean play.
Ref takes a few steps in closer to the tangled players and says: "Easy coming up, guys. Good play. Nice job getting up. Thanks." Far better these words of warning/praise than to simply wait until someone shoves and then there's retailiation and then you have to throw a flag, etc.etc.

Thus, as can be seen, I am talking about the small, little instances where a ref's voice and presence can be helpful. I am certainly NOT talking about illegal checks or slashes or offsides or those 101 other times when you need to strictly enforce the rules as written. That's why I say: flags, whistles, voice, presence...ALL are tools. One tool alone won't do the trick. It's what makes our job so interesting.

[michaeldwilson]

Let me give some examples of how a ref's presence and voice can be the most effective tool in your repertoire (the limit of my French).

NFHS rule 6-6 Art. 2 says that all other personnel (players) shall stay behind the restraining line outside the coaches area.
If, during a game, you notice early on that some players are indeed encroaching into that coaches box. By rule you could assess a technical foul. Instead, it would be more effective to politely say, "Guys, help us out here by staying in back of that line. It helps the table see the field and makes the box cleaner for us. Thanks a lot, guys." Of course, if they continue to ignore your request, you can go to another tool in your quiver (to mix a metaphor) and indeed assess a technical. But if you rigidly assess that picky technical in that situation early in the game, it's going to be a long afternoon.

Here's another one where a voice and presence can manage the game.

Two players from opposing teams go down tangled up in a clean play.
Ref takes a few steps in closer to the tangled players and says: "Easy coming up, guys. Good play. Nice job getting up. Thanks." Far better these words of warning/praise than to simply wait until someone shoves and then there's retailiation and then you have to throw a flag, etc.etc.

Thus, as can be seen, I am talking about the small, little instances where a ref's voice and presence can be helpful. I am certainly NOT talking about illegal checks or slashes or offsides or those 101 other times when you need to strictly enforce the rules as written. That's why I say: flags, whistles, voice, presence...ALL are tools. One tool alone won't do the trick. It's what makes our job so interesting.


I agree about the warning for players getting into the coach's box. I think it's also wise to warn a coach who is arguing calls, but I can't think of any others. You?

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

Snake, I remember you talking about this last year, how you call a game by often using a voice instead of a flag. I have to say that I think that is really unfair to ref a game that way. If you see a foul and you don't call it, especially something like interference where you disadvantage a team, I don't think that's legal or right.

If players come close to a foul, I might say something just so they know ("watch the cross check, hands together"), especially if they are a new or young team. But if they commit a foul, no matter who they are, I think it's our duty to call it, if only as a simple matter of fairness.

Imagine if you are the coach and the ref tells you he's not going to call all fouls, just the ones he thinks he should. I imagine the coach would have a fundamental philosophical problem with that approach.
You totally misunderstood everything I said, I did not say to ignore fouls and just use your voice. The method I am talking about is called preventative officiating. If B1 pushes A1 in the back when A1 has the ball and no advantage is gained I might say "stay off the backs." I can tell you that coaches are not goingt o have any issue with this philosophy and I would have no problem explaining to coaches that this is how the game is going to get called.

In any other sport, all fouls are called if a ref sees them. In football, referees call offsides or pass interference every time he sees them, not just those fouls that he feels, for whatever reason, he should call at the moment to achieve a milder form of compliance.
Sorry you are wrong. Become a football official and you will learn this. For example, holding on the backside of a run play will often be ingored but the player will be warned. When a team is barely offsides we may warn them that they are close to the neutral zone before the next play instead of calling a foul.

If we call all fouls we'll be here all day, when you ref HS do you call every little bump in the back a push, even with no advantage lossed? By rule those are fouls, but we do not call everything by the book like you say we should.


I think I could be persuaded to ref this way if there was a rule in the book as follows: "In the interest of fun, officials should feel free to disregard the rules of lacrosse at their discretion." Until then, I call all fouls, which are designed to be safe and fair.
So then I guess I shouldn't tell a player to calm down, I should just keep my mouth shut until he punches someone. I shouldn't tell a coach he is out of timesouts. When two players on the wing during a faceoff are both on the line I should just blow the violation instead of telling them both to get off the line.

Just because I tell a player to control his check when he takes a swing at a player that is slightly uncontrolled doesn't mean I'm coaching. I am telling both teams the same thing, I am not telling him that he should pokecheck instead of slap or any kind of technique.

This philosophy is called managing the game and this is part of our job. You will see this in most sports.

[michaeldwilson]

You totally misunderstood everything I said, I did not say to ignore fouls and just use your voice. The method I am talking about is called preventative officiating. If B1 pushes A1 in the back when A1 has the ball and no advantage is gained I might say "stay off the backs." I can tell you that coaches are not goingt o have any issue with this philosophy and I would have no problem explaining to coaches that this is how the game is going to get called.

Let's take them one at a time. In your first scenerio, A1 is supposed to have a 30 second man advantage, but you have taken that away. Is that fair? Are there really coaches out there who understand that they have given up a man advantage because you are using preventative officiating?

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

Let's take them one at a time. In your first scenerio, A1 is supposed to have a 30 second man advantage, but you have taken that away. Is that fair? Are there really coaches out there who understand that they have given up a man advantage because you are using preventative officiating?
If they didn't understand then they would yell at me about it. I have not been yelled at for one of these no calls ever. As long as I call it both ways...


Also watch some TV(NCAA) games, who have the same slash and push rule as NFHS. You will see how they no call a lot of things that by rule are fouls.

[michaeldwilson]

If they didn't understand then they would yell at me about it. I have not been yelled at for one of these no calls ever. As long as I call it both ways...


Also watch some TV(NCAA) games, who have the same slash and push rule as NFHS. You will see how they no call a lot of things that by rule are fouls.

So it's ok not to call a possession push so long as no one complains and you do it both ways?

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

So it's ok not to call a possession push so long as no one complains and you do it both ways?
It has nothing to do with that, its called disadvantage/advantage. By rule just putting your hands on a player and nudging him is a push in the back. Is that how you call it?

[michaeldwilson]

Also watch some TV(NCAA) games, who have the same slash and push rule as NFHS. You will see how they no call a lot of things that by rule are fouls.

The guys playing college lacrosse obviously play at a much higher level than high school lacrosse. I'm sure you've seen college games live and saw how defensive men have amazing control of their long poles. They are wizards, and they don't commit a lot of fouls.

Like you, I notice they do not call the possession push when the ball handler turns his back to the defensive man, and the defensive man gives him a shove that alters his steps. But I don't see that they let anything else go (except guys in the coaches box).

I was watching the Maryland - Navy game on television and saw the refs call a slash when the defensive man missed the stick and hit the offensive guy in the stomach. It wasn't a hard foul at all, but he call it.

The guy who does the play by play (also does box lacrosse) seems completely lost when it comes to the rules.

Mike

[michaeldwilson]

It has nothing to do with that, its called disadvantage/advantage. By rule just putting your hands on a player and nudging him is a push in the back. Is that how you call it?

That's not what you said. You wrote: "If B1 pushes A1 in the back . . ."

If B1 pushes A1 in the back, you call a foul. If B1 doesn't push A1 in the back, you don't.

A nudge or a bump is not a push.

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

That's not what you said. You wrote: "If B1 pushes A1 in the back . . ."

If B1 pushes A1 in the back, you call a foul. If B1 doesn't push A1 in the back, you don't.

A nudge or a bump is not a push.
A nudge or a bump IS a push, read rule 6-7-9
"A push is exerting pressure after contact is made and is not a violent blow."

[eme]

Many times we as refs want the "rulebook to save us" in making a decision (and I'm a rule geek if there ever was one). If it says so in the rulebook, then we act as instructed by the rulebook. A black and white world. No greys. It's easier for us as refs that way. Learn the rulebook and you will be a great ref and referee great games all the time.

Unfortunately, I guess, the game often doesn't lend itself to that black-andwhite approach. And I, and Laxref and many other people working on the rules every day, try our best to make the rulebook as black and white and clear and all-encompassing as possible.

But it sometimes (not often) comes down to what Snake-Eyes has been saying: the theory of advantage/disadvantage or common sense or good judgment or people skills to make a game safe, fair, and fun for all participants.

[michaeldwilson]

Many times we as refs want the "rulebook to save us" in making a decision (and I'm a rule geek if there ever was one). If it says so in the rulebook, then we act as instructed by the rulebook. A black and white world. No greys. It's easier for us as refs that way. Learn the rulebook and you will be a great ref and referee great games all the time.

Unfortunately, I guess, the game often doesn't lend itself to that black-andwhite approach. And I, and Laxref and many other people working on the rules every day, try our best to make the rulebook as black and white and clear and all-encompassing as possible.

But it sometimes (not often) comes down to what Snake-Eyes has been saying: the theory of advantage/disadvantage or common sense or good judgment or people skills to make a game safe, fair, and fun for all participants.

Of course you use common sense, and of course the rule book doesn't cover every situation, and of course you use concept of advantage/disadvantage to call a game. Of course you warn coaches that they are out of time outs, that they are going to have to keep it in the box, &c. These are all good things.

This is obvious.

But SnakeEyes was saying he doesn't call a possession push or perhaps a slash for unsupportable reasons: "preventative officiating," the coaches don't complain, he omits the call going "both ways," the conflation of the terms "nudge," "bump," and "push."

The bottom line is that if your team doesn't get the call, the official disadvantaged your team.

On principle, I think this is an incorrect way to view officiating because it's unfair, whether you ref every day or once a year.

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

You're not saying conflicting things, you're saying you have to use advantage/disadv. but if you no call somthing then you have disadv. a team because the other team isn't penalized.

And I have already stated the reasons I pass on calls is because of advantage/disadvantage. The coaches complaining was a response to the question you asked about coaches caring.

You don't have to agree with me but in reality this is how many officials across many sports officiate. There are very few people(and yes I know some) that are known for enforcing every technicality and everything to the letter of the law. But if you want to advance to higher levels in officiating you have to learn what to call and what not to call.

[CoachRob]

I don't think there is anything wrong with "preventive" officiating, insofar as clear penalties are still getting called. If a nudge is close to a push, no clear advantage was gained, and it did not affect play, it's fine for a ref to say "Hey blue 10, that's close to a push, so go easy". At the middle school level, I view refs a on-field rules instructors because they are closest to the action and can provide a player with immediate feedback as to what they are doing wrong, etc. (I can hear the cringes at that last statement.)

Am I asking them to coach? No! But I find the best refs have a rapport with the players, and by interacting in positive ways, gain their respect. Some of my players often tell me they like a ref because he warned them what they did was close to illegal and they learned from that POSITIVE interaction. MOST kids want to play legally but don't know the rules, and by some interaction with refs at the time of the issue, they learn a better appreciation of the rules. Middle school is, in my view, an instructional league for players, and if we send them off for every minor violation, they don't get the necessary playing time, scores become lopsided, and nobody really wins.

Does a nudge=push? I don't really know, but I do think sending a kid to the box for 30 seconds when he was trying to play the game does not advance his playing skills, IMO.

But a penalty that disadvantages an opponent should be called, and there's nothing wrong with a ref saying "Hey 10, that was a push because I saw the attacker lurch backward" as he runs to the table to signal the foul. Penalty called, lesson taught, game goes on. Everybody wins.

One of our best refs (Tim) was doing our "B" game, and during the FO, he was showing our player how to properly line up his stick. Rather than calling a technical foul and awarding the ball, our kid was reminded at the scene what he was doing wrong, and got to have a real face off. Nobody complained, and the opponent also got a FO under his belt. How could that be viewed negatively?

Now, go ahead and bash CoachRob for thinking most kids want to play and don't want to commit fouls. It's just how I see it. And yes, I know refs aren't paid to coach. But a little positive interaction goes a long way. If all they ever hear from a ref is negatives, they tend to view refs in a negative manner, and that's not good either.

[michaeldwilson]

But a penalty that disadvantages an opponent should be called, and there's nothing wrong with a ref saying "Hey 10, that was a push because I saw the attacker lurch backward" as he runs to the table to signal the foul. Penalty called, lesson taught, game goes on. Everybody wins.

Exactly.

m.

[laxref39]

Michael D, I think you open yourself up to more problems than you need. Call everything that could be a slash,hold,push or interference and you will have more whistles than a 4th grade girls game! Officiate advantage/disadvantage and determine if the player is really disadvantaged(by the way the same can be applied on percieved wards, officiate the game the same for both teams and don't over officiate. The same coach who is asking for the slash call when he is the offended team is the same guy who gets upset at the identical call when it goes against him! :thumbsup:

[michaeldwilson]

Michael D, I think you open yourself up to more problems than you need. Call everything that could be a slash,hold,push or interference and you will have more whistles than a 4th grade girls game! Officiate advantage/disadvantage and determine if the player is really disadvantaged(by the way the same can be applied on percieved wards, officiate the game the same for both teams and don't over officiate. The same coach who is asking for the slash call when he is the offended team is the same guy who gets upset at the identical call when it goes against him! :thumbsup:

Not the case.

Snakeeyes has tried to paint me as someone who over-officiates. I don't. (I also give congrats to players and explain rules to them, &c.) I don't call a nudge or a bump because those are not pushes on a lacrosse field. I don't call a poke check that misses and pokes the arm, but I will call it if the defensive player winds up and hits the guy in the arm.

In other words, I don't let a possession push or a slash go so I can do a little coaching and gain the love, admiration, and respect of the lacrosse world. That's someone else's job.

Mike

[Snake~eyes]

Not the case.

Snakeeyes has tried to paint me as someone who over-officiates.
Don't blame me, I didn't paint you as anything, you painted yourself as someone who over-officiates.

In other words, I don't let a possession push or a slash go so I can do a little coaching and gain the love, admiration, and respect of the lacrosse world. That's someone else's job.
Now who's doing the painting?

Again its not coaching. And secondly I'm not sure how that is trying to "gain the love, admiration, and respect of the lacrosse world." As an official I don't care what people think about me, I'm not trying to gain anything from them, I am just giving two teams a fair and safe game. That's all it comes down to.

[CoachRob]

Now guys, we ALL paint at times, and Snake has my respect and admiration (love I save for my kids, sorry Snake).

I don't think anybody is painting anybody any color at all here. Just a difference of opinion. Time to move on to the next topic...

[michaeldwilson]

Now guys, we ALL paint at times, and Snake has my respect and admiration (love I save for my kids, sorry Snake).

I don't think anybody is painting anybody any color at all here. Just a difference of opinion. Time to move on to the next topic...

Now this is good officiating.

Mike

[LaxRef]

Sorry to jump in so late. I was in the midst of moving, then I had trouble getting my internet connection up at the new house.

1) Player A1 had his back to me with the ball. Defensive player B2 checked his crosse and A1 went down, holding his throat. I didn't see the foul, so I didn't drop a flag. What do you do in this situation? Clearly, A1 had been fouled by all evidence, but I didn't call it because I didn't see it. What do you do?

As others have said, you can't call it if you don't see it.

2) I don't call your basic poke and slap checks that might miss the stick and hit the offensive player on the arm. But the defensive player wound up pretty well and hit the offensive guy with the ball on the arm. I threw a flag for a slash. Do you do the same?

Yes.

3) I actually called a moving screen on an off-ball screen. Away from the ball, team A was trying to get a cutter free. As A1 moved around his teammate A2, the teammate A2 moved in the path of defensive man B1 who was guarding A1. I wonder if I was being too picky calling that one.

Sure, I'd call it. Nothing says the screen needs to be for the guy with the ball.

4) One of the things that kind of bugged me today was the late substitution horn on the dead ball. I would prefer the horn to blow right away after the dead ball, but I think the coaches were both asking for a horn after the dead ball, instead of asking the timekeeper to blow the horn at the next dead ball. Has this happened to you? Do you care? Do you do anything about it?

I don't know what everyone else does, but on a sideline out of bounds I put the hand up, point direction, put both hands up, and then click my timer and pump. If they wait 5 seconds and then call for a horn, then they only have 15 seconds left. It's not my fault they didn't call for the horn right away.

Someone mentioned something about the coach being mad because he didn't get a quick restart. He's not entitled to one on a sideline out of bounds in the same way he is on a technical turnover, since in principle the other coach has the right to call for a horn every time and take 20 seconds to sub.

OTOH, if there's a technical turnover and team A has the ball and is ready to go and team B is disorganized, Coach A is going to be hacked if he doesn't get his quick whistle. Of course, there are times when we can't give them the quick whistle--trying to get something straightened out, whatever--but we should be trying to get a quick whistle in those situations.

On the topic of talking to the players, I think there's a place for it. If it's an obvious slash, you call it. If it's one that you're going to let go anyway, I think there's merit in telling the player he's close to getting a foul.

As to the "push vs. nudge in the back," a nudge can be called a push, but there's no way I'll flag it unless the player in possession is disadvantaged by the nudge. A push in the back can push you into the crease or offsides or out of bounds; that disadvantages the offensive player and must be flagged. The same push in the open field during a clear might actually help the "offended" player run faster down the field, so no flag.

[michaeldwilson]

Sorry to jump in so late. I was in the midst of moving, then I had trouble getting my internet connection up at the new house.



As others have said, you can't call it if you don't see it.



Yes.



Sure, I'd call it. Nothing says the screen needs to be for the guy with the ball.



I don't know what everyone else does, but on a sideline out of bounds I put the hand up, point direction, put both hands up, and then click my timer and pump. If they wait 5 seconds and then call for a horn, then they only have 15 seconds left. It's not my fault they didn't call for the horn right away.

Someone mentioned something about the coach being mad because he didn't get a quick restart. He's not entitled to one on a sideline out of bounds in the same way he is on a technical turnover, since in principle the other coach has the right to call for a horn every time and take 20 seconds to sub.

OTOH, if there's a technical turnover and team A has the ball and is ready to go and team B is disorganized, Coach A is going to be hacked if he doesn't get his quick whistle. Of course, there are times when we can't give them the quick whistle--trying to get something straightened out, whatever--but we should be trying to get a quick whistle in those situations.

On the topic of talking to the players, I think there's a place for it. If it's an obvious slash, you call it. If it's one that you're going to let go anyway, I think there's merit in telling the player he's close to getting a foul.

As to the "push vs. nudge in the back," a nudge can be called a push, but there's no way I'll flag it unless the player in possession is disadvantaged by the nudge. A push in the back can push you into the crease or offsides or out of bounds; that disadvantages the offensive player and must be flagged. The same push in the open field during a clear might actually help the "offended" player run faster down the field, so no flag.


Thanks, LaxRef. This is how I'll do it next time.

Mike