face-off or award ball?

[old geezer]

This is for NCAA rules, not Federation. The rules book has a conflicting( no surprise to those of us who have read this book over the years) interpretation on what to do in the following situation. The COC newsletter of 3/10/05 adds a Note 4 to Rule 4-3. The newsletter says in regard to 'Rule 4-3 Add Note 4: “In the event of a flag-down that creates an all-even situation at the conclusion of any period, the next period will begin with a faceoff.” '
However, on page 83 under slow-whistle enforcement rule 7-9, 3rd paragraph states: In all cases when a goal is not scored, the ball is awarded to the team fouled (the attacking team), at the spot where the ball was when play was suspended.

So now, here's the scenario: Team A is man-up for 1 minute with 23 seconds left in the quarter. They work the ball for a good shot and take the wide open shot with the goalie making a save with 7 seconds left. He then outlet passes to a middie who gets fouled, the official throws the flag, and the quarter ends. The penalty is assessed against the riding team and we now have 5 v 5 to start the next quarter.

If you go by the COC newsletter addition, you have now taken the ball away from the fouled team and have rewarded the fouling team by ruling a face-off shall take place to start the next quarter because we are 5 v 5. This is the only time that the NCAA rules committee has ignored the fouled team's right to possession of the ball to start the next quarter without subsequent fouls occurring. In my opinion, this makes absolutely no sense.

Can somebody please make sense of this?

[LaxRef]

First of all, welcome aboard.

Secondly, we've discussed this here before and never really came to a conclusion. The relevant rules principle is that the specific rule trumps the general rule, so one would have to conclude that the note to rule 4-3 trumps the general comment in Rule 7-9. I agree, though, that something is rotten in Denmark.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that team A has been rewarded for their foul in your scenario. It's true that team B will have to face off instead of maintaining possession, but they will no longer be man down and will have some man-up time coming.

I'd like to see the rule just say that if the period ends with anyone in the box at all, or anyone heading there, possession carries over.

[old geezer]

If your counterpoint is that the fouling team does not gain an advantage, then why would you give the ball to any team that is man down but has possession at the end of a quarter. Why not make them face it off since they would not have the advantage? And it is not necessarily true that the offended team will have some man advantage coming. If the fouling team has a superior face-off guy who controls the ensuing face-off and the penalties were such that the times expired at essentially the same time, your point is without support.

And now you are denying the clearing team any opportunity to get the ball to X and kill their penalty time. And to suppose that a team cannot score being man-down is not supported by the past. I saw a game this year where a team that was 2 men down cleared the ball and scored.

And with your last statement, I think that you are trying to say that the last team fouled should retain possession. If you are saying that, then I agree with you.

[LaxRef]

If your counterpoint is that the fouling team does not gain an advantage, then why would you give the ball to any team that is man down but has possession at the end of a quarter. Why not make them face it off since they would not have the advantage? And it is not necessarily true that the offended team will have some man advantage coming. If the fouling team has a superior face-off guy who controls the ensuing face-off and the penalties were such that the times expired at essentially the same time, your point is without support.

They will still have man advantage (assuming the foul was personal; I see now that the timing works out so there will be no man advantage if it's a time-serving technical); they just might not have possession.

And now you are denying the clearing team any opportunity to get the ball to X and kill their penalty time. And to suppose that a team cannot score being man-down is not supported by the past. I saw a game this year where a team that was 2 men down cleared the ball and scored.

I'm certainly not saying that a man-down team can't score.

My only point here is that it's a little extreme to say that the fouling team gets rewarded for the foul. Before the foul, team B was going to have possession and be man down for about 37 seconds. After the foul they'll be even for thirty seconds and then man-down for 7 seconds (or even for 37 seconds and man-up for 23 seconds), but they'll have to face off.

I don't think losing the man advantage and possibly going man-down is a reward. I do agree that team B should (according to reason, not necessarily the rules) get the ball.

And with your last statement, I think that you are trying to say that the last team fouled should retain possession. If you are saying that, then I agree with you.

I believe that the last team fouled should maintain possession even if the period ends all even. I believe that the team in possession at the end of a period when anyone is in the box should maintain possession. Otherwise, get rid of the whole rule and start every period with a faceoff (which, of course, encourages fouling at the end of every period).

[old geezer]

I am speaking as a coach, anytime that I have the ball, it is to my advantage, man down or not; anytime that I don't have the ball, it is to my disadvantage, whether I am man-down, even or man-up. The paramount rule of lacrosse is to possess the ball. I have heard coach after coach after coach preach 'possess the ball', if you possess the ball, you can score and they can't. I would dare say that any coach around would rather have the chance at starting with possession of the ball rather than facing off, albeit 6v6, 5v5, 5v6, 4v6, regardless of the situation, possession means everything.

If my team's face-off guy is not as good as theirs and their FOGO wins, they have been rewarded for fouling my team. There are coaches out there who will use the rules for any little advantage that they can get and this is potentially one of them.

[LaxRef]

I am speaking as a coach, anytime that I have the ball, it is to my advantage, man down or not; anytime that I don't have the ball, it is to my disadvantage, whether I am man-down, even or man-up. The paramount rule of lacrosse is to possess the ball. I have heard coach after coach after coach preach 'possess the ball', if you possess the ball, you can score and they can't. I would dare say that any coach around would rather have the chance at starting with possession of the ball rather than facing off, albeit 6v6, 5v5, 5v6, 4v6, regardless of the situation, possession means everything.

I guess I can understand that. Some of this may depend on the level of ball; at lower levels, the ball turnos over so often that the man advantage may be more significant than the possession.

If my team's face-off guy is not as good as theirs and their FOGO wins, they have been rewarded for fouling my team. There are coaches out there who will use the rules for any little advantage that they can get and this is potentially one of them.

True. You weren't around when we discussed this one:

A1, A2, A3 and A4 commit slashes on the same live-ball play. Instead of earning one goal on his 1:00 4-man advantage, coach B tells B1 to go slash someone during the dead ball. Now B1 sits for 1:00, but since the fouls are on opposing teams, 7-2-d kicks in and now ALL of the penalties are NR. So instead of a 4-man advantage for however long it takes to score one goal, B gets a 3-man advantage for a full minute.

[old geezer]

I can see your point on lower level games, but as I wrote originally, this was NCAA rules, and I was alluding to, but didn't spell it out, a higher level of play. I know funky things can go wrong with youth level games.

In regard to the 4 slashes vs. 1 slash, I think that I would have interpreted that as fighting as the player was instructed by his coach and it was not a reactionary slash but instead a premeditated strike, ejected the player, given a 3:00 penalty and if I could prove that the coach instigated the actions of his player, I would have deemed that to be flagrant misconduct and ejected him also. So now we would be 4 v 2 for 1:00 and 4 v 6 for 2:00. I would certainly hope that the game has not degredated itself to that level.

[LaxRef]

I can see your point on lower level games, but as I wrote originally, this was NCAA rules, and I was alluding to, but didn't spell it out, a higher level of play. I know funky things can go wrong with youth level games.

Yeah, I guess I've done a lot of HS games under NCAA rules.

In regard to the 4 slashes vs. 1 slash, I think that I would have interpreted that as fighting as the player was instructed by his coach and it was not a reactionary slash but instead a premeditated strike, ejected the player, given a 3:00 penalty and if I could prove that the coach instigated the actions of his player, I would have deemed that to be flagrant misconduct and ejected him also. So now we would be 4 v 2 for 1:00 and 4 v 6 for 2:00. I would certainly hope that the game has not degredated itself to that level.

Yeah, I don't think the coach would say it so you could hear it. Or he might just get a USC intentionally. Although I doubt too many people have done this, it would be nice to close this loophole.

[old geezer]

I agree about the loopholes. Even though it is not as bad as it was, say 20 years ago, the NCAA rules book is still a poorly written book. I have suggested in the past that the best thing that the rules committee could do would be to give the rules book to 3-4 old war horse officials who know the rules, and the ARs, and the contradictions and allow the officials to point out the errors so that the rules committee could correct them. And I would also like for the rules committee to make their new rules suggestions, then give it to the old war horses for their review. The committee could go play golf for a day or two, let the officials review it and note contradicting applications of the rules, and then come back and make the new rules without the contradictions elsewhere in the book. Hopefully then we wouldn't have this problem.