Important Announcement

[Snake~eyes]

LaxRef, CoachRob and myself have decided we will jointly run for the NFHS Lacrosse rules comittee. Although I haven't told LaxRef or CoachRob about our decision....


Prepare for a few rule changes and a couple pages of editorial changes!! :read:

Some of the changes:
1) Equipment penalties, every equipment violation is a penalty. Reasoning: Cleats were previously no penalty, to make it easier on officials we will penalize 1:00 for all violations. Maximum equipment penalty a player can recieve is 1:00 + crosse violations.
2) Clean up simultaenous fouls, CoachRob has volunteered since this is his favorite rule. Also cleaning up 7-4-2 Reasoning: has caused too much confusion
3) Clarifying stick penalties, ball getting lodged in stick. Reasoning: Although it is clear this is a 3:00 penalty many officials penalize 1:00
4) Write an official Mechanics manual for 2006 season Reasoning: Most other sports have a mechanics manual. Also we will need more money to afford CoachRob's spending habbits.
5) Add elasticity clause, allowing referee to make decisions on anything not specifically covered in the book. Reasoning: There are things which just simiply aren't covered, these type of rules exist in other sports.
6) Add a flagarant unsportsmanlike conduct penalty allowing officials to eject on the first act. Reasoning: Currently there are only a couple reasons an official may eject a player for first USC by rule, there are many other scenarios a player may need to be ejected on the first USC.

And next years point of emphasis
1) 10 second counts
2) Rough Play
3) Sportsmanship (taunting + profanity)
4) Equipment (Mouthpieces)

[zebra618]

I would be happy to help in any way - edit, review, etc.

[ploaref]

LaxRef, CoachRob and myself have decided we will jointly run for the NFHS Lacrosse rules comittee. Although I haven't told LaxRef or CoachRob about our decision....

did you mean to say run "from" or run "for"?? :chuckle:

But seriously, aren't we still trying to get this SOC thing off the ground? Now that the seaosn is pretty well over, what's the status of that effort??

[LaxRef]

did you mean to say run "from" or run "for"?? :chuckle:

But seriously, aren't we still trying to get this SOC thing off the ground? Now that the seaosn is pretty well over, what's the status of that effort??

I have to edit the proposed by-laws. We have playoffs starting today and going for about the next week and a half, so I hope to get to it soon. I'm trying to get my NFHS rules proposals together right now since there's a hard deadline there.

[CoachRob]

2) Clean up simultaenous fouls. CoachRob has volunteered since this is his favorite rule. Also cleaning up 7-4-2 Reasoning: has caused too much confusion.

It's SO confusing that you wrote it bass-ackwards. It's 7-2-4, not 7-4-2. This PROVES my point we need to get rid of this darned thing.

As for SF's, NOBODY can adequately clean this rule up. It, too, needs to go the way of the passenger pigeon (that is, extinct!). Adding a comma isn't enough to fix the first sentence of 7-6 as has been discussed at length.

BTW: We need a penalty shot in lax. I know when I proposed this last year I was torn to pieces. But with five seconds left, our player had a wide open shot and the defender PURPOSELY slashed him wickedly, preventing a shot. There NEEDS to be something more severe than a 1 minute penalty when there are five seconds left. A penalty shot will serve that purpose. Apply it ONLY for flagrant violations with under 1 minute remaining and the ball in the attacking goal box. I'm sure the details can be worked out by our ad-hoc NFHS committee of LR, Snake, and myself.

[Snake~eyes]

Or maybe, the game cannot be ended until all penalty time is up? That sounds kind of interesting, thoughts?

[Snake~eyes]

PS How do you guys like the POEs?

[LaxRef]

Or maybe, the game cannot be ended until all penalty time is up? That sounds kind of interesting, thoughts?
You run the risk of the game being extended indefinitely as teams keep fouling and penalties keep overlapping. If you did something like that, you'd certainly have to say "The game cannot end until the penalty time for the team in the lead expires."

You're showing your football background with this proposal. I'm referring, of course, to the "The game cannot end on a penalty by either team" rule from NFHS football, which is very different from the NFL rule more people are familiar with. The NFHS rule creates a problem:

Team A trails by 2 with the ball on team B's 30. There are 2 seconds left, and it's first down and 10. QB A1 runs down the field and is about to be tackled at the 10, so he throws the ball into the endzone for a TD. Team B has the option of declining the penalty (and losing the game by 4, since then the TD will stand) or accepting the penalty and giving Team A a shot at a game-winning field goal.

As to CoachRob's penalty shot proposal, it sounds good in theory, but they can't get most officials to call a cross-check hold or a faceoff violation. How are you going to get them to call a penalty shot?

[Lacrosse Ref LA]

If we could write an expanded NFHS Rulebook that would be very helpful. So many things are not explicitly explained and are left to experience and are sometimes mistakenly applied. A lot more A.R. 's would also help. As I have seen there is a lot of confusion on certain sections. Thanks

[Snake~eyes]

You run the risk of the game being extended indefinitely as teams keep fouling and penalties keep overlapping. If you did something like that, you'd certainly have to say "The game cannot end until the penalty time for the team in the lead expires."

You're showing your football background with this proposal. I'm referring, of course, to the "The game cannot end on a penalty by either team" rule from NFHS football, which is very different from the NFL rule more people are familiar with. The NFHS rule creates a problem:

Team A trails by 2 with the ball on team B's 30. There are 2 seconds left, and it's first down and 10. QB A1 runs down the field and is about to be tackled at the 10, so he throws the ball into the endzone for a TD. Team B has the option of declining the penalty (and losing the game by 4, since then the TD will stand) or accepting the penalty and giving Team A a shot at a game-winning field goal.

As to CoachRob's penalty shot proposal, it sounds good in theory, but they can't get most officials to call a cross-check hold or a faceoff violation. How are you going to get them to call a penalty shot?
Oops, definitely an obvious flaw that I cited.

PS, in the play you desribed it would not be replayed for 2005
New Rulechange: 3-3-4 NEW: A period shall not be extended when a foul occurs that specifies a loss of down.

[Lax-Umpire]

Coach Rob - we have a penalty shot in LAX!! :chuckle:

Woman's 8 meter shot for major fouls within the 8 meter. Something to use as an example on the men's side?

[LaxRef]

Oops, definitely an obvious flaw that I cited.

PS, in the play you desribed it would not be replayed for 2005
New Rulechange: 3-3-4 NEW: A period shall not be extended when a foul occurs that specifies a loss of down.

I'm glad they finally fixed that!

[CoachRob]

Coach Rob - we have a penalty shot in LAX!! :chuckle:

Woman's 8 meter shot for major fouls within the 8 meter. Something to use as an example on the men's side?

We need it in mens lax, don't you think?

[Shorelax]

It's SO confusing that you wrote it bass-ackwards. It's 7-2-4, not 7-4-2. This PROVES my point we need to get rid of this darned thing.

As for SF's, NOBODY can adequately clean this rule up. It, too, needs to go the way of the passenger pigeon (that is, extinct!). Adding a comma isn't enough to fix the first sentence of 7-6 as has been discussed at length.

BTW: We need a penalty shot in lax. I know when I proposed this last year I was torn to pieces. But with five seconds left, our player had a wide open shot and the defender PURPOSELY slashed him wickedly, preventing a shot. There NEEDS to be something more severe than a 1 minute penalty when there are five seconds left. A penalty shot will serve that purpose. Apply it ONLY for flagrant violations with under 1 minute remaining and the ball in the attacking goal box. I'm sure the details can be worked out by our ad-hoc NFHS committee of LR, Snake, and myself.

I do not like the idea of a penalty shot in men’s lax. I would suggest increasing the scope of the ejection foul and an official’s ability to eject players for seriously flagrant personal fouls.

I believe this has been brought up before??

[tjslax]

I do not like the idea of a penalty shot in men’s lax. I would suggest increasing the scope of the ejection foul and an official’s ability to eject players for seriously flagrant personal fouls.

I believe this has been brought up before??

There was some brief side discussion on ejection fouls at our assoc. meeting here in Vermont. I would agree that the scope of the ejection foul should be increased. But I also feel that the suspension time following the ejection should also addressed (one game suspensions should be an option). This may be an issue for the states to address themselves but...

For example, the vicious check to stop the goal at the end of the game. Instead of a USC or longer (time serving) slash call; an ejection USC-even if it only his first USC, with a one game suspension.

But in the end I am against penalty shots.

[CoachRob]

Ejecting a player for the FOLLOWING game does nothing to remedy the situation against the CURRENT opponent. It seems unfair to the team that is fouled. You cannot disagree with that.

What other remedy do you suggest? Three seconds left, down by a goal, wide open shot, flagrant foul prevents the goal AND moves the restart outside the box. They win the game on the basis of a violent foul? Come on now, we need something better than that, don't we? It actually happened to our team and left a very sour taste in my mouth.
:dummy: :banghead:

[tjslax]

I agree with you (this would not benefit the team that was directly fouled)CR, the idea of the suspension would be to deter the penalty from ever happening.

I am sorry that I don't agree with the penalty shot idea, I would call it by the letter of the rule if it were instituted but I just don't like it. (I also don't like the 2-point shot idea in the pro's)

[Shorelax]

I think tjslax has a good point...the ejection/suspension should deter this behavior from happening.

I dont think a penalty shot would do this.

Penalty shot vs. missing a game.

I'm sorry your team came up on the short end of the stick.

How do you know the kid did it specifically to "stop the goal" at the end of the game?? The kid could have been playing hard at the end of a close game and made a mistake. Adrenaline/Emotions can run high during these situations.

If the kid did in fact slash your player to "stop the goal" and you can provie it...I would suggest a letter to the schools, AD and your league commish.

[Snake~eyes]

Well penalty shot is never going to happen.

Although in football there is a rule which allows the referee to award a score for a penalty.

Example: A1 is running from the 20 with no one around in a very close game with seconds left in the 4th quarter. B1 comes off the bench and tackles A1 at the 10 yard line. In this scenario you may award points to team A.


Would be interesting, good for when the goalie pulls the goal over his head. But just like in football, never really used.

PS I have never had a close game where a player comitted an illegal act to prevent a score.

[LaxRef]

PS I have never had a close game where a player comitted an illegal act to prevent a score.

Neither have I, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have a rule to deal with it when it inevitably happens.

I have seen the cheap shot with little or no time left that I thought warranted an ejection.

[Snake~eyes]

Neither have I, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have a rule to deal with it when it inevitably happens.

I have seen the cheap shot with little or no time left that I thought warranted an ejection.
I'm not saying that just because I haven't seen it means there shouldn't be a rule. There should definitely be somthing in place to make this equitable.

I like the idea that all penalties by the team that is UP have to be finished out but I'm not so sure that's totally fair.

[LaxRef]

I'm not saying that just because I haven't seen it means there shouldn't be a rule. There should definitely be somthing in place to make this equitable.

I like the idea that all penalties by the team that is UP have to be finished out but I'm not so sure that's totally fair.

And you can run into silly situations like Team A leads by 20 and team B coach calls for a stick check and there's a 3:00 NR penalty on team A; it's not enough time to make a difference.

I think this is a problem that's not easy to fix without breaking something else.

[Snake~eyes]

And you can run into silly situations like Team A leads by 20 and team B coach calls for a stick check and there's a 3:00 NR penalty on team A; it's not enough time to make a difference.

I think this is a problem that's not easy to fix without breaking something else.
Maybe but if that situation happens then Team B is entitled to his 3 extra minutes(running time of course). PS I didn't have a single stick check request in HS this year (just saying, I bet we see it more next year due to the Georgetown/MD game).

[LaxRef]

I didn't have a single stick check request in HS this year (just saying, I bet we see it more next year due to the Georgetown/MD game).

Like I said in another thread, a couple of people started caling for them and the idea has spread like wildfire. If there ever was a "gentlemen's agreement" to not call for them, it's out the window now.

[Snake~eyes]

Like I said in another thread, a couple of people started caling for them and the idea has spread like wildfire. If there ever was a "gentlemen's agreement" to not call for them, it's out the window now.
Gotcha, well it hasn't spread in my area....yet.

I think its a good idea, because I have found tons of illegal sticks this year, seems to me much worse than last year.