Good reason for the new USC rewrite

[laxfan25]

I just returned from a first-round HS playoff game. Good game in the first half, with the better team up 4-2, but the other team playing well, and we were able to let them play a little bit. (Interesting side note - 1st qtr stick check - I call the guy who had scored the lone goal for the lesser team and get a Hans Wittlesberger. My partner was trying to lobby for 1 minute, after my day in this forum today, I made sure it was 3! The coach is then saying "but you checked that stick before the game!" I said it may have been legal then, but it's not now - and I'm not even sure it's the same stick.)
Second half the better team starts to pull away, and it gets chippy. we started running guys into the box, and escalated to giving out USC's for a hard slash to the head, a cross-check to the back of another guys head, in order to gain control again. After about six of these, with about 8 minutes remaining, we called the captains together during a dead ball and laid the law down - that there was no reason that we had to complete the game, that we would just call it if they didn't get there teams under control. Had them shake hands, and the rest of the game was finished smoothly, with no more penalties. A good example of preventive officiating, and using your powers to bring the captains together to get them helping out.
The point though is that under the "rules", we really didn't have the authority to make some of our personal fouls USC's, but it helped drive home our seriousness about the situation, and none of the coaches complained. I heartily endorse the suggestion that flagrant misconduct be added to the list. This was a prime example of where it would be useful.

[rilax]

Well you can call anything USC via 5-9-3 “… or any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials.” Think what more people are having problems with is the expulsion foul rule. Basically you need two USCs or a fight to eject some one and it would be nice if language said “or any flagrant violation of 7-9-1,2, or 3.”

[LaxRef]

Agreed. What we don't technically have the power to do is to take, say, a bad slash, call it a slash, but make it NR. If you want it to be NR, you need to call it USC.

[laxfan25]

That's what we ended up doing, just calling them USC's. I didn't realize we had the "other act" clause. My bad, but it came in handy!

[LaxRef]

Yeah, I had one NFHS game this season where, away from the ball, A1 hooked B1 over the shoulder with his long pole (so the stick went from over his shoulder all the way to the ground) and then drove him into the turf. I threw the flag for a USC, and before it landed A1 got up and cross-checked B1 in the back for a second USC and an ejection. I could have called them an illegal body check and a cross check, but the USCs were the right call.

[gfink]

When you use the USC fouls for body contact fouls( slashing, body check...) you are circumventing the rules for fouling out of the game. Five personals versus two USC nonreleasables. Really, what personal foul is not unsportsmanlike. Might seem like the right thing to do, is even easier to officiate this way, but it is not the intended use of this call.

[old geezer]

Over the years when I have encountered games getting out of hand, I have just lengthened the time of the penalty from 1 minute to 2 minutes. It seems to draw the attention of both teams when you go from 1 to 2 minutes on a penalty. While the fouling player is released whenever the opponent scores, it just seems to make him aware that his actions will not be tolerated. And in case the man-down defense is good, it makes the D play man-down for up to two minutes, which also seems to make them straighten up. I agree with the other posters who write that the USC is not what we are authorized to do, and that is why I just lengthen the penalty time.

[LaxRef]

When you use the USC fouls for body contact fouls( slashing, body check...) you are circumventing the rules for fouling out of the game. Five personals versus two USC nonreleasables. Really, what personal foul is not unsportsmanlike. Might seem like the right thing to do, is even easier to officiate this way, but it is not the intended use of this call.

There is a difference between

(1) trying to check someone's stick, missing, and hitting the helmet

and

(2) running up behind an unsuspecting person (who may or may not have the ball) and intentionally striking their head with your crosse.

If you can't see that one is a slash and one is a USC, I just don't know what to say. But in any case, the phrase “… or any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" certainly gives my the right to call 2 as a USC if I think it warrants USC.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should say, "Wow, that was a little harder slash than usual, so I'll call it USC to make it NR." I think we're saying that sometimes players commit palpably unfair or dangerous acts which warrant a much stiffer penalty.

Other examples:

A dead ball body check from behind, full force, 3 seconds after the whistle.

Any personal foul that, in the officials' judgment, is intentional.

[Snake~eyes]

There is a difference between

(1) trying to check someone's stick, missing, and hitting the helmet

and

(2) running up behind an unsuspecting person (who may or may not have the ball) and intentionally striking their head with your crosse.

If you can't see that one is a slash and one is a USC, I just don't know what to say. But in any case, the phrase “… or any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" certainly gives my the right to call 2 as a USC if I think it warrants USC.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should say, "Wow, that was a little harder slash than usual, so I'll call it USC to make it NR." I think we're saying that sometimes players commit palpably unfair or dangerous acts which warrant a much stiffer penalty.

Other examples:

A dead ball body check from behind, full force, 3 seconds after the whistle.

Any personal foul that, in the officials' judgment, is intentional.
And case #2 would be a good time to eject a player, this is why we need the modification.

[laxfan25]

In my mind, it's kind of like the old definition of obscenity - "I'll know it when I see it!" I have many years of experience in the game, know what I consider normal penalties, and what is WAY over the line. Last night, we had some plays that merited that designation, I think when you address the table and benches and announce Unsportsmanlike Conduct - No Release - it gets more attention than just lenghtening the penalty, which I have also done on occasion for a more severe foul. I also let the coaches know that a second USC will be cause for ejection and removal from the next game. given that this was a playoff game, they took it seriously.

[Snake~eyes]

I don't think anyone is saying that we should say, "Wow, that was a little harder slash than usual, so I'll call it USC to make it NR." I think we're saying that sometimes players commit palpably unfair or dangerous acts which warrant a much stiffer penalty.
Exactly, its all about intent.

[gfink]

I agree with your reasoning for calling USC. But if we are to consider a rule change, i would rather leave USC out of body contact fouls. I think it would be nice to have the option of making illegal body checks and Uneccesary roughness non-releasable in the most severe cases. As for case #2, the slashing rule covers "deliberate vicousness and reckless abandon".

[LaxRef]

I agree with your reasoning for calling USC. But if we are to consider a rule change, i would rather leave USC out of body contact fouls. I think it would be nice to have the option of making illegal body checks and Uneccesary roughness non-releasable in the most severe cases. As for case #2, the slashing rule covers "deliberate vicousness and reckless abandon".

Deliberate viciousness is very different from deliberately attacking someone with your crosse.

Let me ask you this: Ball is on A's offensive end. If you saw defenseman A1 sneak up behind attackman B1 on the other end of the field and tomahawk chop him in the head, do you really see that as warranting the same 1:00-3:00 releasable slash penalty as someone who is trying to hit the crosse and misses, hitting the head?

To me, the first is clearly an unsportsmanlike act. It doesn't matter that it's also a slash.

Similarly: A1 slashes B1 during a live-ball play, flag down. B1 is mad because he got slashed, goes after A1 and slashes him. I likely have a 1:00 slash and a 1:00 USC. The difference is intent: one guy is playing the ball, the other guy's only intent is to hurt the other guy because he's mad at him.

Anyway, if you step on the crosse, you can call holding or interference, since it's covered by each of those rules. Similarly, in these cases I'm describing, you can call slashing or USC. I'll be calling USC, as will most people.

And, in fact, I'm doing it in part because of the fact that they get ejected for two USCs, not in spite of it. People wo are on the lacrosse field trying to injure people are, IMO, worse than the people who mouth off, and we have no trouble giving the latter their two USCs and an "Off you go!" At least I don't.

[laxfan25]

If you take body contact fouls out of the realm of being USC, what are you left with? Kicking the guys crosse acrosse midfield if he happens to drop it? The cheapest of cheap shots are those that occur with the stick in the hand (say a butt end to the balls), a vicious intentionial cross-check to the head, or the reckless use of the human body as a missile. Earlier you spoke of circumventing the rules. I'd rather not wait for someone to rack up 5 of those offenses if that is how they are inclined - two shots is enough. Players like that ruin the game for everyone else, they cause retaliatory action, incite the coaches, benches and fans, not to mention the safety aspect! All that said, it doesn't happen very often at all, and when I see a foul that just raises my hackles, I'll still use the USC, and if necessary, make it 2 or 3 minutes. It doesn't just have to be an illegal stick to get the death penalty. In fact, oftentimes the severe foul makes that look puny. Just my righteous sense of indignation working here!

[LaxRef]

It doesn't just have to be an illegal stick to get the death penalty. In fact, oftentimes the severe foul makes that look puny.


I don't think you were saying it was, but an illegal crosse is NOT as USC foul, even though it's nonreleasable, nor are illegal equipment fouls. I just like to point that out whenever possible because it's a common misconception.

[CoachRob]

To me, a USC for behavior is sometimes not warranted. I do believe there should be some leeway for USC, as LaxRef points out, for body contact with intent.

While we are free to eject A3 for mouthing off to a referee twice, why not the same result for A3 purposely slashing B2 with malicious intent? To me it gets down to safety. It never made sense to me that we protect the refs from VERBAL abuse, but not players from PHYSICAL abuse, with a USC option. While personal fouls can escalate to 3 minutes, I don't think it gets the point across as strongly as USC, and that's why USC is in the rules AFAICT.

I'd give up my verbal protection for the player's physical protection, and I'm sure any referee would as well. I would think gfink and others agree that player safety is critical to the health and growth of lacrosse. It is one of the reasons I feel my son is better off playing lax than football. Better control of contact with more swift punishment, at least IMO.

This is no doubt a complicated matter, but at least for now, we seem to be protecting official's more than players, and that cannot be good for the sport which I have grown to love.

[laxfan25]

I don't think you were saying it was, but an illegal crosse is NOT as USC foul, even though it's nonreleasable, nor are illegal equipment fouls. I just like to point that out whenever possible because it's a common misconception.
You're correct, I was just comparing the difference in severity of the penalty for a stick that is an 1/8" too narrow to what players often receive for much more dangerous activity.
As CoachRob points out below, is somebody saying Sh*t after a bad pass really worth 1 min NR vs someone leveling another player from the rear, which often just gets the 30 sec push, or even worse, the guy coughs up the ball on the hit and the ref says loose ball, push. Gee, thanks for giving me the ball back, now how about my spleen!

[EdT]

After listening to this discussion, I have to agree with gfink that officials shouldn't change personal fouls into USC just because of its viciousness. I use a rule that I learned in football to help guide me. USC must be a non-lacrosse act, that is an act not legal in any context. A slash to the back of the legs is an example, while a cross check in the back is not. Think of this another way, if a player reacts using a lacrosse act and that act is illegal, then it is a personal foul, and we can increase the time served if necessary. If the act was not a lacrosse act, such as fighting, then it is USC.

[LaxRef]

I honestly can't believe that anyone could consider a deliberate slash during a dead ball or away from the play anything other than a USC foul, and I'm sure the vast majority of experienced officials would agree with me on this. I'll say again: "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials."

In fact, they're lucky if they don't get an immediate ejection for flagrant misconduct or fighting. The act above clearly meets the requirements of the fighting statute:

Fighting is defined as a player, substitute, non-playing member of a squad, coach or anyone officially connected with a team deliberately striking or attempting to strike anyone in a malicious manner or leaving the bench or coaches area during an altercation.

This is clearly a deliberate strike, and nowhere does it say it has to be with a fist.

[laxfan25]

I honestly can't believe that anyone could consider a deliberate slash during a dead ball or away from the play anything other than a USC foul, and I'm sure the vast majority of experienced officials would agree with me on this. I'll say again: "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials."

In fact, they're lucky if they don't get an immediate ejection for flagrant misconduct or fighting. The act above clearly meets the requirements of the fighting statute:



This is clearly a deliberate strike, and nowhere does it say it has to be with a fist.

I'm with you all the way on that call, LaxRef! Playing lacrosse does not grant you a free pass to commit assault and just take a releasable minute in the box as your penance.

[gfink]

I believe, in fact, that i agree with what we are all saying with one exception. I don't believe it belongs in the USC rule. Change the unnecesary rouighness rule. I don't write the rules, i enforce them to the best of my knowledge as written. How many of the rules do we get to enforce as we see fit versus enforcing rules as they are intended and written. Enforce then change. I have read alot of great suggestions the last few days, but until they are changed they are not rules. If a player sneeks up behind another player and chops him on top of the head with deliberate viciousness, he is getting a slashing call, probably for 3 mins.

[LaxRef]

I believe, in fact, that i agree with what we are all saying with one exception. I don't believe it belongs in the USC rule. Change the unnecesary rouighness rule. I don't write the rules, i enforce them to the best of my knowledge as written. How many of the rules do we get to enforce as we see fit versus enforcing rules as they are intended and written. Enforce then change. I have read alot of great suggestions the last few days, but until they are changed they are not rules. If a player sneeks up behind another player and chops him on top of the head with deliberate viciousness, he is getting a slashing call, probably for 3 mins.
And yet, he's committed an act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials, at least in my game, and so it fits the definition of USC.

I'm sorry, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[gfink]

I am sorry, i didn't get to finish my thoughts. I am at work. If it is that flagrant a foul i will probably go to the ejection foul. Which gives us the option for striking an opponent. I think we agree in principal, i think we disagree in verbage. I do however, appreciate the dialogue.

[EdT]

I think that in many ways there is a lot of agreement on this topic, especially in dead-ball or off-the-ball situations. My concern was officials calling USC for a live-ball check just because it was vicious. UR yes, but USC no. I think that some officials want to add a nonreleasable aspect to the penalty and the only way they can do that is to make it USC.

[LaxRef]

I think that in many ways there is a lot of agreement on this topic, especially in dead-ball or off-the-ball situations. My concern was officials calling USC for a live-ball check just because it was vicious. UR yes, but USC no. I think that some officials want to add a nonreleasable aspect to the penalty and the only way they can do that is to make it USC.

Then I guess where we differ is that if I believe the vicious check was made with a deliberate intent to injure or with flagrant disregard for safety, I'm calling USC. If it's just a very rough hit without intent to injure, 1:00-3:00 IBC or UR.

[EdT]

Then I guess where we differ is that if I believe the vicious check was made with a deliberate intent to injure or with flagrant disregard for safety, I'm calling USC. If it's just a very rough hit without intent to injure, 1:00-3:00 IBC or UR.

I'm afraid that I can't find anything in Rule 5-9 (USC) to support that call, yet it does seem to fit Rule 5.8.3 (UR, NFHS). While I would agree with you that I don't want this miscreant dishonoring the game, we are bound by the rules given to us to administer the game. What we are missing is the notion of a "game misconduct" for any foul, not just the second USC. Rule 5.11.1 (again NFHS) is usually interpreted to mean fighting, but it should be expanded to allow the expulsion for other actions.

[LaxRef]

I'm afraid that I can't find anything in Rule 5-9 (USC) to support that call

I hate to sound like a broken record, but: "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials." I think that's all the rules support that's needed.

Now, clearly, you need to use some judgment when applying this, but the consensus opinion from what I've seen is that deliberate cheap shots in lacrosse earn the USC penalty. There will clearly be some variability from official to official here, but there is in how, say, slashing is called as well.

[LaxRef]

What we are missing is the notion of a "game misconduct" for any foul, not just the second USC. Rule 5.11.1 (again NFHS) is usually interpreted to mean fighting, but it should be expanded to allow the expulsion for other actions.

I agree completely, and this is what I'm proposing to the NFHS:

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=20364

[Snake~eyes]

I think that in many ways there is a lot of agreement on this topic, especially in dead-ball or off-the-ball situations. My concern was officials calling USC for a live-ball check just because it was vicious. UR yes, but USC no. I think that some officials want to add a nonreleasable aspect to the penalty and the only way they can do that is to make it USC.
Okay, so while the ball is live A1 holds B1 and then slams him to the ground. Well according to you this just a hold or unnecessary roughness.

I disagree and I assume LaxRef will to, this is clearly unsportslmanlike conduct. Penalize with a NR, same goes for slashes.

B1 runs towards A1 (Who does not have the ball) and slashes him in the head. 3-minute USC + ejection.

Simple as that, here's the only rule I need to back me up: "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials."

[gfink]

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If it was severe enough for an ejection, then eject him. It carries a three minute NR foul. If you wanted to penalize a team with more time then i would say a 1-3 minute unnecesary roughness then an ejection foul. 3 Minute NR then a 3 minute releasable. Quick question. A1 shoots and scores, B1 long stick takes a two or three step run after the shot and dumps him on his back. Is this not clearly and unsportsmanlike act? Sure it is. I will always call this unnecesary roughness. What if the hit was from behind, causing the players head to snap back, helmet come off and injure the player. To me, this is clearly an ejection foul. Three minute NR. This is not my genious or my forty years of lax experience coming to bare here(i don't have forty years experience), it is just the way i was taught to administer fouls by those who i respect as the stewards of the game. Yet we are allowed to disagree, and in the end no one may be wrong. Only different methods to produce the same result.

[LaxRef]

I guess I just can't see what's wrong with applying the "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause to have a middle ground here between a releasable personal foul and an ejection.

As we've said, we probably have to agree to disagree, here, but I've noticed that the people on the "can't call USC for that" side haven't responded to this part of the argument: The rules clearly allow us to call USC for "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials." Why do you object to applying that rule in these cases?

[gfink]

I will explain to you how it was explained to me. The USC rule was written and intended to cover an individuals conduct as far as the player dealing with officials, other players and fans. The "any other act concidered to be unsportsmanlike by the officials.", was added to cover what those creative and unusual ways players conduct themselves. High fives and overcelebrating after goals, riding the stick like a witch... Body contact fouls are addressed with their own individual fouls with unnecesary roughness ending up being the catchall. The powers that may be have decided that they do not want these calls to be NR fouls. They also have decided that if one of these fouls is so egregious as to potentially start a fight, cause injury that we are allowed to use the ejection foul. Believe me it puzzles me at times what they are thinking about in penalty enforcement. I mean 3 minute NR for an altered stick, and a 3 minute releasable for snapping a players spine from behind. The coaches are the ones who decide if rules changes are going to be implemented for the most part.

[Snake~eyes]

They also have decided that if one of these fouls is so egregious as to potentially start a fight, cause injury that we are allowed to use the ejection foul.
Where does it say that?


As we've said, we probably have to agree to disagree

[eme]

Unlike soccer, we have lots of "tools" in the toolbox
loose ball..award possession
30-sec. technical
1 min., 2 min, 3-min Releasable
1-2-3 minute NR USC
ejection 3-min. NR

Let's keep as many "tools" as we can. Let's not restrict their use.