Goal disallowed - illegal stick/equip?

[laxfan25]

I was watching a high school game on Friday night that showed the direction we'll be going, at least for the near term. Tie game with 1:10 left. Team A scores to take the lead. Coach B asks for the equipment check, and A1 checks out just fine. Face off, B1 wins, streaks down, shoots and scores. Coach A, in "retaliation", asks for equipment check on B1. B1's stick is fine, but the palms of his glove have large holes in them. I don't know if they were intentionally altered or not, but the holes were sufficient to have the officials penalize B1 for 1 min. NR. The refs at first took the goal off the board, Coach B says that should only be for an illegal stick. The refs confer over the NFHS book for several minutes and put the goal back on the board.
The game goes into overtime, and A1 scores the winning goal. Fortunately, we all know that there are no checks after an OT goal - game is over!
I spoke to my fellow officials afterward, and they said that there is no explicit ruling on illegal equipment vs a stick, so they allowed the goal.

I was very intrigued by all of this, and checked out the book on my own.
Pertinent sections:
Rule 4.29 Illegal Equipment - Head Coaches Request for inpsection
Art. 2.d. The official shall inspect ALL of the players equipment when asked to inspect his crosse or any other specific piece. (A veteran official I discussed this with said it's only a stick check, probably because that is how we often refer to it. I clarified that with him.)
Art. 3 ...A crosse found to be illegal shall be penalized according to Rule 5-4. Any other equipment found to be illegal shall be penalized according to Rul 5-5.

Rule 5 Sec. 4 - Illegal crosse
...Use of an illegal crosse carries a one- or three-min NR penalty...

Rule 5 Sec 5 - Use of illegal equipment
A player may not use equipment that does not conform to specs. The fingers and palms may not be cut out of the gloves...Use of illegal equipment other than the crosse is a NR foul.

Still nothing that addresses the issue at hand, so we have to move to the Case Book. (Ah, the joys of the Fed book! The index has nothing about the coaches request, so you've got to dig to find that section. They read the rule, and then go to the cases. Fortunately the refs took their time to get it right).

Case 5.4 Situation E: A1 scores. Before the next whistle, it is discovered A1 was playing with an illegal crosse. RULING: Goal does not count. A1 serves 1 - 3 min NR.

Section 5.5 Use of illegal equipment, only has two situations, one dealing with multiple requests for inspection, and
5.5 Situation B: B1 is not wearing shoulder pads or arm pads. RULING: 1 min NR.

So that's it in the Fed book! Very amibiguous situation, so since it was not clearly spelled out, that is why they put the goal back.

I then compared to the NCAA book, and found a new addition to the AR's in the '05 book!
Rule 5-6 Use of Illegal Equipment
A.R. 12. A1 scores a goal. Before the faceoff, it is noticed that A1 is not wearing a piece of required equipment (e.g., shoulder pads, arm pads). RULING: Goal counts, A1 is assessed a one-minute non-releasable personal foul.

I would highly recommend that NFHS add that case ruling to the '06 book! I was also very pleased to see that the refs got the call right in a tight and important playoff game! Great job guys!!

[LaxRef]

It sounds like they got the call right. I would argue that, since the rulebook only says the goal comes off the board for an illegal crosse and not for illegal equipment, that the case play is not absolutely necessary, but would help.

In NCAA, we only inspect other equipment when the coach requests a check (even if they ask for a "stick check"); between periods, we only inspect the crosse. In NFHS, we always inspect everything.

[laxfan25]

I would argue that, since the rulebook only says the goal comes off the board for an illegal crosse and not for illegal equipment, that the case play is not absolutely necessary, but would help.

It would certainly add some clarity to the situation, and all they have to do is copy the AR from the NCAA book. Simple to do, and could avoid a mis-application of the rule. One could certainly argue that a team should not be allowed to score when they are in violation of the rules, such as an offsides situation, stepping in the crease, etc. Given that this all falls under something that comes out of the equipment inspection request, and you DO take it off for a 1 min. deep pocket call, it's not that much a stretch to assume that ANY illegal equipment would carry the same sanction. That was my thought pattern until I dissected the book, and it was only when I saw the AR in the NCAA book that I was more sure.
Better to clarify and eliminate any doubt or uncertainty.

[LaxRef]

It would certainly add some clarity to the situation, and all they have to do is copy the AR from the NCAA book.

Flag down for plagiarism! :chuckle:

Simple to do, and could avoid a mis-application of the rule. One could certainly argue that a team should not be allowed to score when they are in violation of the rules, such as an offsides situation, stepping in the crease, etc. .

However, if they wanted that the "Goal not allowed" section would be a whole lot shorter. And there are explicit cases in the rules where a team is in violation of a rule but the goal is allowed to stand (e.g., the feeder's stick is illegal). Do you really want teams to be asking for equipment checks to get a goal taken off the board because a player on the field but not in the play has the wrong color compression shorts?


Given that this all falls under something that comes out of the equipment inspection request, and you DO take it off for a 1 min. deep pocket call, it's not that much a stretch to assume that ANY illegal equipment would carry the same sanction. That was my thought pattern until I dissected the book, and it was only when I saw the AR in the NCAA book that I was more sure.
Better to clarify and eliminate any doubt or uncertainty.

We're not supposed to assume, though. But I agree a little clarity wouldn't hurt. See my rule change proposal:

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=20195

[laxfan25]

Do you really want teams to be asking for equipment checks to get a goal taken off the board because a player on the field but not in the play has the wrong color compression shorts?

We're not supposed to assume, though. But I agree a little clarity wouldn't hurt. :
No, I wouldn't want the goal taken off because the guy has a chocolate stripe on his shorts. Again, adding the AR is quick and easy, and they've plagarized a little before! I like the proposed changes too. Nice to have things packaged in the same area.