goalie interference???

[Vector_Joe]

Would this be called goalie interference???

I reffed a game last spring where the goalie (red-G) got possession in the crease. The offensive player (blue-A) was right in front of the crease at the time. So red-G goes to make a clearing pass and blue-A, instead of stepping back or running to the side or something, drops down into a low crouch to get out of the way. Red-G hits blue-A with his follow through. Blue-A was definitely trying to not be in the way, and red-g almost certainly had to deliberately make a excessive follow through to end up making contact. The contact was not hard and I believe it ended up on blue-A's back.

What is your call?

[_lax4life_]

Seems like you want to call the foul against RED-G. I would if his follow through was excessive and it looked intentional. If didnt look like it was intentional then let em play. And tell the idiot blue to step back or move to the side.

[Vector_Joe]

Seems like you want to call the foul against RED-G. I would if his follow through was excessive and it looked intentional. If didnt look like it was intentional then let em play. And tell the idiot blue to step back or move to the side.

It was excessive in that he didn't have to follow through all the way to the ground. But the contact was not that hard. But I was the far ref at the time, so I didn't see it too clearly.

[_lax4life_]

It was excessive in that he didn't have to follow through all the way to the ground. But the contact was not that hard. But I was the far ref at the time, so I didn't see it too clearly.

I would'nt have called it.

[LaxRef]

Most likely a no-call, unless the contact is enough for you to call a slash. The goalie cannot intentionally exagerate the follow-through in order to get an interference call.

[LaxGoalie28]

I remember somone told me, if someone is standing in front of you while your clearing you can follow through and hit them, and get and interference call. But i probably would have made the same call as you.

[LaxRef]

See these threads for more discussion about this topic:

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=15100

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=11329

[laxfan25]

I would echo LaxRef's comments on the violation possibilities. If the guy crouched down, the passing motion was not inhibited in any way, and the follow-through made contact well after the ball was out and was not an excessive strike - no call is probably the right call. Let's play!

[Shorelax]

I had this happen multiple times last year. If I am the trail official in this situation, no-call, but warn the goalie. I would then mention it to my partner at the next appropriate break in play. If i'm the lead - I let the trail make the call.

[ColtsLax]

if the goalie clamps the ball outside the crease and tries to rake it in, why does the offical call posesion and the attack are not allowed to hit the GK stick. If the head of the stick is still outside the crease, i was allways under the impresion that it was fair game.

[LaxRef]

if the goalie clamps the ball outside the crease and tries to rake it in, why does the offical call posesion and the attack are not allowed to hit the GK stick. If the head of the stick is still outside the crease, i was allways under the impresion that it was fair game.

If the ball is clamped outside the crease, there is no possession and the stick may be checked. You cannot check the goalie's stick (1) inside the crease (ever) or (2) outside the crease if the goalie has possession but the goalie is still in the crease (e.g., stick extended outside the crease).

A clamped ball is not possession; the rules are clear on this.

[Woodenstick]

If the ball is clamped outside the crease, there is no possession and the stick may be checked. You cannot check the goalie's stick (1) inside the crease (ever) or (2) outside the crease if the goalie has possession but the goalie is still in the crease (e.g., stick extended outside the crease).

A clamped ball is not possession; the rules are clear on this.


I think that this is the number one rule in lacrosse that the players and coaches get completely wrong.

[tjslax]

That depends who you ask...some people have never had a ref that knows the rules work one of their games.

[eme]

One thing you might say to that goalie with the excessive follow-thru looking to draw a free clear:

"Goalie, I will give you protection, but I won't give you license."

[Liv4LaX]

lol i always do that n haave never had a call on me (knock on wood). but i usally draw an interfiernce call....

[OldLaxer]

I think that this is the number one rule in lacrosse that the players and coaches get completely wrong.

This brings up a good point...rank (in your opinion) the most misunderstood rules for players and coaches.

[laxfan25]

This brings up a good point...rank (in your opinion) the most misunderstood rules for players and coaches.
This may have been a thread before, but if not, start another if you're going to change topics so radically.

[OldLaxer]

will do, thanks.

[Stonewall35]

Most likely a no-call, unless the contact is enough for you to call a slash. The goalie cannot intentionally exagerate the follow-through in order to get an interference call.

To my understanding, under ILF rules, there is no such thing as a follow through slash. If that player happens to be in the way when it happens, then tough luck.

[LaxRef]

To my understanding, under ILF rules, there is no such thing as a follow through slash. If that player happens to be in the way when it happens, then tough luck.


Well, if the contact occurs as part of the normal passing, scooping, or shooting motion, even under NCAA and NFHS rules, there's no slash. However, if the slash is intentionally exagerated in order to try to get away with a "free" slash, I'm going to throw a flag. I can't speak to ILF rules.

[Stonewall35]

Well, if the contact occurs as part of the normal passing, scooping, or shooting motion, even under NCAA and NFHS rules, there's no slash. However, if the slash is intentionally exagerated in order to try to get away with a "free" slash, I'm going to throw a flag. I can't speak to ILF rules.

I see your point under the NCAA and NFHS rules. However, in the 2006 World Games in London, Ontario, all teams will be playing under ILF rules. Having said that, I understand that there are a lot of rules that differ in both.

[LaxRef]

I see your point under the NCAA and NFHS rules. However, in the 2006 World Games in London, Ontario, all teams will be playing under ILF rules. Having said that, I understand that there are a lot of rules that differ in both.

My point was that maybe you misunderstood the ILF rule, since in NCAA and NFHS there is a similar rule. I can't imagine why they'd change it for ILF to allow intentionally following through extra to slash someone, but I don't know the ILF rules so I can't really say. Maybe you could post the rule you're referring to so we could see for sure what they're saying.

[auslax_goalie]

im biased but if its a full follow through(guilty of that) then yes its interfiernce

[laxfan25]

im biased but if its a full follow through(guilty of that) then yes its interfiernce
Are you playing in one of those "call your own fouls" leagues? :agree:

[laxfan25]

If it gets called a slash, then it is likely obvious that the goalie is no longer "following through" in a normal throwing motion, but actually trying to hit the other player with his stick, which is a slash. It is not just an exaggeration motion to get the interference call, which many goalies attempt, that gets called. There is a difference between an exaggerated follow through, and a follow through that results in a slash. I would think that unless the rule for slashing is different in ILF and NCAA, I don't see why it would get called differently.
Exactly, a simple exaggerated throwing motion that makes contact will just get a no-call, and a look of disdain to the goalie as he starts whining. i've only called a goalie one time for a slash in this instance, and it was blatantly obvious that he was looking to take out the attackman (and not for dinner and drinks).