Crease Situation

[LaxRef]

Goalie B1 has possession of the ball, and he has one foot in the crease and one foot out. The count is at 3, and A1, anticipating that B1 will be stepping out of the crease, bodychecks B1 before he actually leaves the crease. The ball rolls out of B1's stick and into the goal.

Ruling?

[monmlax]

I would think it would be goalie interference and a free clear. I guess the ref could call nnecessary roughness or a USC. However, that sounds a little too easy for a lax ref test.

[ColtsLax]

well, he hit the part of the goalie that was out of bounds, so it would be like the GK having his stick outside the cylinder, which you can hit, i say no call

[blindbill]

NFHS 4-20.3:"...The crosse of the goalkeeper, not his body, when extended outside the cylinder above the crease area, is subject to being checked..."

I say goalie interference - no goal - free clear one step over midfield.

[dram183]

wait, so if a goalies stick is outside the crease, you can hit it? what bout the body?

[LaxRef]

wait, so if a goalies stick is outside the crease, you can hit it? what bout the body?

Not exactly. Here's the full text of the relevant rule:

The crosse of the goalkeeper, but not his body, when extended outside the cylinder above the crease area, is subject to being checked under the same circumstances as the crosse of any other player, except when the ball is in the crosse.

So clearly, in the scenario I described, you can't touch the goalie, since it's goalie interference. However, this wasn't just touching the goalie, but checking him when you aren't allowed to. I'd be tempted to call it an illegal body check, but the wording of that rule doesn't seem to apply. Thus, I might call it UR (if I thought the guy just screwed up) or USC (if I thought he was intentionally blasting the goalie and trying to "send a message," or "rattle his cage").

In any case, I don't think you can let a full-blown body check of the goalie in the crease--and he's still in if he has one foot in--go with just a free clear awarded. That would be inviting people to take shots at the goalie.

[goalieskcickay]

Once there was a ball slightly outside the crease in my indoor league, I stretch out my body to scoop it, and wham, a forward slams me from the side. Lets just say the ref wasn't too happy.

[blindbill]

So you feel that we should call, at the minimum, unecessary roughness if the GK is touched by anything more solid than something that would meerly (sp?) "interfere" with his pass?

[LaxRef]

So you feel that we should call, at the minimum, unecessary roughness if the GK is touched by anything more solid than something that would meerly (sp?) "interfere" with his pass?

I wouldn't say for "anything more solid" than interference. But for a full-on body check, I think we should probably be calling a personal foul. Obviously, your judgment comes into play, but in general we're told to protect the goalies, and I think this is a case where the incentive to abuse the goalie would be high if the only penalty is a free clear.

FYI, I've never had to call this because I've never seen a goalie get body checked while still in the crease, but it's good to be prepared in case it ever happens.

[laxfan25]

Without a view of, or description of the bodycheck, at a minimum you have goalie interference, no goal - free clear. To elevate on more severe contact, UR is probably the better call, since the illegal bodycheck stipulations don't cover this well - it deals more with where on the body the check is delivered. UR gives much more leeway. It would be akin to a situation where a player has stepped out of bounds and someone bodychecks him - that should also be UR. I saw similar calls this past weekend in the NCAA and NFL where tackles were made out of bounds - they called UR.