NCAA Slow Whistle Nightmare

[dislaxxic]

2006 NCAA Rules:

Team A has possession and is fouled while attacking in the box. Ball becomes loose. Team B, which is ahead by one goal, with one minute in the game, surrounds the ball and obstructs and/or slashes anyone from Team A that approaches the ball on the ground. More flags fly. Meanwhile, Team B's attackmen all come offsides and add to the defenders surrounding the ball in A's attack box. More flags, but no whistle, right?

I think there are at least two events, by rule, that can cause the whistle to blow here. Anyone know what they are? Does B stand a chance of running out the clock and winning the game, under 2006 NCAA rules?

[eme]

Nice mess.

GOODIE doesn't work here, does it.

Witholding? USC conduct?

[ploaref]

one thing causing a whistle would be a Team A player committing a foul...

[LaxRef]

2006 NCAA Rules:

Team A has possession and is fouled while attacking in the box. Ball becomes loose. Team B, which is ahead by one goal, with one minute in the game, surrounds the ball and obstructs and/or slashes anyone from Team A that approaches the ball on the ground. More flags fly. Meanwhile, Team B's attackmen all come offsides and add to the defenders surrounding the ball in A's attack box. More flags, but no whistle, right?

I think there are at least two events, by rule, that can cause the whistle to blow here. Anyone know what they are? Does B stand a chance of running out the clock and winning the game, under 2006 NCAA rules?

One can make the argument for withholding, as in "or withhold the ball from play in any other manner." But I guess that doesn't technically end the play, it's just another flag under the new rule.

I have half a mind to blow the whistle because "I thought one of those slashes injured one of the team A players, and he was still in the scrimmage area." This foils the plan and leaves some time on the clock.

Then I eject the head coach for instituting this plan and all of the slashers for deliberately striking an opponent, plus the attackmen for flagrant misconduct (it wasn't just offsides, it was an intentional effort to make a travesty of the game). At this point, after we get all of the players off the field and put 3 guys in the penalty area for 12 minutes NR each (normally, we'd stack the penalties, but since the guys who committed the penalties have been ejected, the guys serving the penalties can just be in the box forever.

Now team B puts 3 guys in the attack end and up to 4 guys on the defensive end, if they have that many left. If the game gets to OT, Team B will still be at least 3 men down.

Maybe team B wins the game anyway, but they might be a little shorthanded for the next one.

Anyway, I think if this sort of situation arises, you can just say you needed to kill the play for safety reasons and let the offense reset.

[shrekjr]

I swear there was a loose ball push by A1 trying to get to the ball.

[eme]

1. witholding
2. kill play for safety reasons
3. with all that commotion it wouldn't be hard to find an A push...whistle.

the play is Not going to happen..maybe more likely with little time remaining in aflag down is the defensive team inside the box plays field hockey with the ball...agin we're talking a few seconds at most here.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Is this a mess that we high school refs will have to sort out too?

I seem to recall that we're exempt....

[ploaref]

looks like the point is that trouble is being invited by letting the play continue after the ball hits the ground in a slow whistle situation. i'll have to search to see if you rules poobahs have held forth in other threads on this NCAA rule change... this seems to be adding some gray area (hair) to our mission...it was SO nice and black 'n white before.

[Snake~eyes]

Is this a mess that we high school refs will have to sort out too?

I seem to recall that we're exempt....
This rule only affects NCAA, NFHS did not add the change but if NCAA keeps it I imagine we (NFHS) may see it in the near future.

[gfink]

The spirit of this rule is to allow the offense to maintain their advantage and gain a scoring opportunity. It was in no way, shape or form to allow the defense to gain an advantage on the play. In the situation described, we are allowing the defense to use this rule to there advantage. Therefore, i am killing the play. Who of you out there would stand there and allow a defense to do this? Do we need a black and white ruling to govern every second of the game? Because it is simply not possible to do. It is plain common sense on how to enforce the rules in certain situations. Latitude and flexibility in crisis. In my mind that is what has always separated the top level officials from the every day official. Don't get me wrong, I believe all of your efforts have been very fruitful. The Ncaa rule book is actually a joy to read compared to last years. And for that i applaud your diligence. I draw a great amount of my officiating experience from ice hockey. And this rule in its intent is not much different from the delayed penalty rule. And for all the right reasons, when the offending team has an obvious opportunity to gain possession of the puck and refuses to do so, the play is dead.

[madbenlax]

Team A could call a time out. If you agree they have possession of the ball (the ball is loose). If you believe team A does not have possession and can not call a time-out, team A has committed a technical foul (calling a timeout without possession inside the box). Team A technical foul stops the slow whistle and know get to play 10 against 7. My guess you have stacking with multiple fouls.

[dislaxxic]

good input!

This scenario was tossed out by a VERY senior official ("K.O'L.") at a recent college scrimmage between periods as a sort-of joking "quick-quiz"...

the moral of the story? "Stay on your toes with new mechanics and rule changes" :read: :agree: