View Full Version : Game situation indirect free position ruling...
CTLaxer
02-27-2006, 02:23 PM
On an indirect free position shot, one of my players tried
passing to a teammate cutting in front of the goal. Unfortunately the
pass was not caught, it was however touched by the players stick who was
trying to catch it. It subsequently bounced into the goal where it was
ruled no goal. Now, the players intentions were clearly to pass, the
ball was touched by a member of the same team, yet upon entering the
goal it was waved off and disallowed. Maybe I'm reading the rules
incorrectly, but my interpretation of the rules indicates that the goal
should have stood as it was legally made and the play leading to it met
the criteria for a legal indirect free position. Maybe I'm wrong, if anyone could clarify it I'd appreciate it...RYU...Lax-Umpire...feel like taking a stab at it?
I have our head official checking with the rules interpreter...but I'm impatient and don't want to wait :nut:
First off, try to use correct terminology. You wrote, "On an indirect free position shot...", which, taken word-for-word, would mean your player shot from an indirect FP and deserved the foul (i.e., shooting from an indirect is illegal).
Secondly, no rules interpreter needed on this one; it's easy. If scenario played out as you described it, then goal should stand.
Third, 19-A-2 & 19-A-3-c-2-(a) specifically explain the indirect FP. On an indirect, the ball must be "played by some other player."
Played is defined under Rule 21 as, "an action whereby the ball leaves the player's crosse and is touched by another player, or her crosse is checked crosse to crosse by an opposing player. The ball does not have to be successfully dislodged from the crosse."
Fourth, I wasn't there, so I can only go by what you wrote. Did you discus it w/ the umpires after the game? Are you sure that was the call made? Could it have been something else like a stick following through the goal circle that disallowed the goal? Did the ball actually touch another players stick? Was it hard to tell? Maybe from the umpire's POV, she didn't see anyone else touch it (which sucks, but no one's perfect, and it happens to the best of us).
CTLaxer
02-27-2006, 10:01 PM
Sorry, the stat sheet I use only lists free position shots, so I have to mark indirects under there. Force of habit.
The scenario is exactly as described. The officials afterwards said "the ball needs to be played by another player on your team" to which I responded "it was" but with no luck.
Our head official sent this in response to my comments about that game: "Indirect free position - based on how you described it I believe the call
was correct. This is based on what put the force on the ball that caused it
to go in the goal. The girl taking the indirect position put force on the
ball not the "deflection". If the ball had not been touched and it had gone
in the goal then there are no questions. The ball must be "played" (Rule
19-3-c-2-a), and I would say that a deflection doesn't qualify as played."
I'm sure the call wasn't for anything aside from the fact that they said you cannot score off of an indirect free position. There was no follow through with stick or body by anyone as there was no shot. The official was right by the player who deflected it as he was backing away from the middle of the play.
"Indirect Free Position: An opportunity awarded to the offense when a minor foul is committed by the defense inside the 12 meter fan. When the whistle sounds to resume play, the player may run or pass, but may not shoot until a defender or one of her teammates has played the ball."
I think what the ump was saying is that it was a shot not a pass in that case it would be no goal. I think your head ump got it wrong with her explianation. As RHU showed with the definition of played, the only way it could not count would be if it was ruled a "shot" and not a "pass". Send an email to US Lax and see what Pat or Laura have to say about it. Then post it for us and if it is in your favor send to to you head ump.
Lax-Umpire
03-01-2006, 05:52 AM
There was only one umpire calling this play and that is the only qualified umpire to voice the facts regarding the play
However, based on what I have read here - I would have called the play the way RYU suggested. The ball is played if it is deflected off another player's stick. Goal would count. If it went off the attack players body, then it would not have counted.
Do not really understand the head ump's explaination, be interesting to hear from Pat or Laura on this one.
CTLaxer
03-01-2006, 12:47 PM
Our head official said that the word from the regional interpreter is that it should have been a goal but is kind of a gray area.
After talking it over with our head official at my game last night, I remember that the player that touched the ball on the pass had her back to the official making the call. from every other angle it was clear that the ball touched her stick, but to him, looking from behind and not being able to see the stick, it probably appeared to just go in and look like a shot. What irks me is that the other official clearly saw the play and could've spoken with his partner and ruled a goal. But oh well.
We're going to be asking the national interpreter to get a more clear response. I'll post the answer we get.
The girl taking the indirect position put force on the ball not the "deflection".Using this reasoning, then you are defining the motion of the ball as a shot (as it was at your game). If that's the case, then you should also penalize the shooter for dangerous propelling (a mandatory carding), since she shot the ball right at her teammate. Hey... the shot was so close that it deflected off her teammate's stick.
If the ball had not been touched and it had gone in the goal then there are no questions.Duh, but it was touched.
The ball must be "played" (Rule 19-3-c-2-a)[sic], and I would say that a deflection doesn't qualify as played.The definition of played I quoted above. The point of contention now seems to be what your area's ump chair defines as touched. All of you agree the ball was deflected by your player's stick. But now your umpires don't think a deflection counts as a touch, in terms of how the Rulebook describes how the ball must be touched after an indirect FP.
Do not really understand the head ump's explaination, be interesting to hear from Pat or Laura on this one.Ditto. If they're too busy, anyone on the NUC can answer your question. Yours is Super Region 6, Dana Crompton.
Addresses here:
http://sites.uslacrosse.org/wdoc/Find%20Us/NUC%20INFO.htm#Local%20Board%20Region%20Chair
Lax-Umpire
03-01-2006, 03:57 PM
OK CT - you know me, I will defend the umpire.
If the players back was to the lead umpire then the lead umpire had the ball and the shot was on the lead umpires side. Trail umpire may not have even been looking at the shot- trail has responsibility for off-ball.
Just a possible explaination. Hope you won that game by more than one goal.
Keep us posted on the answers - we can all learn.
Remember - the umpires at your games are the only two, or three people watching the game who do not care who wins! :thumbsup: