Thrown Stick

[Stubs]

After a face off, Blue gains possession and is headed to the Orange goal.
The Blue defensive midfielder runs toward the sideline to exchange his
long pole for a short stick. As he approaches the sideline, you, the trailing
official, see the Blue head coach toss him his short stick. The
midfielder also tosses his long stick to the coach. The long pole lands on the
field, and the head coach walks out and picks up the stick, then returns to the coaching box. You are watching, and decide to not make a call since the
action was not part of the play. The phrase, "Let the boys play" echoes in your mind.

The Blue attackman makes a great move, and shoots the ball into the goal.
Your lead partner blows the whistle, signals goal, and digs out the ball
from the net. As you head out to X to start the face-off, there are two toots from the horn. The Orange head coach is asking for an official time out. You head to the box, with a strong suspicion of what he might say.

The Orange head coach is suggesting that the rule regarding Illegal
Procedure - Throwing a cross, technical foul, requires a turnover if the
team that commits the foul has possession of the ball. He is not
questioning if the official saw the "exchange", only how the foul was
administered. He also suggests that the administration of the Conduct
Foul against the Blue coach for walking onto the field to pick up the cross,
was not executed correctly, again requiring a whistle to stop play and the
ball be turned over to Orange. He is asking the goal not be counted and that
his team receive the ball at the coaching box.

What should you do?

[tjslax]

Welcome to TLF!!!

I most certainly would have called the foul to begin with. Throwing the stick is certainly not only gaining an advantage but risking the safety of the other players. The coach also certainly committed a conduct foul entering the field of play without permission.
I would consult with the other members of the "third team" and if any of us saw the fouls occur, we need to disallow the goal, and sit the in home for 30 sec, award the ball as indicated by where it was when the foul was comitted. (The IP for throwing the sick would be loss of posession, not a time serving foul). The coach would not be charged a time out.

[Woodenstick]

Welcome to TLF!!!

I most certainly would have called the foul to begin with. Throwing the stick is certainly not only gaining an advantage but risking the safety of the other players. The coach also certainly committed a conduct foul entering the field of play without permission.
I would consult with the other members of the "third team" and if any of us saw the fouls occur, we need to disallow the goal, and sit the in home for 30 sec, award the ball as indicated by where it was when the foul was comitted. (The IP for throwing the sick would be loss of posession, not a time serving foul). The coach would not be charged a time out.

I agree that I might have called the foul. But if I did not call a foul based on my judgment that the conduct was not a foul, then I don't think that I would reverse my judgment based on a rule 7-13 time-out. That TO can only be used for misapplication of the rules not for judgment calls: "The head coach may not debate a judgment call." The decision not to call a foul was a judgment that the conduct was trivial, not a misapplication of the rule.

[tjslax]

If you saw the player throw his crosse you saw a penalty...no judgement about it. NFHS 6-5-b-1...throw his crosse under any circumstances.

If you saw the coach enter the field...a coach shall nt enter the field of play without the permission of an official, except to attend to an injured player, to warm up a goalie or during half time. There is no provision that a coach may run out on the field "just to go get something". I do not feel this is a judgement call either, if you saw these actions, you saw a penalty.

[LaxRef]

Personally, I would have called the illegal procedure for throwing the cross; the play is dead at that point, and if the goal is "scored" after that it is wiped out. If you kill the play quickly enough, you don't have to deal with waving off the goal.

You also don't have to give the coach a conduct foul at that point, since one of his players can pick up the stick during the dead ball, but if the coach came on the field briefly to get the crosse (or any debris) and didn't interfere with the play, no foul. If the other coach complained, I'd warn the other coach. This "coming on the field=conduct foul" rule is one of those best used when it is convenient for the officials; the coach stepping on the field does not confer an advantage and it's not--in this instance--a safety issue.

[laxfan25]

A very sticky situation, to be sure, and one where the concept of calling fouls "that everyone sees" would seem pertinent.
We always have this at our disposal;
Mistakes by Officials
SECTION 12. When a timekeeper, scorer or official makes a mistake that
would result in a team or player being penalized and another official
becomes aware that a mistake is being made, that official shall promptly
correct the mistake. If goals are scored during the mistake made by the
timer, scorer or an official and it is brought to the attention of the referee
before the next live ball, the referee must allow or disallow the goal,
depending on the circumstances.
So the question becomes, how much are you able to swallow your pride? As has been discussed before, players exchanging sticks must dfo it in the sub area or in front of the bench, and must make a manual exchange - no sticks flying back and forth. To me, that is the major violation, since we don't ding coaches every time they put a foot on the field (or we'd never get the games in). If you saw it happen and passed on it, you've got to be willing to tell the challenging coach that you didn't consider it worthy of a flag (which we do numerous times in a game on stick to body contact, i.e. slash/no slash), at which point you also have to tell him that he is being charged for a timeout. I would consider it an OK challenge though. The alternative is to say "Yes, I should have called him on the thrown stick. I am correcting my mistake - taking the goal off the board and awarding the ball the other way."
Either way, you're likely to get a nasty write-up. As to which is "correct", I guess I defer to "depending on circumstances". Situational ethics is a slippery slope!

[eme]

Here is a rationale you can use. The guy throwing the d stick off and getting a new middie stick via the air DID obtain an advantage. What if the shot on goal hits the pipe and comes flying back out to THAT middie...ready to scoop it up because he gained some time with his illegal crosse exchange? Judgement/subjectivity comes into play: how big a toss was it? sounds like it wasn't trifling if the coach has to step on the field
to retrieve the stick. I would be inclined to call this.

[laxfan25]

Here is a rationale you can use. The guy throwing the d stick off and getting a new middie stick via the air DID obtain an advantage. What if the shot on goal hits the pipe and comes flying back out to THAT middie...ready to scoop it up because he gained some time with his illegal crosse exchange? Judgement/subjectivity comes into play: how big a toss was it? sounds like it wasn't trifling if the coach has to step on the field
to retrieve the stick. I would be inclined to call this.
I would assume that you would have called it when you saw the illegal exchange. What if the scenario had passed where they scored the goal - I assume you would take it off the board and just say you were slow with the whistle? That would be my likely path - getting the call right is paramount.

[eme]

Yes...a lot cleaner calling it when you saw the illegal exchange...if you wait until after the goal you have a UN Peacekeeping Mission ahead of you....

[cbhslacrossemid]

Isn't it an illegal substitution? Players and equipment must be exchanged in the substitution box. Am I correct?

[LaxRef]

Isn't it an illegal substitution? Players and equipment must be exchanged in the substitution box. Am I correct?

No. You can exchange crosses at the table area or coaches' area, as long as they aren't thrown.

[DanHS]

I am not sure how the crosses should be exchanged in the table area during a live ball if the substitution rules were strictly enforced or unless the player temporarily left the field, made the exchnage and then returned to the field.

[LaxRef]

I am not sure how the crosses should be exchanged in the table area during a live ball if the substitution rules were strictly enforced or unless the player temporarily left the field, made the exchnage and then returned to the field.

See:

A.R. 25. A1 and A2 exchange crosses with each other on the field of play during (1) A live ball; (2) A dead ball. RULING: (1) Legal exchange. (2) Legal exchange.

A.R. 26. During play, A1 runs to the bench to exchange his crosse, which is not broken; and this is not noticed by an official. Should the timer or scorer blow the horn twice at the next dead-ball whistle and notify officials? RULING: No. This is a legal exchange (must be at coaches area or table area).

I seem to recall A.R. 26 having an equivalent in the NFHS book, but I can't find it this year. I know we debated it at length a year or so ago.

Anyway, the key idea is that a player on the field can exchange his crosse with a coach in the coaches' area or a coach in the table area without leaving the field.

Oh, wait, I found it. It's at:

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?p=245113

[DanHS]

In order for the exchange to occur in the table area either another player or a coach would have to be in the area or the player would have to leave the field temporarily. The player should not have two crosses since he must be properly equipped. The coach should not be in the table area since he is not requesting attention from timekeeper or scorer. That means the player would enter the table area and then go back on toe the field after the exchange. He would be exchanging through the sides of the table area or someone is reaching into the table area.

Or we ignore the rather admittedly technical violations

[laxfan25]

Or we ignore the rather admittedly technical violations
I would think discretion would rule the day here. If the player is kind enough to step to the side of the field, hand one stick in and take another back, I'm not going to quibble if he is doing it from the table area or the coach's area - I'm just happy he's not heaving it!

[LaxRef]

In order for the exchange to occur in the table area either another player or a coach would have to be in the area or the player would have to leave the field temporarily. The player should not have two crosses since he must be properly equipped. The coach should not be in the table area since he is not requesting attention from timekeeper or scorer. That means the player would enter the table area and then go back on toe the field after the exchange. He would be exchanging through the sides of the table area or someone is reaching into the table area.

Or we ignore the rather admittedly technical violations

Except the A.R. I quoted explicitly allows such an exchange to take place. The only other way it makes sense is if the player and coach are both reaching through the air space of the table area, with neither stnading in it; that's a stretch.

And why would it be a violation for a player to step off the field into the table area, then step back onto the field? Haven't you ever seen a player think he was subbing out and then get told to go back in?

[DanHS]

I was not clear. I think the only way the exchange in the table area is legal is a) someone is reaching into the space of the table area with entering or b) the player leaves the field, exchanges the crosse and immediately returns to the field.

a) is what is happening in the coaches area.

I do not think there is anything wrong with b).

[LaxRef]

I was not clear. I think the only way the exchange in the table area is legal is a) someone is reaching into the space of the table area with entering or b) the player leaves the field, exchanges the crosse and immediately returns to the field.

a) is what is happening in the coaches area.

I do not think there is anything wrong with b).

I'm interpreting the A.R. to say it's okay for a coach to enter the table area to exchange a crosse with the player. I guess I don't see how it's going to cause a problem or create an unfair advantage. Of course, if the coach is not paying attention and interferes with the other team subbing, then I have an illegal procedure call.

[Stubs]

Seems to me that the coach can stand in the coaches area, hand the short stick to the mid, and take the pole from him in one easy move, no? Mid never leaves the field.

[Stubs]

Welcome to TLF!!!

I most certainly would have called the foul to begin with. Throwing the stick is certainly not only gaining an advantage but risking the safety of the other players. The coach also certainly committed a conduct foul entering the field of play without permission.
I would consult with the other members of the "third team" and if any of us saw the fouls occur, we need to disallow the goal, and sit the in home for 30 sec, award the ball as indicated by where it was when the foul was comitted. (The IP for throwing the sick would be loss of posession, not a time serving foul). The coach would not be charged a time out.
Why sit the in-home? Seems like taking away the goal and awarding Orange the ball at the approximate location the ball was when the foul occured is way to go.

[tjslax]

I would sit the in-home because the first IP was on the d midi who threw his stick. That would result in loss of posession. The conduct foul on the coach would occur after orange was due the ball so the penalty should be time serving and served by the in-home. I may be corrected by the powers that be on this.

[laxfan25]

I would sit the in-home because the first IP was on the d midi who threw his stick. That would result in loss of posession. The conduct foul on the coach would occur after orange was due the ball so the penalty should be time serving and served by the in-home. I may be corrected by the powers that be on this.
If you're going to assess the stick throwing penalty and take away the goal, I wouls suggest forgetting about the coach stepping on the field - why further inflame the situation? (Unless you enjoy that sort of thing)

[LaxRef]

If you're going to assess the stick throwing penalty and take away the goal, I wouls suggest forgetting about the coach stepping on the field - why further inflame the situation? (Unless you enjoy that sort of thing)


I agree completely. I'd say something like, "Coach, I appreciate you getting the stick off the field in order to protect the safety of the players, but you're not supposed to step on the field" loudly enough so the other coach could hear me.

[tjslax]

I don't enjoy that sort of thing. Depending on how the game is going some things will get called and some will not. Probably it shouldn't get called because the first IP should get a dead ball and stop play. I would have never let it get as far as it did-throwing a stick is an absolute pet peeve of mine. And like I said the conduct foul may get called or may not depending if "a message" needs to be sent.

[Stubs]

How about putting an estimate of elapsed time from the thrown stick to the "goal" back on the clock for the Orange coach? If he was down a goal with 2 minutes left, and the "goal" was 30 seconds or so after the toss, I'd be inclined to take a stab at it and put some time back on the clock.

Take a look at this another way. What if you were lead, and had no idea what had occurred, and you headed to the box on hearing the two horn blasts. How do you help your partner out of the pit?

[eme]

Team A is offsides with 30 seconds left in the game. The trail official thinks they are offsides...does a quick double check and...yes...they are offsides. Whistle.
Team B gets the ball. But they certainly do not get that 2 seconds back on the clock. You open up a real can of worms if you do that throughout the game....

[LaxRef]

Agreed. The only mention of putting time back on the clock in lacrosse is when there is a timer error or a clock malfunction, not for an official's error.