COACH, who is closer to the shot?

[JohnB-6]

If you were to write the rulebook, how would you award possession in this scenario?

A shot is going out of bounds. Player A1 is in front of player B1 by a step, but B1 holds his stick out so that his stick is closer to the ball when it goes out of bounds. Who gets the ball? The current rulebook says the player, but there is some debate as to who should get the ball, the body or the stick that is closest.

Coaches write the rules, referees enforce them. Coaches, what is your opinion?

[RottingMind13]

It's all about out hustling your opponent. In the end, it's the person who's body is closest that gets possession. (Didnt get an answer you liked in the rules forum?)

It'd be an unfair advantage for the D-Poles if it went by the stick.

[tiplax]

it's the body, that's how i've always played/ been taught

[TitanLax]

It's all about out hustling your opponent. In the end, it's the person who's body is closest that gets possession. (Didnt get an answer you liked in the rules forum?)

It'd be an unfair advantage for the D-Poles if it went by the stick.

true, but then u could say it's unfair that attack start out closer to the line, or run faster cus they have less stick...it should even out in that sense.

[lyman_mid14]

just to be safe.....always run really really fast so there's no debate on who gets possession

[JohnB-6]

It's all about out hustling your opponent. In the end, it's the person who's body is closest that gets possession. (Didnt get an answer you liked in the rules forum?)

It'd be an unfair advantage for the D-Poles if it went by the stick.

-out hustling your opponent? the d-man runs from 5 yards further out and extends a stick that is only 30 inches longer to try and get possession. That seems like hustling to me.

-in the end, its not always the body. This is why I am asking the question. If you play near Arlington, then there is a good chance I may have done some of your games. In my association, Im getting a little more than 50-50 in favor of the body, so there is a sizable minority who calls stick.

-I got many different answers in the rules forum, and I want to see how coaches want us to call the game. Do they want body or stick? I have my opinion on how it should be called, but more importantly I want it called consistently, which ever way it goes.

[WHEELAX2]

-out hustling your opponent? the d-man runs from 5 yards further out and extends a stick that is only 30 inches longer to try and get possession. That seems like hustling to me.

-in the end, its not always the body. This is why I am asking the question. If you play near Arlington, then there is a good chance I may have done some of your games. In my association, Im getting a little more than 50-50 in favor of the body, so there is a sizable minority who calls stick.

-I got many different answers in the rules forum, and I want to see how coaches want us to call the game. Do they want body or stick? I have my opinion on how it should be called, but more importantly I want it called consistently, which ever way it goes.


thirty inches.. how many steps you think that is??

it's a huge advantage..

thats like taking a regular car and racing it against a drag car.. if they are equally fast, the drag car would win because it's longer..

[JohnB-6]

thirty inches.. how many steps you think that is??



One. Its one step. Im bored at work, so I measured it on the ground. And if you are running and your strides are longer, its about 1/2 a stride.

In your comparison with a drag car you forgot to mention that the regular car gets to start the race 5 car lengths ahead.

[WHEELAX2]

One. Its one step. Im bored at work, so I measured it on the ground. And if you are running and your strides are longer, its about 1/2 a stride.

In your comparison with a drag car you forgot to mention that the regular car gets to start the race 5 car lengths ahead.


you really think that a stick should count as part of the body< and that if your stick is extended further, you shuld get the ball?

it's hard enough judging who's closer now the way the rules are..

it would be a lot harder to tell who's closer by how far they extend the stick..

[RottingMind13]

true, but then u could say it's unfair that attack start out closer to the line, or run faster cus they have less stick...it should even out in that sense.


The attack isnt always closer to the line. Shots that are heading towards the side or back corner the D-man may be closer. It really isnt that hard to run with a D-pole and if that is what the cause of a person not making it closest to the ball on a shot, then they just need to train harder.

[JohnB-6]

you really think that a stick should count as part of the body< and that if your stick is extended further, you shuld get the ball?

it's hard enough judging who's closer now the way the rules are..

it would be a lot harder to tell who's closer by how far they extend the stick..

WHEELAX2, I am posting this because I want to see how the coaches want this rule interpreted. The rulebook is not clear on who should get possession. I would rather discuss this here than on a Saturday morning in January at the referee meetings. I ref by the rulebook, and my opinion does not matter, but since you asked...

NO! I do not think the stick should count as part of the body. I never said that. I think the stick should count as part of the player. The rulebook says its the player that is closest, not the body/stick/arm/torso.

I think the d-man or goalie who outran and dove/extended his stick with all his might should get possession over a lazy attackman who sauntered over to the ball. I have no problem with a 30 inch advantage. Over the past few years its getting harder and harder for the defense to get turnovers. You have to chop a guys arm off to get the ball out of his Warrior-made pinched stick. Give the D a 30 inch advantage here. Its not unfair, because both teams have longpoles.

Do you ref? I mean no disrespect by this question, maybe you have 3X the experience that I do, but I find it much easier to stand on the end/sideline and look at any part of the player when the ball goes out. I think it would be harder to try and see where their bodies begin, because their sticks kind of interfere with that judgement.

[WHEELAX2]

yes I do ref, and I am sticking with the "spirit" of the rule


"lazy attackmen"??

"warrior - made pinched"


once again.. in the spirit of the game..

if you were to remove the sideline, who would gain posession of the ball 9 times out of 10?

the guy who has body position, or the guy trailing?? it's as simple as that..

[JohnB-6]

WHEELAX2, Im not asking you to change your opinion, in fact, I like your opinion. It makes sense. I was coached/reffed differently. I just want to see how many other people thought it should be stick.

lazy attackmen - this is in jest. Im riding to philly this weekend with two lazy attackmen.

warrior pinched head -thats another thread for another day. everytime I measure a Warrior stick, its never 10 inches from the top of the guard stop to the top of the plastic. they make their heads to come out of the factory right on the line. Its next to impossible to dislodge the ball with a good check. Now you have to swing harder and harder to get the ball out, makes it unsafe for kids out there.

[WHEELAX2]

WHEELAX2, Im not asking you to change your opinion, in fact, I like your opinion. It makes sense. I was coached/reffed differently. I just want to see how many other people thought it should be stick.

lazy attackmen - this is in jest. Im riding to philly this weekend with two lazy attackmen.

warrior pinched head -thats another thread for another day. everytime I measure a Warrior stick, its never 10 inches from the top of the guard stop to the top of the plastic. they make their heads to come out of the factory right on the line. Its next to impossible to dislodge the ball with a good check. Now you have to swing harder and harder to get the ball out, makes it unsafe for kids out there.


I guess you can blame the rules commitee for allowing such equipment..

it's not like warrior forces them to make sticks legal..

warrior could produce a full line of "illegal" sticks, but it's up to the NCAA, etc.. to decide what's legal for the game..

[JohnB-6]

A decent read if you have a few minutes...

http://www.e-lacrosse.com/2004/spin/snorrior.html

[Lax101]

John B-6, if I remember correctly, weren't you arguing and complaining in the Rules and Officiating Forum when you asked about this ruling (according to the book) and everyone unanimously said that it should go by body? Someone has a bone to pick about this rule...

Really, what is the meaning of having one's stick extended out farther than another? If Person A's body is closer to the endline than Person B's when the ball leaves, the play has stopped, and Person A is closer to the ball. If the ball somehow managed to not roll out of bounds, who would be more likely to get possession? Person A, by simple logic. In fact, lets say a ball is rolling out to the endline, but since we're playing on a field with very tall grass, the ball stays at the very corner of the field. Who's going to get it more likely? Yes, attackman do get an advantage by usually being farther back, but in a hypothetical situation, they would likely get possession if the ball didn't go out of bounds.

Maybe you think differently since many players are taught to extend out their sticks when running for an errant ball. I can rationalize that concept since putting your stick out will thus put your arm out farther, which technically matters if a referee is going to judge the nearest person as closely as possible.

A decent read if you have a few minutes...

http://www.e-lacrosse.com/2004/spin/snorrior.html
Check the "Making a mountain out of a molehill" thread on the forums. Some of our forums' smarter members dissected the article and revealed that it was a load of crap. Weaver is angry and obsessed with Warrior hatred, and many of his personal claims that Warrior ripped off E-Lacrosse is just bull. I'd love to have a debate with you about the "corrupt" nature of Warrior, but we're talking about rules now.

edit: Hell, I read a paragraph of that E-Lacrosse article and I couldn't help.

-Society is about copying everyone else. That's how you raise everyone's standards. Lets take this example to lacrosse. If the lacrosse world didn't copy each other, then STX would be the only company with metal shafts, plastic heads, and mesh. Oh, and Warrior would be the only company with Titanium, so Titan Classic/Pro haters would have to live without their beloved STX Ti's. Warrior copied STX with the Odyssey? Well STX blatantly ripped off Brine by making the "Forward Cant" to avoid paying loyalties to Brine, and then Brine ripped off STX for making mesh palm gloves and they ripped off Warrior for making a floating wrist cuff (i.e. Superfreaks-Defts). It's the circle of life, boys.

-Warrior ripped Under Armour? Brine did too with their unsuccessful line of ventilator/performance wear, and if you ask some experts, they'll say that Nike and others had Under Armour style concepts way before UA, it's just that Under Armour was the first to really capitalize off of it.

-Weaver is really mature throughout the entire article, throwing out ridiculous, puerile shots at Warrior (namely Morrow) that have no basis. That kills most of the integrity in his argument. Way to show some bias.

-Ah yes, the whole "PIMP" marketing. Hey, RBK, Nike, And One, Adidas, and others have been marketing their products as "ghetto" for years, for the sake of selling $200 sneakers to overweight white kids in Indiana, that bear Jordan and Lebron's name. It's smart advertising, which Warrior has capitalized on before everyone else. Brine followed suit a year later, with their "R&D Team" which look more like A&F ads.

-E-Lacrosse made a lacrosse dictionary. Boy, nobody has ever made specialized dictionaries and glossaries. Ever. Warrior must have copied them. Fo sho.

-I like how nearly all of the letters he posts praise him, because I know a ton of TLF kids wrote letters bashing him. Way to show more bias.

[jnico129]

im pretty sure some one said this but i will say it anyway body should get pos due to unfair advantage of d-poles

[jimd619]

This was a discussion in the Ref's forum. Yes it is body. Some debate on what is body, though most agree it is clear in rules the hand is part of the stick. But the person above who said the arm extends forward as part of the body is correct, it does make sense. Had some woman-fan from Allen Tx try to tell me I knew nothing and it was the stick. Oh well, not everyone reads the rules.

But another interesting thing to watch, how many goalies run straight back to the the sideline rather than towards the ball. Is that because they think it is closest to the sideline?

[Pagan30]

No it's because sometimes the goalie has lost sight of the ball and is just trying to make the a play and hope he is close

[lax4life6]

body because most of the time it is an attackman racing a dpole. and thats real fair if youre going by stick position

[3rdPersonPlural]

As Wheelax pointed out, at the moment the ball goes out of bounds, the guy who's butt is between the ball and the opponent has the advantage if the ball were to remain loose AT THAT POINT.

Therefore, the spirit of the rule is body. Just like it was on the officiating forum.