why is it illegal

[trentstaaa24]

this may get closed but i just want and answer.. why is it illegal to not have a ball stop?

[thebrettness]

Should be in rules forum, but I think its a safety issue.

[manup5183]

i was just about to post a thread asking the exact same question. i dont see how haveing one or not makes a difference

[Lax1228]

Should be in rules forum, but I think its a safety issue.
Safety issue? As if not having a ballstop is going to hurt you?

[thebrettness]

It could cut someones arm......maybe. :chuckle: I have no clue, I was trying to actually steer him towards the rules forum, so he could ask LaxRef, but were, not supposed to just go "AHHHHH Go to the RUL3Z!!!1!!"

[3rdPersonPlural]

The answer, after the best minds in the business have chewed over it, is 'because it's the rule'.

See:

http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=46377

[ColtsLax]

it has to do with the way the older wood sticks were made, because without a ballstop, the ball would get trapped in the throat. Once wood sticks got phased out, they forgot to take it off the books.

[LaxRef]

I've submitted this idea (no longer requiring ball stops) to the NCAA rules committee. If they approve the idea, I'll send it to the NFHS committee next year.

[MainLax28]

Even if they made them not mandatory, I would still most likely use one since it is one of those things that needs to be there for me as far as how a stick looks. I don't think they will change the rule though since (I believe) they recently changed it so that you must have a matching ball stop with the head brand. This could possibly be an old rule that just got noticed though. Could you verify which one LaxRef?

[LaxRef]

Even if they made them not mandatory, I would still most likely use one since it is one of those things that needs to be there for me as far as how a stick looks. I don't think they will change the rule though since (I believe) they recently changed it so that you must have a matching ball stop with the head brand. This could possibly be an old rule that just got noticed though. Could you verify which one LaxRef?

There was a new rule about ball stops this year, which was immediately changed because it was dumb. Now there's no restriction on manufacturers, but if you have two ball stops its a 3:00 NR penalty.

[MainLax28]

Thanks, I was wondering if they ever changed it.

[LaxRef]

Thanks, I was wondering if they ever changed it.

Oh, and for NFHS and NCAA you still need a ball stop (at least under current rules), but a stick without one is not illegal in the sense of getting a penalty; it just needs to get fixed.

[PBlax]

that would be dumb because having a different brand ball stop makes no difference.

I think its more benefical to have a ballstop than to not have one.. it prevents the throat from cracking

[LoyolaMiddie878]

i don't see what the big deal is. just have a ball stop. it's of no advantage to not have one, so just accept it, and have a ball stop.

and they actually do help, cause if you get a pass that jams you up, and the ball hits the base of the head right there, the ball stop makes the ball die right into your pocket, whereas if you didn't have one it would just bounce off the hard plastic and out of your stick.

[dlo6215]

is it required for goalies?

[laxlegend]

ball stops also protect the stick by stopping the ball form hitting the bottom when you catch. I got a crack in mine from that.

[LaxRef]

is it required for goalies?

Yes, it is, for all sticks.

[LaxRef]

ball stops also protect the stick by stopping the ball form hitting the bottom when you catch. I got a crack in mine from that.

While this may be true, that alone isn't a good reason to require them.