PDA

View Full Version : Should penalties "stack" in high school lacrosse?


LaxRef
06-26-2006, 01:16 PM
For those of you who don't recall, the NCAA stacking rule says:

f. A maximum of three players from the same team can be in the specialsubstitution area serving penalties at the same time. The penalty time of additional players will not start unless the penalty time of one of the three players in the special-substitution area expires. A player's penalty cannot be released by a goal until he is in the special substitution area and the time on his penalty has started to elapse.

A.R. 1. A1, A2, A3, and A4 receive one-minute releasable penalties which are all reported during the same dead ball. A1, A2, and A3 begin to serve their penalties at the same time, while A4 waits in the bench area immediately next to the scorer's table but not in the special substitution area. Team A restarts play with 7 players on the field. (1) Team B scores a goal after 30 seconds. (2) Team B does not score a goal in the next minute. RULING: (1) A1, A2, and A3 are released, and A4 begins serving his one-minute penalty. (2) A1 and A2 may enter the field. A3 must exit to the bench area, and A4 steps into the special substitution area and begins serving his penalty. Team A is now playing with 9 players on the field. A3 may now substitute into the game in the normal manner if desired.

The question is, does such a rule make sense for NFHS (high school) lacrosse? The heart of the question is whether the fouled team benefits more from being up, say, 4 men for one minute, with a goal releasing all penalties, or 3 men for a minute then 1 man for another minute.

My thought is that good teams are going to score whether up 3 or 4 men, so they'd rather have the penalties stack so they get an additional man-up opportunity. Poor teams, OTOH, might prefer to have a 4-man advantage for one minute since they have such trouble scoring.

laxattack1616
06-26-2006, 01:21 PM
I dont get why you would want stacking at any level. If we get rid of it wont it make the refs job a bit easier?

I know pretty much nothing about this though, so i shoulnt have even posted.

laxfan25
06-26-2006, 01:23 PM
Stack 'em all in the penalty box and let God sort 'em out!

DanHS
06-26-2006, 02:45 PM
1. I hope with is a problem that none of us face with any regularity.

2. I think the criteria should be administration and I would think that having the four serve concurrently would be the easiest for anyone to administer.

ColtsLax
06-26-2006, 03:07 PM
no, there should be no rule. it actually gives the penalized team the advantage to have a stack rule, everyone serves their penalties at the same time, thats why its called a penalty.

Woodenstick
06-26-2006, 03:21 PM
no, there should be no rule. it actually gives the penalized team the advantage to have a stack rule, everyone serves their penalties at the same time, thats why its called a penalty.

I believe that "stacking" means everyone does not serve at the same time when you have more than 3 penalties. Personally, I think 6 v 3 is enough of an advanatage for any one time.

spenny
06-26-2006, 03:31 PM
as laxref pointed out to me, stacking is a worse deal for the team that comitted all the penalties. rather than all (say 5 penalties) expiring with a goal, with stacking you get another man down opportunity because not all the players penalized will be in the penalty box at once

LaxRef
06-26-2006, 03:40 PM
no, there should be no rule. it actually gives the penalized team the advantage to have a stack rule, everyone serves their penalties at the same time, thats why its called a penalty.

The stacking rule is the one where not more than 3 guys from one team serve at once. And my point is that I'm not convinced that it gives the penalized team an advantage.

Consider if team B that got 6 one-minute releasable penalties on 6 different players on the same play (I know, unlikely, but consider the possibility). If you don't stack, team A will score one quick goal, all penalties will release, and the game will continue. But if you stack the penalties, team A will likely get a goal from the 6-on-3, three penalties will release, and then team A will likely get another goal based on the next 6-on-3. Thus, I think it ends up being more of a penalty if you stack, unless team A is too inept to score on either 6-on-3, and if that's the case, the goal from getting a 6-on-0 probably isn't going to make much difference.

The reason I bring this up is that I'm wondering whether it makes any sense to propose the stacking rule to the NFHS next year, since I think usually works out to make penalties more severe rather than less severe.

Oh, I thought of a counter-example, though: team B gets 7 1:00 NR penalties. In that case, I guess I'd rather have 1:00 shooting at an open goal than 2:00 of 6-on-3 and 1:00 of 6-on-5.

RockStar
06-26-2006, 04:40 PM
I like the stacking.

Canadian box does it analogously - can't be shorthanded by more than two men, so third and subsequent penalties don't even start counting down until at least one of the first two penalties is released by goal, or expiration.

(NLL does it stupidly by awarding penalty shots for third and subsequent penalties. This is fair from a penalty standpoint, but is annoying because of the extra time delay).