NFHS & NCAA When can you play the ball quiz?

[TBALAX]

Answer the two questions below and provide a reference

1. Background: During a face-off at center player B1 FO-M in zone three pulls ball directly behind him with enough force for ball to roll into zone four. A2 and B2 are in the attack zone (zone four) watching it roll toward them.

Question 1: When can either player legally play the ball which is rolling toward them currently in zone three and can you find a reference? Assume players bodies remain in zone four.

Answer: The players can play the ball with their crosse.......
a. while the ball is still in zone three?
b. when ball is on or over the line entering zone four. (i.e.attack zone).
c. only after the ball is completely over the line in zone four. (i.e.attack zone)
--------------------------------------------

2. Background: B1 is behind the (A) teams goal in zone one and passes the ball toward B2 in front of A's goal high slot. The ball goes over his head and lands in zone two rolling with enough force to cross the midfield center line into zone three. Players A3 and B3 are both on side in zone three watching the ball come toward them.

Question 2: When can either player legally play the ball which is rolling toward them and can you find a reference? Assume players bodies remain on side in zone three.

Answer: The players can play the ball with their crosse.......
a. while the ball is still in zone two?
b. when the ball is on or over the centerline line entering zone three.
c. only after the ball is completely over the center line in zone three.

[stinisonfire]

I don't have a rule book handy but...

1 - C
2 - A

[laxfan25]

1-A
2-A

Nothing prohibits the players from reaching over the line with their sticks and playing the ball, this is one of the most common plays in the game.

[eme]

NCAA page 44 AR51 is the closest thing I can find.

Midline and crease line do seem to operate in a special world of lines than other lines.
Your stick on or over (touching ground) the midline is not offsides nor are you in the crease when your stick is on or over (touching ground) the crease line.

But you are out of bounds if your stick is touching the sidelines/endlines or the ground outside the sidelines/endlines.

[laxfan25]

NCAA page 44 AR51 is the closest thing I can find.

Midline and crease line do seem to operate in a special world of lines than other lines.
Your stick on or over (touching ground) the midline is not offsides nor are you in the crease when your stick is on or over (touching ground) the crease line.

But you are out of bounds if your stick is touching the sidelines/endlines or the ground outside the sidelines/endlines.
I believe that is because all of the lines except the sidelines are in the field of play. If the numbers are correct, you can cross the midline without creating a violation, but any time you step on or cross over the sidelines, or play the ball outside of them - you are out of bounds - whether you are on offense or defense. Even the crease line can be crossed by a defensive player, as long as he is not in possession before doing so.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

This is a good clarification because I have seen this called as offsides. When I tried to clarify this in the rulebooks (NFHS or NCAA), they do not directly address this, though I accept the argument that they do not prohibit leaning over the center line (and the crease line) with your stick.

[massref]

1-A
2-A

The rules governing offsides, in the crease, crossing midfield, etc. all mention stepping on or over the line. A player is allowed to reach within the crease to play a ball, etc. The rules mentioned would imply that a player can reach over a line to play a ball as long as the player does not step on or over the line in question.

[old geezer]

Rule 4-6-d. An airborne player—A player in midair, when playing a ball, is
considered to be where he last was in contact with the field.

Rule 4-10: A.R. 51. B1 is chasing A1. As A1 crosses center line, B1 stops with both of his feet in his
defensive half of the field. However, he falls over center line with both his hands wrapped
around his crosse and his hands land across the center line. RULING: B1 is offside.
(This also applies to crease.)

Rule 4-19-c: A player is considered to have entered the goal-crease area when any
part of his body touches the goal-crease area.

By reading the above rules, one can interpret that the crosse can play outside the boundary lines of a restrained area while the body itself cannot.


And to answer the original questions, either player can play the ball outside of their area as long as their bodies do not touch the ground beyond their restrained areas.

[LaxRef]

Rule 4-6-d. An airborne player—A player in midair, when playing a ball, is
considered to be where he last was in contact with the field.

Rule 4-10: A.R. 51. B1 is chasing A1. As A1 crosses center line, B1 stops with both of his feet in his
defensive half of the field. However, he falls over center line with both his hands wrapped
around his crosse and his hands land across the center line. RULING: B1 is offside.
(This also applies to crease.)

Rule 4-19-c: A player is considered to have entered the goal-crease area when any
part of his body touches the goal-crease area.

By reading the above rules, one can interpret that the crosse can play outside the boundary lines of a restrained area while the body itself cannot.


And to answer the original questions, either player can play the ball outside of their area as long as their bodies do not touch the ground beyond their restrained areas.

It would be nice if it were spelled out a little better; the status of the stick doesn't seem to be governed by any clear fundamental principles, but by a bevy of special cases.

BTW, welcome aboard TBALAX.

[old geezer]

LR,

Your statement is exactly why there should be more definitions and clarity in the rules book. The rules book is still very vague and inconsistent although it is not as bad as when I started reading the rules in 1975.

There is no definition of a foul, there is inconsistency between the definition of the attack area and the rulings that apply to it, there is no definition of player's position situation on the field, what is a punching blow and there are others.

The definition of the attack area does not include the boundary lines, only the area within these lines, yet rulings include the line as the area. And then, as has been discussed on here in the past, the boundary lines by AR and definition can be in the box or out of the box and that is very inconsistent with the other lines on the field having but a 'single 'property'.

If you were to ask officials for a list of definitions that are needed in the rules book, I'd bet that the list would be longer than you would think. The last time that I read a basketball rules book there were about 4 pages of definitions, yet in the lacrosse rules book we only have 9 definitions upon which officials have to make their rulings. A few other definitions are hidden in the rules and, as pointed out above in regard to the attack area, can be contradicted by other rules. Then we have to take a little bit of this rule/AR and a little bit of that rules/AR, sometimes a 3rd and 4th rules/AR and then add those together to make a ruling. I sometimes think that it is easier being a US Supreme Court Justice trying to interpret the Constitution than it is trying to interpret the rules book.

But this is just my nickel's worth( my 2 cents' worth adjusted for years of inflation).

[laxfan25]

When some of these points are brought up at the national convention - some of the high-ranking folk have the opinion that "you know what we mean"...
I don't think they're all that interested in nailing a lot of this stuff down. For instance, how would you define a punching blow? Mass x acceleration with body location factored in? You'd end up with the NFHS definition for spikes - and I am really reluctant to whip out my Rockwell Hardness comparison tool on the field! (Besides, it's not always properly calibrated - unless I'm working with ShrekJr and covering the substitution area).
Let's face it - there are a lot of things that are left to the judgement of the official, which is why that is such a vital component of an official's profile - and also why we will never have complete uniformity on calls across the country or even between crew members. It is a goal, but unachievable. For instance, look at the definition of a slash in the rulebook, and tell me that any of us call it that way on every check. I often tell people that the challenge of officiating is that you are making thousands of judgements every game - with every interaction between an offensive and defensive player.

[LaxRef]

When some of these points are brought up at the national convention - some of the high-ranking folk have the opinion that "you know what we mean"...
I don't think they're all that interested in nailing a lot of this stuff down.

Actually, I think they're willing to have the language improved, they just don't want to have to do it themselves. But the NCAA has been very receptive to having clarifications put into the rulebook, and I respect them for that.

For instance, how would you define a punching blow? Mass x acceleration with body location factored in? You'd end up with the NFHS definition for spikes - and I am really reluctant to whip out my Rockwell Hardness comparison tool on the field! (Besides, it's not always properly calibrated - unless I'm working with ShrekJr and covering the substitution area).
Let's face it - there are a lot of things that are left to the judgement of the official, which is why that is such a vital component of an official's profile - and also why we will never have complete uniformity on calls across the country or even between crew members. It is a goal, but unachievable. For instance, look at the definition of a slash in the rulebook, and tell me that any of us call it that way on every check. I often tell people that the challenge of officiating is that you are making thousands of judgements every game - with every interaction between an offensive and defensive player.

I think there are important distinctions, though. It's a punching blow if, in my judgment, it's a punching blow. The phrase "punching blow" has an everyday meaning we can use in making our judgment.

However, it would be better to have good definitions of general terms, as well as fundamental guiding principles. Unfortunately, there are some situations that have many exceptions, but I think maybe we can collect those cases into one place to clean them up.

The inconsistency in the attack area definition is a common one in sports, since it is easier to judge if someone touches a line than if they go over it. Thus, to get in the attack area, you step on or over the line, and to step out (in a stalling situation) you step on or over the line. IIRC, this is no different from the blue line in hockey (the blue line is part of whatever zone the puck is in).

[eme]

Have to disagree with Fan 25. NCAA rulebook this year has several dozen improvements of the small variety that make things clearer.

[old geezer]

I do not think that the inconsistency in the attack area definition is a common one. I officiated basketball for many years and they finally took out the double entendre of the out of bounds line, ie, if you're inbounds and step on it, you're now out of bounds; if you're out of bounds and step on it, you're now in bounds.

I still officiate soccer and all lines have one property, but then we deal with a lot of planes vs lines in soccer. It has been many years since I officiated football, baseball or softball, but all the lines had one single property in those sports, and I think that lacrosse should have the same thing.

"since it is easier to judge if someone touches a line than if they go over it"- What makes it any more difficult for you to judge if he goes from area 1( the unpainted part of the field inside the attack area) to area 2( the painted line) than it is to judge if he goes from area 2 as just described to area 3( the unpainted part of the field outside the attack area)? If you cannot tell that difference, then you either need to see an eye doctor or you need to get out of officiating. Not trying to be a hard a$$ but there should be no difference between seeing a violation of one side of a line on a lacrosse field versus seeing a violation on the other side of that 2"-4" line. If you can see a player stepping on a line, then you certainly should be able to see a player stepping over a line, it's that plain and simple.

But now that I have gotten off subject, I will try to return. Yes, the rules book needs a lot of additional clarification and cleaning up, more than you have already done. What the NCAA should do is to give the rules book to a group of about 3 or 4 really veteran, wisened, learned officials and put them in a locked room with only food and bathroom breaks allowed for about a week. Let them rewrite the book so that it can be read easier than the IRS tax code and we wouldn't have this problem. Coaches should not be allowed to word the rules, they should give it to officials who have really been around, tell them what they want, and then let the officials write the rules because the coaches certainly can't do it in a readable, logical manner.

[TBALAX]

All thanks for your thoughts. This quiz / question was based on a referee clinic where the question came up and the person asking wanted a reference instead of a trust me this is how you do it.

It seems today a "few" good people are doing their best to make changes to the rule book and training guide.

However, its not at the point yet where a "new trainee" can take the rule book and training manual and understand all of the technical or basic definitions they need to know. As an example I could not find an "specific" definition or AR to explain the two questions that started this thread. It came down to trust me. Pulling the answer out of three different locations that don't specifically answer it really is not the preferred method to teach a new subject. It leaves to much room to mess up and effect the game.

The convention had a lot of very knowledgeable referees who had worked for many many years discussing their interpitatoin of specific rules. What may be missing in discussions about the rule book etc are those new trainees "the least knowledgable" and what areas they don't understand or can't find answers too during their training. A good start would be set definitions. With the expansion of lacrosse we need to help the individual wanting to become referees and the trainers as we attempt to work toward a more consistant referee CORPS.

Is there a way more folks could help identify the gaps between what is documented and what is missing.

What is that process today if folks wanted to highlight areas like my inial two questions?

Again thanks to all for your input.

[LaxRef]

I do not think that the inconsistency in the attack area definition is a common one. I officiated basketball for many years and they finally took out the double entendre of the out of bounds line, ie, if you're inbounds and step on it, you're now out of bounds; if you're out of bounds and step on it, you're now in bounds.

I don't know basketball very well, but isn't it an over-and-back violation to step on the midcourt line? If so, it's exactly analagous.

I still officiate soccer and all lines have one property, but then we deal with a lot of planes vs lines in soccer. It has been many years since I officiated football, baseball or softball, but all the lines had one single property in those sports, and I think that lacrosse should have the same thing.

"since it is easier to judge if someone touches a line than if they go over it"- What makes it any more difficult for you to judge if he goes from area 1( the unpainted part of the field inside the attack area) to area 2( the painted line) than it is to judge if he goes from area 2 as just described to area 3( the unpainted part of the field outside the attack area)?

Well, for one, shoes tend to be dark colors and lines tend to be white. There's more contrast between the shoe and the white line than the shoe and the green turf. But a lot of it is that that's how I'm used to calling it.

If you cannot tell that difference, then you either need to see an eye doctor or you need to get out of officiating. Not trying to be a hard a$$ but there should be no difference between seeing a violation of one side of a line on a lacrosse field versus seeing a violation on the other side of that 2"-4" line. If you can see a player stepping on a line, then you certainly should be able to see a player stepping over a line, it's that plain and simple.

There's no need to get snippy. Look at it this way: I might just as well tell you that you should get out of reffing if you can't keep straight when the line is part of the zone and when it's not.

But now that I have gotten off subject, I will try to return. Yes, the rules book needs a lot of additional clarification and cleaning up, more than you have already done. What the NCAA should do is to give the rules book to a group of about 3 or 4 really veteran, wisened, learned officials and put them in a locked room with only food and bathroom breaks allowed for about a week.

Here I couldn't agree with you less. First of all, veteran, wisened, learned officials are part of the problem: they see what the rule is supposed to mean, not what it says.

Secondly, being a seasoned official has little to do with being a good technical writer and having a good grasp of the rules of logic.

Let them rewrite the book so that it can be read easier than the IRS tax code and we wouldn't have this problem. Coaches should not be allowed to word the rules, they should give it to officials who have really been around, tell them what they want, and then let the officials write the rules because the coaches certainly can't do it in a readable, logical manner.

The big problem the coaches have is that they write the rulebook by making a few changes every year, usually in response to something that came up during the season. Of course, there are problems with wording as well.

In my mind, the best way to handle this is to pinpoint the problems with the rules, discuss them here, and submit suggestions. Having lots of group input has been invaluable over the past few year. I've taken it upon myself to be the keeper of "the list," and I think we're making progress. I'm sorry you think the rules aren't clear enough now, but they're way better than they were 4 years ago.

So, you can stand on the sidelines and complain about how we're not doing enough, or you can help.