Non-Goalie Playing Goal [Archive]

ploaref

01-28-2007, 09:34 PM

Would love some input from denizens of this Forum about whether or not we should get a rule set forth in the youth rules to prohibit a non-goalie (i.e.: one not wearing goalie equipemt) from standing in the crease and "playing goal" as in: trying to stop a shot.

We have had lengthy conversations about what happens when a goalie loses or breaks equipment, in or out of the crease. To the best of my knowledge, neither NFHS or the NCAA has so far come up with a rule to prohibit a defenseman from getting in an "acting like a goalkeeper". That may seem like a subjective thing in many ways, but i think most of us know it when we see it...goalie out of the crease, defenseman jumps in to block a shot...

This is something that can be written into the youth (U-15) rules fairly easily, but how should it read?? I'm thinking it needs to be a technical foul (illegal procedure?) which could, or course end up sending the offending player off the field for 30. It could also just stop play if the ball is loose...

Your thoughts would be much appreciated...

..

3rdPersonPlural

01-28-2007, 09:48 PM

Indeed, rules to discourage defenders with apocalyptic views regarding their defensive role from exposing their inadequately padded bodies to shots are a good idea.

However, I don't ever want to have to tell some chap emerging from that curtain of darkness..."... got hit in the stones, huh? Bummer. That's GOT to hurt. You're in for a 30 second technical, so work on your breathing over in the box, K?"

Let's try this:

'No player other than a properly equipped goalkeeper may intentionally and deliberately attempt to position his body in such a way as to interfere with the trajectory of a shot.'

This rule excludes the poor schmuck who couldn't get out of the way fast enough, but dings the bold and heroic (quixotic?) player who opts to 'sacrifice the body'.

ploaref

01-29-2007, 05:41 AM

'No player other than a properly equipped goalkeeper may intentionally and deliberately attempt to position his body in such a way as to interfere with the trajectory of a shot.'

i like that...it's a start. Should we add "...within the crease..." in there somewhere?

..

massref

01-29-2007, 06:27 AM

3rdPersonPlural

01-29-2007, 10:44 AM

Do we want to limit this to the crease? If we are trying to keep defenders from stepping in for an out-of-position keeper, yeah, that works, but if we implicitly permit shot blocking with your heels at the crease line, things aren't going to be much better.

RottingMind13

01-29-2007, 12:04 PM

If you take away the crease limit, then you are in effect limiting the defenseman's ability to do his job. Part of the thing about defense is knocking down shots. If you try and put a limit on something outside of the crease there may be a greater burden put onto the defenseman. If you're 20 yards out and right in front of an offensive shot or 10 yards out and stand in front of a shot it hurts a bit, but the d-man isnt doing anything wrong. I do agree about not allowing them to block shots within the crease, but I dont see how you could try to extend beyond that boundary.

3rdPersonPlural

01-29-2007, 01:36 PM

Good point, RM. unless we carefully and clearly 'bound' the rule, it becomes a monster.

DanHS

01-29-2007, 01:52 PM

I agree that we should prohibit the activity but we shouldn't tie it to a shot but rather tie it to the positioning. Many teams have someone step in the crease on a when the goalie is clearing. We should prohibit the activity at that point rather than when the shot is imminent.

We shouldn’t expect the player to get out of the way when the shot is coming – he should be there is the first place.

'No player other than a properly equipped goalkeeper may intentionally and deliberately attempt to position his body within the crease in such a way as act as the goal keeper.’

LaxRef

01-29-2007, 02:00 PM

I think that:
"No player other than a properly equipped goalkeeper may intentionally and deliberately attempt to position his body within the crease in such a way as to interfere with the trajectory of a shot."
is a good start, any more suggestions???

This is a good start, but there's more to consider here. The way you're phrasing it, if it's a technical foul (illegal procedure, most likely), then the foul doesn't occur until the ball is loose (you can't interfere with the trajectory of a shot until there's a shot in the air, which is a loose ball). Thus, the only penalty would be to give the ball back to the team that was shooting. That does nothing to discourage people from blocking shots.

Maybe:

"No player, other than a properly equipped goalkeeper, may attempt to position his body within the crease for the apparent purpose of blocking a shot or potential shot with his body."

We could maybe add a clause about it being illegal for a defensive player to enter the crease when the offense has possession and the GK is out of the crease.

3rdPersonPlural

01-29-2007, 04:03 PM

Yeah, if it's a technical foul to leap into the crease and try to get body in the way of a shot, it's not much of a deterrent.

Defenseman thoughts (yes, it happens): If I do nothing they have a shot at an empty cage which is a sure goal. If I leap in and don't block the shot, the foul is waved off, but at least I tried. If I manage to block the shot, I'm trading a certain goal for a champion bruise and a 30 second man down which is NOT a certain goal.

Therefore, 'goal tending' has to be called as USC.

LaxRef

01-29-2007, 04:12 PM

Longpole5435

01-29-2007, 04:46 PM

3rdPersonPlural

01-29-2007, 04:46 PM

Keep in mind we're talking about defensemen with an 8th grade education at best.

Let's not forget the coach with a freshly minted BA, though. What coach wouldn't instruct his players to exchange a technical for a certain goal?

CardinalPuff

01-29-2007, 05:01 PM

Keep in mind we're talking about defensemen with an 8th grade education at best.
the NY Times is written at an 8th grade level....just say'n...

personally, i hate legislating this particular play....what if the goalie is just barely out of the crease, partially saves the shot and the ball is slowly rolling towards the goal line?.....a defenseman wouldn't be allowed to make the "save"?.....he's got to just stand there or go for USC?.....

harsh and athletically counterintuitive....

LaxRef

01-29-2007, 05:01 PM

Let's not forget the coach with a freshly minted BA, though. What coach wouldn't instruct his players to exchange a technical for a certain goal?

I think this is the part where I'm supposed to say I wasn't talking about the youth players.

3rdPersonPlural

01-29-2007, 06:30 PM

Puff, there is a difference between popping through the crease to snag an errant ball and facing down a shooter by apparently impersonating a wall.

If we can tell a slash from a brush and a trip from an accident, surely we can tell a defender behaving like a goalie from a defender behaving like.....well.... a guy with an 8th grade education and a long shaft.

BlueJaysLaxFan

01-29-2007, 09:56 PM

This is hilarious!

ploaref

01-29-2007, 10:53 PM

Thanks for all the input! Keep it coming...

i honestly don't think this can be a slow whistle situation. That would defeat the "safety" issue. Remember guys, that this rule will apply (initially anyway) to U-15 and down only. The idea is to try to change the culture that a defensive player should jump into the crease to try to make a save when the goalie is out of the crease. The focus for the defense should become: to try to prevent a shot from being taken.

If it's a loose ball situation and a defensive player jumps in the crease, fine, thats easy...kill the play. Award the ball. No ProblemO.

For situations where possession is in the attacking team, and then the defensive player assumes the goal-keepers stance or position, in the crease, we really are looking for a way to stop play before a shot occurs. The bottom line is safety....and there's the challenge...how to codify this situation? Must we create a unique situation where a stoppage of play occurs without sending someone off the field for a time-server?

..

laxfan25

01-30-2007, 07:31 AM

One additional problem that hasn't been mentioned is that I have often seen attackmen intentionally target the D-man when taking the shot - especially early in the game - to get them to flinch or move out of the way on future shots. So this has to be factored in as well.
This could end up like the women's game (I went through a training class on women's officiating last Spring). In their game, the defense is prohibited from placing their body in front of an attacker's shot (obstructing free space to goal - I believe), and the attacker is prohibited from taking a shot if a defender is between them and the goal. So you see defenders rushing the shooter from off to the side, with their stick extended into the shooting space. The shooter is also required to try to miss the goalie when shooting - if you think the shooter was aiming at the goalie, that is a penalty as well.

I think your concept is noble, but difficult to enforce. I think this is why the NCAA just came out with the statement that this is something that should not be coached and should be strongly discouraged - but no codifying or enforcement mechanism was put in place.

DanHS

01-30-2007, 08:33 AM

There are several assumptions here and I don't think we can resolve this until we agree on the assumptions.

1. The behavior we are trying to stop is learned – it is being taught by some coaches. We need to make coaches teach the players to not do this.
2. It is a dangerous play and play needs to be stopped if a shot is imminent. We need to stop play without putting the offense at a disadvantage. A shot is imminent anytime the offense has possession in its attack area.
3. If no shot is imminent then safety is served by awarding the ball to the offense.. That means a loose ball situation results in the ball being awarded to the offense.
4. We do not want to take a player off the field in a time-serving penalty.

If the above represents our desires then we should penalize the coach and make the offense reportable to the league.

3rdPersonPlural

01-30-2007, 11:00 AM

Dan and 25 both agree that the guilty party here is the coach. No kid in his right mind is going to volunteer to stop a shot with his body, and if the coach prohibits the practice, it will quickly become scarce as hen's teeth. A 'suggested guideline' may be ignored, but if backed by a 1 min. NR USC, the hearts and minds will follow.

Since I AM a (former) defenseman with the cognative skills of a U15 player, let me assure you that if coach told me that hopping in the crease and taking one in the stones for old nassau was considered by the refs to be unsportsmanlike conduct and would get me a minute personal, I would archive that tidbit right along with the rule against lighting up a Marlboro on the sideline. I.E. stuff I wouldn't do even if it were encouraged.

BlueJaysLaxFan

01-30-2007, 12:48 PM

U15 players have enough trouble remembering that they cannot touch the keeper with possession in the crease, and we do have rules on that. For youth only, adding a rule on keepers only in the crease to play GK is a good addition using DHSs wording. This is already done for other rules such as slash calls (hitting the helmet, even inadvertedly) and two-hand stick control, so adding this rule for safety reasons makes sense and is needed to let the youth coaches explicitly know the limits of the youth game.

Quality of U15 coaches is not consistent, so this addition to the rules will at least let them know what they cannot coach their teams to do.

RottingMind13

01-30-2007, 02:51 PM

Dan and 25 both agree that the guilty party here is the coach. No kid in his right mind is going to volunteer to stop a shot with his body, and if the coach prohibits the practice, it will quickly become scarce as hen's teeth. A 'suggested guideline' may be ignored, but if backed by a 1 min. NR USC, the hearts and minds will follow.

I dont know. I see kids all the time who fall on purpose while ice skating and who take the pain without really caring. I remember blocking shots in soccer (relatively the same principle minus the whole hard rubber ball being projected from a stick) and having the best feeling be the ball hitting my leg and go flying the other way. I gladly volunteered my body at that point and I'm sure that you can find a reasonable amount of kids who would do the same. Either that or I'm a subliminal masachist(?sp masakist..... you know the guy who loves pain)

3rdPersonPlural

01-30-2007, 03:20 PM

Masochist.

Yeah, I know that Hockey and soccer players get macho points for taking one for the team, but soccer balls are large, soft, and slow compared to a lax ball, and hockey players are universally padded.

So their rule makers don't feel obliged to try to keep them from getting hit with a shot.

A 1 minute NR USC might not keep a demented masochist from stepping in front of shots any more than it keeps a sadist from slashing, but most kids try to play by the rules, and most coaches teach players not to commit violations that are too blatant to be missed and result in a big penalty.

A technical foul is not enough of a set back to convince a coach to forbid the practice. A USC is.

That's my point.

DanHS

01-30-2007, 03:25 PM

I am repeating myself but if we want to make this a coaching issue then make the call against the coach. A1 will serve but I think we will make the point. I would like to think that most leagues would 'review' USC calls against the coach.

3rdPersonPlural

01-30-2007, 03:34 PM

If the call is against the coach then the in home serves it.

Are you proposing that the call is against the coach and the violator (player) sits the penalty?

laxfan25

01-30-2007, 04:14 PM

So would you give a USC to an attackman/middie who you felt was intentionally burying a shot in the defender's gut?? Why should they get a free pass?

Longpole5435

01-30-2007, 04:20 PM

So would you give a USC to an attackman/middie who you felt was intentionally burying a shot in the defender's gut?? Why should they get a free pass?
Beat me to the punch.

1400th Post :concerned
I need to get out more.

Woodenstick

01-30-2007, 05:23 PM

The penalty should be a FDSW. Otherwise most teams will trade a penalty for stopping a sure goal anytime, and just stepping in the crease stops the action. Effectively you will be encouraging this as it is actually a smart play in some situations.

If the penalty is a FDSW, you may stop the goal and get a penalty, but you may also give up the goal anyway and still have a penalty (assumes either the penalty is a personal foul or the rule against waving off technicals after a goal is changed for this infraction). Thus there is a bigger deterent to stepping into the crease and acting like a goalie if the call is FDSW.

The other option is to make the penalty worse than giving up a goal, which would have to be like a flagrent foul ejection.

3rdPersonPlural

01-30-2007, 05:30 PM

So would you give a USC to an attackman/middie who you felt was intentionally burying a shot in the defender's gut?? Why should they get a free pass?

It's a fine line, but if I am confident that the defender, not the cage, was the target, I'd blow an USC, you bet.

Especially with this new emphasis in place.

massref

01-30-2007, 06:27 PM

It's a fine line, but if I am confident that the defender, not the cage, was the target, I'd blow an USC, you bet.

Especially with this new emphasis in place.

I am glad to see this point come to a discussion. I observed a U15 game where team A was shooting at the team B defense continually through the first half with no pretense of shooting at the goal to intimidate or injure the opposition, obviously a coached behavior, and the official called nothing. Parents of both teams were banging on the glass; it was ugly. No calls were made by the official wearing his US Lacrosse College Certified patch at this youth game. If we are truely concerned with the safety of players this issue should be officially addressed.

Longpole5435

01-30-2007, 06:42 PM

I am glad to see this point come to a discussion. I observed a U15 game where team A was shooting at the team B defense continually through the first half with no pretense of shooting at the goal to intimidate or injure the opposition, obviously a coached behavior, and the official called nothing. Parents of both teams were banging on the glass; it was ugly. No calls were made by the official wearing his US Lacrosse College Certified patch at this youth game. If we are truely concerned with the safety of players this issue should be officially addressed.
No. No. No. No.
I'm sure some referees could handle this rule, but the majority could not. This is unabashedly subjective and highly judgemental. What do you want next, shooting lanes like girl's lacrosse? This rule would lead to a whole new series of rules taht would destroy the men's game as we know it.

As a pole, I would rather risk getting shot at than accept this rule. Modern equipment is highly protective of vital areas. Injuries will always be a part of sports, that is why we sign a liability waiver before we play. Bones mend. Sure, there is always the most remote possiblity, but if you don't want to assume that minute risk, then DO NOT STEP ON THE FIELD. It is as simple as that.

I hate this more than I hate U.R. :guns:

massref

01-30-2007, 08:01 PM

When the shooter isn't even shooting in a line toward the goal and hits a defensemen multiple times with the ball. What would you suggest?

EndlesFimbulvet

01-30-2007, 08:02 PM

What would you define as a "properly equipped goalkeeper"?

Would you define it as Chest protector and throat guard? Or goalie stick as well?

Lets say this does become a rule in the future. I play defense for our JV teams on indoor, and I simply use my normal helmet (including throat guard) and chest protector. Would this qualify me as a properly equipped goalkeeper? Or would I need a goalie crosse?

DanHS

01-30-2007, 08:04 PM

My proposal is that the foul be called against the coach and the penality would be served by the in home. We are no suggesting that shooters cannot shoot at the goalie, we are stating that a player cannot deliberately put himself in the way of a shot without proper protection. We require players in different positions to wear different protective equipment. We are really simply trying to give the league and the officials a way of encouraging coaches to do the 'right' thing for kids.

We have adults playing box with little equipment but they get to make 'adult' decisions about their own safety. Youth don't get to make the same decisions.

Longpole5435

01-30-2007, 08:17 PM

When the shooter isn't even shooting in a line toward the goal and hits a defensemen multiple times with the ball. What would you suggest?
but a defender is generally keeping himself between the attacker and the goal. Therefore, he isn't really "not in a shooting line" with the goal.

ploaref

01-30-2007, 09:19 PM

This is great stuff! I would love to have proposed rule language sent by whoever cares to send it - to me at boysyouthrules@aol.com and i will take it to the Youth Council Boys Youth Rules Committee meeting on February 24-25 at USL. This is way out front however...we won't finalize any changes for 2008 until the summer...

I agree about the "side conversation" here about shots directed by an attacker at a defender outside the crease...thats GOTTA be USC for sure unless its clearly and purely unintentional. What we're talking about here is really entirely different. I also really like making this a foul on the coach. The USC seems the logical one, although there will be complaints that the behavior is "selfless" and not unsporting in any way...but as has been correctly pointed out in here...this is a matter of chnaging the culture. We don't have "dangerous play" like the girls, and USC is probably the closest thing to it, yes? Perhaps a 1 min NR "conduct" foul? ...just removing the "unsportsmanlike" portion...this rule really would be a different animal...just thinking out loud here...

Any other fixes/suggestions anyone has for the YOUTH rules?? They start, of course, on page 91 of this year's NFHS book...although come to think of it,maybe that would require a new thread!

Thanks! You guys ROCK!

3rdPersonPlural

01-30-2007, 09:54 PM

No. No. No. No.
I'm sure some referees could handle this rule, but the majority could not.

Nonsense. We call slashes and trips, which, to me, are a whole lot easier to grock than some attacker shooting at a defender.It takes judgement. If you object to the judgement of the refs you have, recruit some more.

This is unabashedly subjective and highly judgemental.

All calls are. Except, like, offsides, which requires refs to look one way when the game is another.

What do you want next, shooting lanes like girl's lacrosse? This rule would lead to a whole new series of rules taht would destroy the men's game as we know it.

Slippery slope arguement, pole. (If we let people under 30 post on the officials forum, next thing we know is we'll have infants banging letter-clumps into serious dialogues!)

Don't get in the way of shots. Don't shoot at people instead of the cage. This is simple to me. Simple to you. What's the problem?

As a pole, I would rather risk getting shot at than accept this rule.

I got a fiver that says you flinch like a shrimp dropped into bawlin' watter when some shooter lines up your stones. If I lose, you're subhuman.

Modern equipment is highly protective of vital areas.

The sternum? The kidney? The spine?

Injuries will always be a part of sports, that is why we sign a liability waiver before we play. Bones mend. Sure, there is always the most remote possiblity, but if you don't want to assume that minute risk, then DO NOT STEP ON THE FIELD. It is as simple as that.

I hate this more than I hate U.R. :guns:

Ask your dad to ask his lawyer what would happen if you had your sternum busted and there was no rule violated.

Longpole5435

01-30-2007, 10:51 PM

Nonsense. We call slashes and trips, which, to me, are a whole lot easier to grock than some attacker shooting at a defender.It takes judgement. If you object to the judgement of the refs you have, recruit some more.
I have recruited myself. Does that count?
In all seriousness, most referees are not as sensible as those on these forums. They make calls that are inconsistent, incorrect or one sided (and I;m not jsut talking about against my team). Granted humans are imperfect, but standards are not high.

All calls are. Except, like, offsides, which requires refs to look one way when the game is another.
Yes, and we shouldn't go adding more subjectivity to the game, it has enough problems as is.

Slippery slope arguement, pole. (If we let people under 30 post on the officials forum, next thing we know is we'll have infants banging letter-clumps into serious dialogues!)
Way to take it to an extreme just like I did. :naughty:

Don't get in the way of shots. Don't shoot at people instead of the cage. This is simple to me. Simple to you. What's the problem?
It denies people strategies that are very effective in lacrosse and are not illegal in the rules. The game is fine as is. Why tinker so much? Is there a vast number of injuries from this practice? Is it a rampant abuse in the sport?

It takes away from those who are crafty enough to devise it and implement it.

I got a fiver that says you flinch like a shrimp dropped into bawlin' watter when some shooter lines up your stones. If I lose, you're subhuman.
I am superhuman, not subhuman :chuckle:

The sternum? The kidney? The spine?
Sternum, yes. If a player is wearing proper equipment, then their sternum is well protected. I have been hit with a 90+ shot square in the chest. It doesn't hurt. Getting slashed in the upper arm hurts much worse.

As for the kidney and spine, that means you are turning your back, which, if you are familiar with proper shot-blocking teechnique as I am from hockey, you will know is the worst approach to shot-blocking. Coaching can correct this.

Ask your dad to ask his lawyer what would happen if you had your sternum busted and there was no rule violated.

Nothing would happen. My Dad said "I would hold nothing against the refereee. He just enforces the rules, he doesn't make them. In any event though, you know you are risking your body by going on the field, so I certainly wouldn't sue."

Woodenstick

01-31-2007, 08:32 AM

I have played defense for 40 years, and I don't remember any attackman ever deliberately shooting at me instead of the goal. Lucky for them. What does happen is the attackman shoots at the goal and hopes the defender ducks or the ball just misses them and is screened. That is legal.

Actions designed to injure other players rather than play the game should be penalized. For example, a player bodychecks another player out of bounds is a legal play, but if he keeps driving the player into the bench after they are out of bounds, it is now UR. We have the same judgment call when a player runs into a pick, late bodychecks, and slashes/stick checks (swinging the stick with "deliberate viciousness"). If I was convinced a player was shooting at another trying to injure them and not score, that is the same as any of the other otherwise legal plays above that become illegal because the player was no longer playing the game but was recklessly or intentionally playing in a way that would injure another player.

Also I would call it UR and not USC, my local chapter takes the position that USC is generally reserved for non-contact fouls.

Jugthug42

01-31-2007, 09:02 AM

So seeing this rule, I would see where the offense is setting up a play that is going to be successful, and I would step infront of the goalie, in the crease. This would cause the play to stop instantly.

So, they put me in the box for that and we go man down, OR you decide there is no legit reason for me to go into the box, and I just stopped the attacking team from taking a high percentage shot on goal.

I, would have thought of that in 8th grade.

massref

01-31-2007, 11:03 AM

So seeing this rule, I would see where the offense is setting up a play that is going to be successful, and I would step infront of the goalie, in the crease. This would cause the play to stop instantly.

Standing intentionally in front of a shot was not mentioned when shooting directly at a defensemen was presented. If you, a defender, want to stand in front of a shot that is your choice in playing, BUT if an attacking player deliberately shoots the ball at a defensemen who is not even in line with the goal, that is another story. It should be a penalty. The attacking player is intentionally trying to harm another player.

:argue:

Longpole5435

01-31-2007, 12:27 PM

Standing intentionally in front of a shot was not mentioned when shooting directly at a defensemen was presented. If you, a defender, want to stand in front of a shot that is your choice in playing, BUT if an attacking player deliberately shoots the ball at a defensemen who is not even in line with the goal, that is another story. It should be a penalty. The attacking player is intentionally trying to harm another player.

:argue:
He is talking about the original idea.

No lacrosse player should be permitted to shoot to hurt someone, but if they shoot where their defender is standing, and he happens to be blocking the path of the ball to the goal, then there should not be a penalty. That is my contention.

If the play looks like this:

O
D

V

And O shoots, and it hits D, then that sucks for D, but nothing illegal about it.