Why aren't more slashes called?

[turtlelax23]

I coach in NY. I have noticed over the years that more and more slashes are NOT being called. As the rules read, a slash is any stick check to any area of the body other that a hand on the stick (my paraphrase :naughty: ). This occurs at all levels (even in college). I have the philosophy that that if it is in the rule book you abide by it. So I am a STICKLER for my players to stay away from anything other that stick on stick or stick on gloves. Why are refs letting this rule "slide"? I feel that it is worse to have a rule in the books and not enforce it than to not have the rule at all. It is tough trying to teach my players to repect the rules while the refs let other teams break them. I understand that at check may miss the target every once and a while and hit the body, but I am refering to repeated hacks at arms and shoulders. If the refs aren't going to call it, let's change the rule.
Just my feelings. What are yours? Especially looking forward to hearing from some refs.

[cazorey13]

From what i understand with most refs the "slash" area gets larger with the higher level of play.

[turtlelax23]

I have NO problem with that as long as the RULES reflect that. My gripe is that as a coach of lacrosse AND "life skills" it is hard emphasis and enforce the rules with my players while the other team is allowed to break the rules.

[Woodenstick]

I think that slashes may be called a little differently now than in years past because Defense sticks are a lot lighter now than they used to be, so a stick check to the body does a lot less damage. On the other hand, especially at the youth level, there is a greater emphasis on safety.

I don't know any referees that call EVERY check that doesn't hit stick as a slash, and that was true even when sticks were all wood. Personally, I look at:

1. How hard was the contact
2. Was it at least intended to get the stick
3. Where was the contact (a lot less leeway for heads, necks, backs, etc.)
4. How much control over the stick
5. Level of play, state of the game, my personal aura

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I find that my laundry is on the field a lot more lately for slash calls especially when officiating games with newer teams here in Michigan. I also barely remember if I called one slash the whole game when I officiated a game between the best varsity teams in the state last Spring. So, the team that wins and does well typically is the one that plays good lacrosse. So Coach ttlax23, IMHO if you coach your team to play a good skillful game and not try to resort to slashing, I think that you'll be better off.
As for your observation in NY, you should bring this up at your rules meeting or make contact with the officials association.

[Rileylax]

NCAA wants more emphasis on tightening up the calls. Too many refs were letting them go or calling a lesser foul. This year's NCAA training video showed several blow calls/no-calls when there should definately been a call. The blame rests both on our shoulders and those of the coaches who allow their players to "hack" or don't know how to coach/teach good checking. And don't yell at me for being just a ref, I spent 9 years coaching the MDIA, D-I, and D-III levels.

[cali feeder]

If the check was intended for the stick/glove, chances are it won't be called. Also, with todays heads and stringings, it is VERY hard to dislodge the ball now, and defenders much check MUCH harder, so I think the refs let it slide more to counteract the pinch and pockets. Which explains the 2009 rule.

[kevidinho]

I agree that there will be a lot more called after 2009. Thanks for tipping that off, cali feeder.

[faceofflax15]

Well say this happens

What if the guy throws a poke check intended for his stick, he cuts and it hits his stumach, which is often used as a hello check.

Are you going to call it a slash

Because Im sure not.

[turtlelax23]

Well say this happens

What if the guy throws a poke check intended for his stick, he cuts and it hits his stumach, which is often used as a hello check.

Are you going to call it a slash

Because Im sure not.
This is th kinda thing that I can see being "overlooked". I realize that it is a judgement of intent but as a coach, I'll give the ref the beefit of the doubt. It is the repeated arm "check"/slash that I see even in D1 college that the refs let go and this gets my goat. If we are trying to make it an even playing field (due to the "advanced" heads and stringing) then change the rules to allow the arm checks (I'm not talking about "wreckless abandon" here). After all, the padding has advanced too. My gripe is, if it is in the rules enforce it. If the rules need to be changed then change them in the books, not on the field. Again, it is hard to tell a bunch of testosterone divien young men that they can't hack at the other team while the ref lets the other team hack at then and this is at ALL levels, not just high school.

[laxfan25]

I understand your frustration. I think part of the reason for the problem is that for a lot of kids, their only exposure to "high-level" lacrosse is watching the NCAA championships on ESPN, or watching MLL or heaven forbid, the NLL. In years past I have cringed while watching the NCAA's, feeling that the officials are letting too much stuff go by, in order not to "impact" the game. These are calls that even they might normally make in a college game. The pro game is even worse, and the NLL is the barstadized, roller-ball version of the game.

That said, even in HS, not every check that doesn't find the stick or glove is goiong to be called a slash - we'd never get through a game if that was the case, or it would look like the women's game. What we are judging is the intent of the check, the likelihood that it possibly could reach the stick, the severity of the blow, etc., before we throw the flag. Good officials will also be talking to the players, warning them when they are close to the line, and trying to keep good control while allowing the kids to play the game. As others have noted, as the level rises from beginning HS to high-level HS to college, the refs will calibrate their internal meter accordingly. That meter may also get adjusted DURING a game, based on how much control the players are exhibiting. What I have seen also is that the better teams typically are better controlled, so you can be a little more lenient, so to speak.

One thing is for sure, if you go by the rule book definition of a slash - you will never see if called that way. There are other rules in the book where the ref's judgement is used to determine whether an action merits a penalty flag, and there are others that seem to be totally ignored. My personal favorite in the NCAA book - Withholding the Ball, which prohibits players from cradling with their hand wrapped around the plastic of the head - you will never see that called anymore (and it should be!).

[Longpole5435]

Maybe if there was any other way to dislodge the ball from an attackman's stick. But with pockets and pinches as good as ever, it is overly difficult to do with every check being legal.

[turtlelax23]

Maybe if there was any other way to dislodge the ball from an attackman's stick. But with pockets and pinches as good as ever, it is overly difficult to do with every check being legal.
Then let's work to get the rules changed. Give me a set of rules and I will abide by them. I don't care which way the rules are written, as is or changed to allow more checks to the arms and bodies, but we need to start enforcing the rules written. AGAIN, I agree with the "brush rule" and think that it can be applied to bodies and arms as the refs "judge" intent it is the repeated hacks I see even in D1

[massref]

Maybe if there was any other way to dislodge the ball from an attackman's stick. But with pockets and pinches as good as ever, it is overly difficult to do with every check being legal.

The problem with pinched sticks is almost over. In 2009, there are very strick head dimensions coming into play. The delay is for manufacturers to sell their existing stock. Buy new heads carefully. Enjoy!!

Starting with the 2009 season, the lacrosse stick will have the following dimensions, in addition to the current specifications:
The measurement at the widest part of the crosse shall be a minimum of 6 1/2 inches measured at the inside front of the crosse and a minimum of 6 inches on the back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 5-inch mark may not be less than 4 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 3-inch mark may not be less than 3 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse; and
The measurement up from the stop to the 1 1/4-inch mark may not be less than 2 3/4inches at the front and back of the crosse.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

The problem with pinched sticks is almost over. In 2009, there are very strick head dimensions coming into play. The delay is for manufacturers to sell their existing stock. Buy new heads carefully. Enjoy!!

Starting with the 2009 season, the lacrosse stick will have the following dimensions, in addition to the current specifications:
The measurement at the widest part of the crosse shall be a minimum of 6 1/2 inches measured at the inside front of the crosse and a minimum of 6 inches on the back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 5-inch mark may not be less than 4 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 3-inch mark may not be less than 3 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse; and
The measurement up from the stop to the 1 1/4-inch mark may not be less than 2 3/4inches at the front and back of the crosse.

I'm glad you brought this up. Will this take away an advantage to the ball carrier and allow for easier checks to the stick to dislodge the ball?

[cali feeder]

I'm glad you brought this up. Will this take away an advantage to the ball carrier and allow for easier checks to the stick to dislodge the ball?

Obviously. Thats why they are instituting the rule.

[3rdPersonPlural]

If the check was intended for the stick/glove, chances are it won't be called. Also, with todays heads and stringings, it is VERY hard to dislodge the ball now, and defenders much check MUCH harder, so I think the refs let it slide more to counteract the pinch and pockets. Which explains the 2009 rule.

Cali,and, later, longpole, have hit the nail on the head. Heads and pockets these days are so grippy that a defender has to knock a stick (and if necessary the attacker) to the ground and worry the ball out of the pocket as the stick lies unattended like a gourmand getting crabmeat out of the shell with a spoon.

It takes unseemingly violent checks to disengage a ball from a ball handler - even if nothing but stick is contacted for 80% of the slap. It's hard to call a slash when the defender gets nothing but stick and the ball isn't even dislodged!

So the standard for a 'normal' check has advanced.

Further, the defense sticks we're seeing are so much lighter than those we recall playing with. Officials look for 'out of control' checks, but with these superlight titanium shafts, kids look in control (and probably are) at much more abrupt closure geometries.

Last, there's the progression from MLL (which flags nothing except battery). to college (which is astonishingly lenient to the eye of us strictly HS refs), and on down to kiddie lax which call it as the rules call it. Officials recognize this progression, and would rather appear as an MLL ref slumming it in the high school realm than appear to be a kiddie ref out of his element in the college ranks.

As far as I can tell, the rules are as accurately written as possible, since the call is mostly subjective anyway. What we need is for the MLL chaps who get all of the TV time to call it as we do in HS. The MLL defenders will quickly pull back to reasonable levels, and our HS coaches won't expect their defenders to be held to MLL standards while the opponent's defenders are held to kiddie standards.

[laxfan25]

Last, there's the progression from MLL (which flags nothing except battery). to college (which is astonishingly lenient to the eye of us strictly HS refs), and on down to kiddie lax which call it as the rules call it. Officials recognize this progression, and would rather appear as an MLL ref slumming it in the high school realm than appear to be a kiddie ref out of his element in the college ranks.


3PP, I have to say, I believe this is one of the most insightful and prescient observations I have ever seen flow from your pen/computer keyboard. Spot on, brother!!

[laxfan25]

Post #1,300 - just because. As Longpole stated - gotta getta life!

[eme]

I take umbrage with the thinking that the reason there's so much slashing at the hs level is because it's rampant at the college/MLL level and that if those darn college/MLL refs would call it more tightly then we'd have a cleaner hs game in terms of slashes.
I had a pretty good view of the d1 title game. I have watched the tape several times. All the slashes were called. Sticks were in control for the most part.
Two days later I did a hs game and I was miffed at the uncontrolled sticks on the field and was assessing penalties, etc. Coaches thought I was being too "heavy-handed" with the flags. I reminded them the players would have to adjust to my standards, not the other way around. So, the NCAA guy "slumming it up" (as you say) at the hs game was actually calling it more tightly than the teams were used to with regular hs refs.

That being vented...I would recommend the coaches and the NFHS gov. body in that state get together and make a published proclamation for greater scrutiny with slashes in that state. That might give the hs refs more "authority" to call more....if some refs need more authority to do so.

[ColtsLax]

its all about intent. i a pole throws a check, and the attackman moves his stick, thus opening up his ribs, im not going to call it a slash. but i the head of the pole starts behind the dman shoulder, and lands squarley on the attackmans back, you bet the flag is up.

Look a the wrap check. it is a risky, dangerous check, but when performed correctly, its is the only 100% sure way of dislodging the ball. If i see a kid try that at a lower level, i may call it, but if i see a kid do in HS and i know he can, i may not call it if he misses, because i know he is in control. Its all about assessing the skill of the individual player.

Using me for example at 6'4 200lb 19yrs old i have the muscle mass and control over my stick that a 5'0 125lb 14yr old freshman does not. even using the exact same stick. I can put the same amount of force in a slap using only a few inches, where the HS freshman needs a few feet.

[laxfan25]

I take umbrage with the thinking that the reason there's so much slashing at the hs level is because it's rampant at the college/MLL level and that if those darn college/MLL refs would call it more tightly then we'd have a cleaner hs game in terms of slashes.
I had a pretty good view of the d1 title game. I have watched the tape several times. All the slashes were called. Sticks were in control for the most part.
Two days later I did a hs game and I was miffed at the uncontrolled sticks on the field and was assessing penalties, etc. Coaches thought I was being too "heavy-handed" with the flags. I reminded them the players would have to adjust to my standards, not the other way around. So, the NCAA guy "slumming it up" (as you say) at the hs game was actually calling it more tightly than the teams were used to with regular hs refs.

That being vented...I would recommend the coaches and the NFHS gov. body in that state get together and make a published proclamation for greater scrutiny with slashes in that state. That might give the hs refs more "authority" to call more....if some refs need more authority to do so.

eme, I was referring to previous year's NCAA games - (I hate to say it, but ones from the 80's/early 90's), I agree that the crews in the past couple of years have called it like it should be called. The NLL games I've seen have been brutal though. I've had some frustration that "our area" has a reputation for being strict. I think we call a good game without being ticky-tacky, but calling a slash a slash. I do feel that some officials, when making the step up to higher levels, tend to not call as much as they might have at the lower level.

[stripes182]

Cali,and, later, longpole, have hit the nail on the head. Heads and pockets these days are so grippy that a defender has to knock a stick (and if necessary the attacker) to the ground and worry the ball out of the pocket as the stick lies unattended like a gourmand getting crabmeat out of the shell with a spoon.

It takes unseemingly violent checks to disengage a ball from a ball handler - even if nothing but stick is contacted for 80% of the slap. It's hard to call a slash when the defender gets nothing but stick and the ball isn't even dislodged!

So the standard for a 'normal' check has advanced.

Further, the defense sticks we're seeing are so much lighter than those we recall playing with. Officials look for 'out of control' checks, but with these superlight titanium shafts, kids look in control (and probably are) at much more abrupt closure geometries.

Last, there's the progression from MLL (which flags nothing except battery). to college (which is astonishingly lenient to the eye of us strictly HS refs), and on down to kiddie lax which call it as the rules call it. Officials recognize this progression, and would rather appear as an MLL ref slumming it in the high school realm than appear to be a kiddie ref out of his element in the college ranks.

As far as I can tell, the rules are as accurately written as possible, since the call is mostly subjective anyway. What we need is for the MLL chaps who get all of the TV time to call it as we do in HS. The MLL defenders will quickly pull back to reasonable levels, and our HS coaches won't expect their defenders to be held to MLL standards while the opponent's defenders are held to kiddie standards.

3PP, I think you make some very well reasoned points concerning both the changes in equipment (and their effects on the field) and the level-dependent approach an official takes to working a game. I think I'd have to disagree with your idea that "MLL chaps [need] to call it as we do in HS." The MLL is designed to be a collection of the best lacrosse talent on the planet. Approaching the game from an educational standpoint (as a HS official should do) would most likely mean that you are interfering with play. To explain, when I work a high school game (with either the first or last place team, which is a considerable drop in talent in my area), I'm more concerned with calling the fairest game I can while preparing players for higher play. So, I'd be much more inclined to stop and explain myself, use the "unwritten rules" to avoid punishing a team for a kid's ignorance (when it's not a matter of true advantage or safety). If you tried that on a college field, EVERYONE would be upset. There, it is reasonable to assume that the players know the rules, that the coaches know the rules (after all, they're the ones who dictate a large number of their changes and interpretations), and that you are expected to be there to control matters of advantage and safety. So, on a college field, I'm much more inclined to stay out of the way until I'm needed.
Another issue to consider is the perceived ferocity of checks. In high school, especially vicious stick checks seem more frequently to be out of control or made with the intent to hit a player rather than dislodge the ball. It is rare that you see a high school player deliver ferocious checks that are both controlled AND landing in a legal area. At least here in my area, those players are generally the ones crossing the Appalachians the following spring. The college game is an entirely different story. There, young men (who are generally in their physical prime), are making legal checks that attempt to dislodge the ball as much by strength as by precise location. The "out-of-control pole" is rarely seen in the NCAA or the competitive MCLA games. So, for me, it's quite a contrast from boys trying to beat on their opponents. This, "loosening" my standards for slashing fouls in higher skill-level games might happen, but I would stop far from saying I'd ever let a slash that lands off the stick or gloved hand (or legitimately trying to reach it) or that is plainly a strike rather than a check go uncalled. It's my opinion that player strength, skill and intent all have to be in a balance, and I'm willing to let the allowance for skill change slightly in bigger games.

[stripes182]

I had a pretty good view of the d1 title game.


:worship: :rolling:

From what I've seen of eme's handling of difficult situations in NFHS contests, I'd say that "slumming it" might not be the most fair depiction of respected officials working High School contests. If anyone cares to disagree, there are at least two nationally recognized coaches and a potential Ivy League freshman of the year that would be very quick to agree that MLL refs call a (properly) tight game. And that's just what I got to see....

[eme]

I used someone else's term, "slumming it up," and put it in italics in my post above to show it was NOT my term.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I have read both EME's and Stripes' objections to my theory that the different levels of enforcement from MLL down to developmental levels is a part of the reason that officiating is more lenient about slashes.

I stand by my comment that the MLL is a plague on those of us who are responsible for officiating youth. If the MLL is the best refs and the best players, why shouldn't we promote the idea that we use MLL video to instruct new officials and even players? Absurd? Of course. I rest my case.

The NCAA championship was a clean game played by two disciplined teams. I watched it with a room full of officials, and there was little if any discussion about the calls.

I understand that control is a major part of a slash call, and that college players have more control than a HS player. I also understand that college attackers have the experience to keep out of trouble they don't want and the skills to get out of jams that would turn a lesser player into hamburger, so officials feel less of an obligation to 'protect' the college ball handler.

However, I also feel that the officials on this board should not make the mistake of thinking that my comments included them. The objection "I don't do that" is irrelevant in this case. Hundreds of less experienced refs aspiring to higher levels DO feel sensitive to the hierarchy of officials that has rookies doing HSJV and the studs who no one argues with running D1 games. Don't deny that there are HS refs who want to make that extra $50 per game by moving ASAP up to the college ranks and perhaps call games like they've seen college refs do to 'visualize success'.

Let's recognize that the OP here implicated none of us here, but disclosed a problem that has been observed by a legitimate New York state coach whose opinions here I have learned to respect.

I propose that it's a societal issue at fault execerbated by the apparent hierarchy of officials that makes those who need to show the most caution and have the quickest flag trigger appear to be on the bottom rung. If I'm even a little correct, what better forum to discuss a solution?

[Longpole5435]

Where is a controversial topic without Longpole weighing in...

As a high school player, a defenseman, and a future collegiate lacrosse player, I can say that controlling a modern pole is not in the least bit difficult. The stick is so light, and the gloves have so much feel, that if you can't feel the stick and control it properly, it is probably time to take up another sport. The only poles(as in longpoles) that inhibit control due to weight are some Harrows, woodies and Aluminum shafts. None of these sticks see much popularity above the youth level because of this factor. Thus, I would say about 95% of my checks are completely controlled, and intended for stick or gloves. Those 5% htat are uncontrolled or not intended for stick are desperation checks usually, either trying to play takeaway defense or after getting beat. The control of ones check is rarely related to, at least among high level HS and college, the power of the check. It is much more reflective of the situation than anything. Hard checks have become much easier to throw with the drop of stick weight, which means that just because the defenseman throws a hard check that makes a seemingly sickening sound on someone's gloves or lower arms, it is not an out of control check. Too many referees are affected by the sound and immediately look to throw a flag.

What is the point of all that? That the vast majority of checks thrown in a good high school game or above are under control. This means, that if you are judging a salsh partially by intent, then the player's intent is often a benign one. Contrary to most attackmen's belief, we poles are not blood-thirsty creatures looking to ravage the nearest guy in the wrong jersey. WE just want to put the rock on the ground sometimes. God knows that it is hard enough with how sticks are today. I think it is only fair that the leniency in slashing calls reflect that.

Rebut. :nahya:

[Woodenstick]

Well I agree for the most part.

But some players are looking to intimidate. They hack the free arm, the legs, the stomach, etc. They would be happy to land a good check, but are almost as happy to land a bad check that has an intimidation factor, as long as they can make it look good and avoid a penalty. Hard to figure out who is who.

And benign intent is important, but not the only factor.

[turtlelax23]

Where is a controversial topic without Longpole weighing in...



What is the point of all that? That the vast majority of checks thrown in a good high school game or above are under control. This means, that if you are judging a salsh partially by intent, then the player's intent is often a benign one. Contrary to most attackmen's belief, we poles are not blood-thirsty creatures looking to ravage the nearest guy in the wrong jersey. WE just want to put the rock on the ground sometimes. God knows that it is hard enough with how sticks are today. I think it is only fair that the leniency in slashing calls reflect that.

Rebut. :nahya:

While a check may be "under control" it may still be illegal in accorance with the WRITTEN rules. I see (on ALL levels) slap checks to the upper arms and forearms, and, to a lesser degree, ribs not being called. And this is not a longpole only issue. In fact, the times I see it most are from a riding attackman or middie.

Now,to those who have reasons for calling a pro or college game with a more leniant eye:
Some of you have stated that you agree that TECHNICALLY the rules are being broken but allow the checks to go because they are "under control". You aren't helping me as a coach of HS players because they see that the college and pros play under the same "slash rule" that they do and "get away with it". I would ask that you move to have the rules changed a those higher levels rather than "changing" them on the field. This is not meant with any disrepect. I hope you understand what I am up against when my kids get a weekend full of ESPNU or CSN Lax and come out on Monday "ready to go".

[Longpole5435]

In response ot turtle, I'd like to note that the unwritten rule is that anything below the elbows is fair game. I'm sure LR and LF25, among others, will disagree with this statement, but the fact of the matter is that if you exhibit reasonable control and get below the elbow, then no flags will fly.

[raaaay29]

Fully seeing the check is hard enough for a ref. Actually understanding the motive behind the check and whether or not it was a hack is almost impossible. This is why slashing calls are always questionable.

[turtlelax23]

Fully seeing the check is hard enough for a ref. Actually understanding the motive behind the check and whether or not it was a hack is almost impossible. This is why slashing calls are always questionable.

But they don't need to be questionable. If it hits anything other than the stick or glove on stick then it is a slash, PERIOD. You don't need to read motive or intent into that. Now, If that rule seems to place the defender (or rider) at a disadvantage then let's move to get the rule changed. I have NO problem with expanding the "target area" as long as it is done in the books first and then on the field. I also think that any check that comes from a swing that passes the plan of the "checker's" shoulder (wreckless abandon) should be a slash, period. That way the ref doesn't have to determine motive there either

Now, I like what I am hearing from some concerning new rules on the heads and stringing. I think that the designs of heads and pockets have given an unfair advantage to the ball carrier and, as been discussed before, caused some refs to widen the target zone. regulating the heads and stringing is at least a step forward, IF we either reduce the target zone back to the written rule or change the written rule.

Longpole, I realize that you, as a defenseman, have a disadvantage when dealing with that pesky attackman with the pinched head and the pita pocket, but that is no reason to be changing the rules on the filed. You should be fighting to have these rules (either concerning the heads and stringing or the "target zone") changed in the books. You seem to be a VERY bright young man and I am sure that you see the need for the changes to take place in the books and not on the filed.

[Woodenstick]

I don't think referees have "widened the target zone." There are no free checks to forearms or any other part of the body. Because of the criteria for a slash to be called and because it is hard to see, a check to the forearm is not often called a slash, but it is called.

Referees did not call every stick contact to the body a slash many years ago, and they don't do it today. There is and has always been a threshold of incidental contact for "slashes," "pushes," and several other penalties.

One difference today is that because the sticks are lighter, a harder swing is tolerated. If I swung my old woodie that hard, I might have decapitated someone (or, even worse, broken my stick). But it is the old force equals mass times velocity question. A lighter stick is more easily controlled at higher speeds.

Also, pads are much better today, and more padding is worn. So a check that might have hurt someone 20 years ago is a nothing today. When I played high school and college, I wore elbow pads, but no shoulder pads, upper armpads, rib pads, or forearm pads. The helmets then were very light. Players are much better protected today.

"Slashes" were tolerated to some degree 20-30 years ago also. My personal opinion is that the threshold has not changed that much, considering all the changes to equipment/sticks. If anything, attackmen finish a game a lot less bruised today. If there seems to be a change, it is because attackmen whine more for less (I guess it is now obvious I have always played defense?)

[turtlelax23]

I don't think referees have "widened the target zone." There are no free checks to forearms or any other part of the body. Because of the criteria for a slash to be called and because it is hard to see, a check to the forearm is not often called a slash, but it is called.

Referees did not call every stick contact to the body a slash many years ago, and they don't do it today. There is and has always been a threshold of incidental contact for "slashes," "pushes," and several other penalties.

One difference today is that because the sticks are lighter, a harder swing is tolerated. If I swung my old woodie that hard, I might have decapitated someone (or, even worse, broken my stick). But it is the old force equals mass times velocity question. A lighter stick is more easily controlled at higher speeds.

Also, pads are much better today, and more padding is worn. So a check that might have hurt someone 20 years ago is a nothing today. When I played high school and college, I wore elbow pads, but no shoulder pads, upper armpads, rib pads, or forearm pads. The helmets then were very light. Players are much better protected today.

"Slashes" were tolerated to some degree 20-30 years ago also. My personal opinion is that the threshold has not changed that much, considering all the changes to equipment/sticks. If anything, attackmen finish a game a lot less bruised today. If there seems to be a change, it is because attackmen whine more for less (I guess it is now obvious I have always played defense?)

Maybe the refs haven't widened the "traditional" target but they have "taditionally" widenned what is written in the rulebook.

The arguement for allowing slashes because of better padding is bunk. The rules are written. If the equipment advances to allow hits to the arm without injury then let's change the written rules. Let's stop making excuses for breaking the rules. But if these excuses warrant a rule change then let's change the rules. I don't care how "undercontrol" a check is, if it hits anything other than stick and/or glove on stick, it is a slash. I can understand some tollerance if it hits stick or glove before it deflects off and hits upper arm. My biggest gripe is that the rules are rules and I allow my players to only play within those rules and it is frustrating watching a team beat at arms and get away with it because the ref doesn't want to interfere with the flow of the game. I refuse to let my players play outside of those rules.
I guess I will be working on having some rules changed.

[WHEELAX2]

goes along with the question: why aren't more illegal sticks called?

[turtlelax23]

goes along with the question: why aren't more illegal sticks called?

For one, the ref doesn't know that they are illegal unless they are checked. But it has been stated that a new set of rules will help this situation out.

[LaxRef]

Maybe the refs haven't widened the "traditional" target but they have "taditionally" widenned what is written in the rulebook.

In my experience, it's not the officials that widen what's in the rulebook. It's the coaches, who vilify any official who calls things tighter than they'd like.

[turtlelax23]

In my experience, it's not the officials that widen what's in the rulebook. It's the coaches, who vilify any official who calls things tighter than they'd like.

But you as a ref are in control of the game and should enforce the rules regardless of the coaches rants. I don't buy this as anything other than an excuse. Again(!!!!!!!!), if the rule needs to be changed, for whatever reason(the new sticks, better pads, coaches yelling, or any other excuse that has been mentioned as reasons to break or not enforece the rules), then change them in the books and not on the field. Many years ago, while coaching a 7th & 8th grade team, I had a set of (varsity) refs reffing that would not call contact to the helmet. In NY, there is NO brush "rule" for this age group. Knowing that these were varsity refs I mentioned to them that this was a modified game and reminded them of the no brush rule. One of the refs mentioned to me that my kids were hitting helmets too. I told him that they needed to be called for the slash to the helmet as well then. Now his reply floored me. "If I called every slash to the helmet, then we would be here all day." Then we should have been there all day because the kids aren't going to learn to REPECT the rules or the officials if the rules aren't enforced. This is evident in the game as you move up the food chain.
I am so tired of the excuses for not enforcing the rules. Whatever the rules are. Many have stated great reasons as to why the sticks should be allowed to hit more than stick BUT THE FIELD IS NOT THE PLACE TO CHANGE THE RULE.

[Woodenstick]

There is no "brush rule" in the NFHS or NCAA rulebook. The "brush rule" you cite is an example of incidental contact that has NEVER been called a foul. The concept of incidental contact is so widely recognized that the youth/modified rules in NY and other places overrule it, but just in the case of brushes to the head for youth play.

When referees refuse to penalize every stick contact to the body as a slash and treat some contact as incidental, they are applying the rules as they have been understood since the rulebook was first written.

So the real question is not whether we should penalize incidental contact (clearly no), but when is contact incidental?

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I don't think referees have "widened the target zone." There are no free checks to forearms or any other part of the body. Because of the criteria for a slash to be called and because it is hard to see, a check to the forearm is not often called a slash, but it is called.

...

Also, pads are much better today, and more padding is worn. So a check that might have hurt someone 20 years ago is a nothing today. When I played high school and college, I wore elbow pads, but no shoulder pads, upper armpads, rib pads, or forearm pads. The helmets then were very light. Players are much better protected today. )

This brings up an interesting point. Rules state that a A1s stick can be checked, and the (lower) gloved hand is considered part of the stick (except when in contact with a line marking-NFHS). Additionally players are wearing padding on the forearm, elbow, and upper arm. When B1 strikes the padding that is not part of the glove holding the stick, officials including myself do not normally call this a slash because (I think) we extend the gloved arm to include all of the padding. If I start interpreting the rule to include only the glove, then hits on the arm padding will result in my slash calls going up, at least in the first part of a game if not a whole game.

Any thoughts?

[Longpole5435]

This brings up an interesting point. Rules state that a A1s stick can be checked, and the (lower) gloved hand is considered part of the stick (except when in contact with a line marking-NFHS). Additionally players are wearing padding on the forearm, elbow, and upper arm. When B1 strikes the padding that is not part of the glove holding the stick, officials including myself do not normally call this a slash because (I think) we extend the gloved arm to include all of the padding. If I start interpreting the rule to include only the glove, then hits on the arm padding will result in my slash calls going up, at least in the first part of a game if not a whole game.

Any thoughts?
Anything below the elbows should be fair game, even after the 2009 stick rules come into effect. Even when you take out the pinch, stringing has still created a huge adventage for ballcarriers.

Another angle to consider here si the frequency of illegal checks. How often is a team or individual throwing a check that could be called a slash. If a pole and attackman are going one on one, and the pole jsut wails on him the entire time, and multiple checks land in the questionable area, then a flag should definetly thrown. Conversely, in the same situation, the pole only puts one or two checks in the questionable area, then I think the referee can hold their hanky.

Transfer this scenario to a team situation. If a team has been called for multiple slashes during the game that were clearly not in control, then the official should be apt to throw the flag. On the other hand, if a team behaves itself and are good sports, then maybe you let a borderline slashes go. Good behavior and good sportsmanship should rewarded.

[turtlelax23]

This brings up an interesting point. Rules state that a A1s stick can be checked, and the (lower) gloved hand is considered part of the stick (except when in contact with a line marking-NFHS). Additionally players are wearing padding on the forearm, elbow, and upper arm. When B1 strikes the padding that is not part of the glove holding the stick, officials including myself do not normally call this a slash because (I think) we extend the gloved arm to include all of the padding. If I start interpreting the rule to include only the glove, then hits on the arm padding will result in my slash calls going up, at least in the first part of a game if not a whole game.

Any thoughts?

I am the author of the OP here. My intent of the OP was to find out why refs don't call slashes as written in the rulebook ,AND to find out if the refs that frequent this page feel that the rules need to be changed.

We need to remember why rules are created. First of all Safety. second flow of the game, and third to make sure that no one is given an unfair advantage. At this point in our discussion we must conclude that keeping the slash rule as written gives an unfair advantage to the ball carrier. Now how do we solve this?

[LaxRef]

But you as a ref are in control of the game and should enforce the rules regardless of the coaches rants

As a practical matter, you'd then need to change the system so the coaches had no input into who gets assignments. It does no good for officials to callthings as you want them to be called and then have the coaches blackball the officials that call it that way!

One of the refs mentioned to me that my kids were hitting helmets too. I told him that they needed to be called for the slash to the helmet as well then. Now his reply floored me. "If I called every slash to the helmet, then we would be here all day."

Which makes no sense, since youth games are running-time games.

Look, I'm sympatetic to your point of view. I think that in a perfect world the rules should be enforced strictly and that players should learn to adapt. There would be a million penalties at first but then people would learn the rules and adapt. That, however, is not how the vast majority of players and coaches seem to want the game officiated.

[LaxRef]

There is no "brush rule" in the NFHS or NCAA rulebook. The "brush rule" you cite is an example of incidental contact that has NEVER been called a foul. The concept of incidental contact is so widely recognized that the youth/modified rules in NY and other places overrule it, but just in the case of brushes to the head for youth play.

The "brush rule" people are referring to is probably:

A.R. 15. B1, while playing A1, makes contact on A1’s head with his crosse. Has a foul been committed? RULING: Contact in and of itself does not constitute a foul. The contact must be a definite blow or strike.

(I'm pretty sure this is in NFHS as well but did not check.)

FYI, there is no modification of this rule in the US Lacrosse Youth Rules that I can find, but there's no accounting for what is done locally.

[turtlelax23]

[QUOTE]As a practical matter, you'd then need to change the system so the coaches had no input into who gets assignments. It does no good for officials to callthings as you want them to be called and then have the coaches blackball the officials that call it that way!

I agree with you . I'm sure that you have run across some coaches that you don't mind being blackballed from their games :chuckle:





Look, I'm sympatetic to your point of view. I think that in a perfect world the rules should be enforced strictly and that players should learn to adapt. There would be a million penalties at first but then people would learn the rules and adapt. That, however, is not how the vast majority of players and coaches seem to want the game officiated.

I realize that I may be a bit idealistic (unfortunately it doesn't stop with lacrosse), but I do think that compramizes and adjustments to the rules can be made so that the fairness of play can be less of a judgement call.

I am all for a game that, as a coach, I don't even know that a ref is on the field. Those games where the play is fair and the refs allow the play to flow are beautiful.

We have talked about the heads and the stringing being a reason for allowing checks to creep up the arm. I thought of something though, and this may be a "which came first" kinda question. Are players using the new heads and pockets because the slashes have been allowed or are the defenders using the slashes to combat the new pockets and heads?

[turtlelax23]

The "brush rule" people are referring to is probably:



(I'm pretty sure this is in NFHS as well but did not check.)

FYI, there is no modification of this rule in the US Lacrosse Youth Rules that I can find, but there's no accounting for what is done locally.

NY does not allow a brush at or below the modified level (7&8 grade)

[Libertymiddie3]

oiuhjhfddsertr

[Woodenstick]

A stick check to the forearm, padded or not, is not legal. It may not get called because it is incidental/minor contact, but it is not the same as hitting the glove, which is legal.

[CentLAX]

I usually lurk and do not join in on discussions. This one is rather interesting. I have only been an official for a few years but have been around for a number of years playing and coaching younger players. I agree with turtlelax23 that the slashing has become more of a problem probably due to the head issue that is being addressed.

Please do not take this wrong way turtlelax23, no offense is intended, so please do not take any, but I have a suggestion. Why don't you put on the stripes for a season or two and you may be able to answer your own question. If you are coaching in the spring how about off seasons when you are not coaching. You have pointed out many times in this discussion that there are may "excuses" for not calling the slashes that are in the "rules". The rule book is a guideline to be followed but at the discretion of the official. The official may be (and probably is) looking at different situations of the game than you are as a coach. I do both and know I have a completely different perspective as a coach, player or official. I may not agree with an official but at least I understand the reasons and the adjustment is easier to different situations. I can sympathize with what appears to be an inconsistency in the calls but until you have been an official at different levels, it is hard to understand. By no means do I profess to be an expert and will defer to the officials who have much more experience than I.

Just a suggestion. Please do not take offense and it is not meant to flame.

[turtlelax23]

I usually lurk and do not join in on discussions. This one is rather interesting. I have only been an official for a few years but have been around for a number of years playing and coaching younger players. I agree with turtlelax23 that the slashing has become more of a problem probably due to the head issue that is being addressed.

Please do not take this wrong way turtlelax23, no offense is intended, so please do not take any, but I have a suggestion. Why don't you put on the stripes for a season or two and you may be able to answer your own question. If you are coaching in the spring how about off seasons when you are not coaching. You have pointed out many times in this discussion that there are may "excuses" for not calling the slashes that are in the "rules". The rule book is a guideline to be followed but at the discretion of the official. The official may be (and probably is) looking at different situations of the game than you are as a coach. I do both and know I have a completely different perspective as a coach, player or official. I may not agree with an official but at least I understand the reasons and the adjustment is easier to different situations. I can sympathize with what appears to be an inconsistency in the calls but until you have been an official at different levels, it is hard to understand. By no means do I profess to be an expert and will defer to the officials who have much more experience than I.

Just a suggestion. Please do not take offense and it is not meant to flame.

Centlax, No offense taken. The "excuses" that have been used have come from players, coaches, and refs. If I made it sound as if I was directing it only towards refs I am sorry. that was not my intent.
I disagree with your statement that the rulebook is a guideline. Rules are rules .While the ref may use disgressionas to how he enforeces the rules, they are still rules. If I go 56mph in a 55 mph zone a police officer can still give me a ticket. I broke the rules. Does that seem petty? Maybe but I still broke the rules and I would be hard pressed to argue with him. He may use his/her discression and not enforce that rule. You step on the sideline while carrying the ball and you are out of bounds and the ball is awarded to the opposing team. That is not a guideline. You hit someone off the stick of glove on stick and that is a slash. It is not a guideline. Not all slashes will be seen and I, as a coach, know this and live with it. I don't get bent every time a player hits a forearm or a shoulder and the ref doesn't call it even if I know he saw it.What initiated this thread are the repeated slap checks (even those under control and not overpowering) that land on the forearm or shoulder. Part of the problem is that we (coaches and refs) have let this go on for so long when a ref enforces a slash he is yelled at by the coach. The "unwritten rules" have taken priority over the written rules. It has snuck up on us. It reminds me of the story of the man who put the frog in a pot of water and then placed the pot on the stove. He lit the stove and the water became warm. "oh this isn't too bad" the frog said. The man turned the stove up a bit more. "oh, this isn't too bad" the frog said again. The man continued to turn the stove up little by little until the he had frog stew. I don't think that we are at a critical point with this issue, yet. But if we don't address the issue(s) concerning the slashing then it will get worse one way or another.
Here are the issues the surround this(in no particular order):
1)intent
2)ball carrier advantage (head design and stringing)
3)tradition
4)better padding
5)flow of the game
Now, where do we go from here? Do we leave it at "status quo" and I need to get over it? Do we change the rules to allow checks to the arms to help level the playing field between ball carrier and defender? Do we tighten the rules concerning head with or allowable string jobs and enforece the current rule?

I do ref (not just lacrosse) and it is a very tough job. I did it so that I as a coach could have a different perspective of the play and the flow of the game. It has calmed me down a great deal on the sidelines. I don't get bent over every missed call anymore. It has helped my coaching greatly.

I am not addressing inconsistencies here. In fact most refsand coaches are very consistent with letting this play continue. I in fact have no problem with allowing these checks to continue as long as the rule books are changed to allow it.

Again,NO offense taken and I hope my comments did not offend you.
BTW: while this reply was directed towards Centlax, anyone can reply to any of my comments.
Thanks :grin:

[CentLAX]

Turtlelax23. Points taken and presented professionally. We can agree to disagree on some issues (every rule needs to be followed exactly and every slash needs to be called) but I digress. I applaud your being an official. If more coaches and players would do this, I think many issues would evaporate leaving issues that really need to be addressed.

This year for HS, sportsmanship is the issue that will be stressed (at least in my area - don't know about NY). This encompasses all aspects including slashing. I agree that slashing has become out of hand and the 2009 rule changes should address this radically, allowing a ball to be checked out of the stick with a normal check, not the full force needed currently. When the field is leveled, the slashing should decrease and I think the excessive slashing issue will be addressed. It's hard to turn that battleship on a dime.

[LaxRef]

Turtlelax23. Points taken and presented professionally. We can agree to disagree on some issues (every rule needs to be followed exactly and every slash needs to be called) but I digress. I applaud your being an official. If more coaches and players would do this, I think many issues would evaporate leaving issues that really need to be addressed.

This year for HS, sportsmanship is the issue that will be stressed (at least in my area - don't know about NY). This encompasses all aspects including slashing. I agree that slashing has become out of hand and the 2009 rule changes should address this radically, allowing a ball to be checked out of the stick with a normal check, not the full force needed currently. When the field is leveled, the slashing should decrease and I think the excessive slashing issue will be addressed. It's hard to turn that battleship on a dime.

Keep in mind that NFHS has not said one word about changing the stick requirements for 2009 or any other time.

[turtlelax23]

Turtlelax23. Points taken and presented professionally. We can agree to disagree on some issues () but I digress. I applaud your being an official. If more coaches and players would do this, I think many issues would evaporate leaving issues that really need to be addressed.

This year for HS, sportsmanship is the issue that will be stressed (at least in my area - don't know about NY). This encompasses all aspects including slashing. I agree that slashing has become out of hand and the 2009 rule changes should address this radically, allowing a ball to be checked out of the stick with a normal check, not the full force needed currently. When the field is leveled, the slashing should decrease and I think the excessive slashing issue will be addressed. It's hard to turn that battleship on a dime.

Thank you for reading my reply with an open mind. You too deserve a pat on the back. So we disagree, no biggy. Now I want to correct you on one point though. I am not for "every rule needs to be followed exactly and every slash needs to be called". I understand that there are a few time that a check may be deflected or miss the mark without wrecklessness and for those "slashes" I am okay with a no call. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrit or not but that is how I see it.

I look forward to seeing what the NFHS does concerning the head rules. I would like to see the playing field leveled a bit. I'm not holding my breath though. I am glad to see US lax stepping up and moving with this ruling. I think that the current head demensions play into a high scoring game which is seen (fact or fiction, I don't know) as a crowd pleaser.

[eme]

Quote:"I am glad to see US lax stepping up and moving with this ruling."

The NCAA Rules Committee is moving on this ruling, not US Lacrosse.
Other than an advisory role, USL has no say in the NCAA rules or the NFHS rules.

[laxfan25]

I think something else that factors into this discussion is the principle of Advantage/Disadvantage Gained. This applies to many circumstances in the game, for example, a player with possession gets pushed in the back, but doesn't lose his footing, drop the ball or move widely from his intended path. Is it a push by rule? Yes. Will it frequently not be called? Yes, because there really was no advantage gained.

On slash calls, I am weighing several factors; the severity of the stick check, the location of the check, the likelihood that the check could possibly have reached stick or glove, repetition of the check off the stick/glove (and even previous history with the checker and his tendencies to excess) in judging whether a particular check should be called. That is real life.

Just because a check contacts a part of the body beside the stick or gloved hand on the stick does not automatically merit a flag from me.

Other comments - an old saw is that there is no such thing as a "free check", but reality says that more often than not, a defender (especially at higher levels) will get a free pass on the first check on an attacker. The ref goes "Whoa" to himself, and says to the defender - "Hey, get stick!" I have noticed defenders at some games who take advantage of that truism, and their first greeting when meeting the attacker is a firm check across the arms.

I agree that players and coaches (except for a select few - wink) recognize that there is this unwritten rule about slashes, and accept it. What I always chuckle at is that these same lenient folks have ZERO tolerance on any movement by the attacker's arm, as screams of WARD!! coming ringing down whenever the attacker makes any kind of arm movement, or even tries to free his arm when the defender's stick has been slid under his armpit. "Sorry coach, gotta go both ways here!"

I think you are fighting a losing battle on trying to get the rule changed to expand the checkable area. By keeping it the way it is, it DOES give the ref the leeway to make a slash call on the forearm when he feels it is warranted. Opening up the entire arm to checking would make matters worse, IMM.

Lastly, I can sympathize with your feeling that "the rulebook says!". I don't know your experience with lacrosse as a player before getting into coaching. I had a new coach several years ago who had never played the game before taking on the HS coaching role. The first game, every time there was any type of check (light or not) on anything but the stick/glove, he was screaming for a slash call. I tried to patiently explain what I have stated above, and over time, he came to recognize the realities of the game and what is allowed and what is really a flaggable offense, but to a strict constructionist (did you Antonin Scalia used to coach lax?) it can be a tough thing to accept.

Continue to fight the good fight, but I think you are tilting at windmills, quite honestly. :banghead:

[Rule 8]

The coaches are entiltled to have who they want on their games. This started because "Black & White" officials cannot officiate. Do not blame coaches because of piss poor officiating. The worst thing that has happen to officiating is "Black & White" officials get into authority positions and tried to control everybody. They should worry about officiating.

As for slashes being called more, just make the call and be consistant. What is called at one end should be called at the other end.

[laxfan25]

The coaches are entiltled to have who they want on their games. I'm sorry, I thought that was the assignor's responsibility. That would really help things, having the coaches do the assigning for their games - no concerns at all about getting "homered". This started because "Black & White" officials cannot officiate. Oh really? Opinion, or do you have some type of documentation to back that assertion up? Do not blame coaches because of piss poor officiating. The worst thing that has happen to officiating is "Black & White" officials get into authority positions and tried to control everybody. They should worry about officiating. Gee, I thought that was what officiating was - a process of keeping control of the game in order to keep the participants safe, and the play fair. Much better than letting the inmates run the asylum. I dare say your opinion is well in the minority.
As for slashes being called more, just make the call and be consistant. What is called at one end should be called at the other end. Agreed.

[CardinalPuff]

The coaches are entiltled to have who they want on their games. there you go, problem solved...while your at it just get a couple of your assistants to pass the officiating test and have them assigned to all your games....

no need to thank me, i'm here to help...

oops, wait a sec...what if your rival coach has already thought of the same thing?.....gee, this could get tricky...

gosh, it seems maybe we better get an impartial assignor to assign neutral officials, no?

This started because "Black & White" officials cannot officiate. Do not blame coaches because of piss poor officiating.
fair enough....but then we can not blame officials for piss poor coaching, now can we?...this raises another question; who else are you going to blame when you lose?

[chsattack22]

the bottom line is because we arent baseball players and we can take a hit.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Black and White Officials just need another few fingers!


http://www.aqwo16.dsl.pipex.com/ebay/r0032970.jpg

[3rdPersonPlural]

OK. On to more sober topics.

Turtle mentioned earlier that the slashing he was alarmed by was not so much poles whacking attack as middies and attack taking a random flier at clearing poles and middies.

In my experience, I call more slashes on clears than I do on settled situations. The ball handler is heading for open space, and the rider feels obliged to take that departing HWACK at the fellow's back or legs (if he's lucky, ribs or arm) before giving up the chase.

The worst is the gratuitous one handed cutlass swing made by attackmen as their mark crosses the midfield line. Those are ignored more often than I'd deem appropriate.

[turtlelax23]

Quote:"I am glad to see US lax stepping up and moving with this ruling."

The NCAA Rules Committee is moving on this ruling, not US Lacrosse.
Other than an advisory role, USL has no say in the NCAA rules or the NFHS rules.

My mistake. That is who I intended on giving the credit to. See, we coaches are wrong sometimes. :nahya:

[turtlelax23]

OK. On to more sober topics.

Turtle mentioned earlier that the slashing he was alarmed by was not so much poles whacking attack as middies and attack taking a random flier at clearing poles and middies.

In my experience, I call more slashes on clears than I do on settled situations. The ball handler is heading for open space, and the rider feels obliged to take that departing HWACK at the fellow's back or legs (if he's lucky, ribs or arm) before giving up the chase.

The worst is the gratuitous one handed cutlass swing made by attackmen as their mark crosses the midfield line. Those are ignored more often than I'd deem appropriate.

This is it!!!! I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in earlier posts ot people just weren't listening, but you nailed my thoughts right here. We got hung up on longpoles and got off track. Thanks for bringing us back on track.

[turtlelax23]

the bottom line is because we arent baseball players and we can take a hit.

I have NO problem with taking a hit or giving one, as long as it is legal. But thanks for playing.

[Rileylax]

Originally Posted by Rule 8
"This started because "Black & White" officials cannot officiate. Do not blame coaches because of piss poor officiating." Wow, what an unprofessional comment made by someone who doesn't have an understanding of the system. College coaches, especially those at the more recognized programs, have a lot of say in who refs their games. The assignors ultimately "assign" the game but some coaches hold a lot of weight. Yes, politics! And even the HS ranks can, too. Our HS association has an evaluation program similar to the NCAA. Rest assured, certain coaches' evals hold more weight than others. When the coach of one of the nation's top HS programs (a Georgetown Prep, St. Albans, Landon) calls and bends the ear of the assoc president/assignot, you know he will be listened to. Yes, some good officials will get black balled!

[Rule 8]

When the word "Unprofessional" is used, I must of hit pay dirt.

Are you a "Black & White" official?

[CardinalPuff]

Are you a "Black & White" official?
please define....but i'll tell you this; if they piss you off, i want to be one...

[3rdPersonPlural]

I'm Black and White with a splash of Yellow peeking out from my beltline. To my horror, Honig's sent me compression shorts that are GREY, quite contrary to my demand that they be either Black or White, so if someone manages to 'pants' me, my careful color coordination will be betrayed.

I suspect that if our beloved Cardinal reviewed his wardrobe and manages to have better coordinated underthings than I have, he too will be a Black and White official.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlcar2/blackwhitewhiskey.jpg

Perhaps Herr 8 will more carefully define his terminology?

[CardinalPuff]

I suspect that if our beloved Cardinal reviewed his wardrobe and manages to have better coordinated underthings than I have, he too will be a Black and White official.
correct.....it should be noted that i also tend bar and wait tables thus much of what awaits me in my closet is of a black and white nature....
Perhaps Herr 8 will more carefully define his terminology?
methinks mein herr's definition of "black & white" goes beyond wardrobe....i merely seek clarification because otherwise his posts make no sense to me....

[TheKOB]

The problem with pinched sticks is almost over. In 2009, there are very strick head dimensions coming into play. The delay is for manufacturers to sell their existing stock. Buy new heads carefully. Enjoy!!

Starting with the 2009 season, the lacrosse stick will have the following dimensions, in addition to the current specifications:
The measurement at the widest part of the crosse shall be a minimum of 6 1/2 inches measured at the inside front of the crosse and a minimum of 6 inches on the back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 5-inch mark may not be less than 4 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse;
The measurement up from the stop to the 3-inch mark may not be less than 3 1/4 inches at the front and back of the crosse; and
The measurement up from the stop to the 1 1/4-inch mark may not be less than 2 3/4inches at the front and back of the crosse.


i've heard that this won't really do much. If they want to change the rules they should eliminate the offset head and/or widen the minimum width to 7".

[The Playmaker]

Your Paraphrase-
As the rules read, a slash is any stick check to any area of the body other that a hand on the stick (my paraphrase ).

My paraphrase-
when a player's stick viciously contacts an opponent in any area other than the stick or gloved hand on the stick.

bolded for emphasis

[laxfan25]

Forget the parapharasing, let's examine the actual rule on Slashing in the NFHS book. I think it can address several issues brought up here;

Slashing includes the following actions:
ART. 1 . . . Swinging a crosse at an opponent's crosse or body with deliberate viciousness or reckless abandon, regardless of whether the opponent's crosse or body is struck.
ART. 2 . . . Striking an opponent in an attempt to dislodge the ball from his crosse, unless the player in possession, in an attempt to protect his crosses, uses some part of his body other than his head or neck to ward off the thrust of the defensive player's crosse and, as a result, the defensive player's crosse strikes some part of the attacking player's body other than his head or neck.
ART. 3 . . . Striking an opponent in any part of the face, neck, chest, back, shoulders, groin or on the head with the crosse (including its butt end) except when done by a player in the act of passing, shooting or attempting to scoop the ball. In all situations, the player's gloved hand shall be considered part of the crosse, except when in contact with a line marking.

Article 1 allows us to flag for a slash, even if nothing is hit - if the swing is vicious enough. So viciousness does play a part in our judgement.
Article 3 specifies that checks have to be on the crosse or gloved hand (unless shooting, throwing, etc), HOWEVER, you can't look at this without the context of Article 2, which basically says if the attacker is trying to protect his stick with some part of his body, that a check can be allowed to strike the body (outside of the head or neck) without it rising to the level of a slash. Imagine your typical cradler, running with a cocked arm, cradling the stick inside his body with it occasionally appearing behind his back. The defender is allowed to make a REASONABLE attempt to check his stick and may contact the upper arm, chest or back in doing so, and not be called for a slash.
This is called playing the game of lacrosse - and it is the official's responsibility to ensure that it is done in a safe and fair manner. So TurtleLax, this is why I don't agree with your assertion that any check outside of the gloved hand should be called - the rules specifically allow for such action.

[turtlelax23]

I have allowed for the occasional "misplaced" check in my earlier posts. My main gripe is the attackman that as he gets beat on a ride takes a last chance hack at the longstick or middie that just beat him.

[RockStar]

........My main gripe is the attackman that as he gets beat on a ride takes a last chance hack at the longstick or middie that just beat him.
And? This is usually just revenge for abuse dished out by the d-man earlier!

[3rdPersonPlural]

And? This is usually just revenge for abuse dished out by the d-man earlier!

"Revenge" is not stated in my rule book as a reason to overlook a slash.

[laxfan25]

I have allowed for the occasional "misplaced" check in my earlier posts. My main gripe is the attackman that as he gets beat on a ride takes a last chance hack at the longstick or middie that just beat him.
I agree with you there, and I am especially vigilant if I think the attackman is just throwing the stick in revenge. If the only place their stubby stick can reach is the D-man's side or back they will usually draw a flag from me.
I can also sympathize with RockStar's point that this is about the only time the attack can give paybacks to the big lumbering Neandertal's that have been waling on them all day! :chuckle:

[3rdPersonPlural]

I can also sympathize with RockStar's point that this is about the only time the attack can give paybacks to the big lumbering Neandertal's that have been waling on them all day! :chuckle:

Rubbish. Defensemen on my fields do not 'wale'. The execute surgical checks within the bounds of safe and fair play or they find themselves watching their man down team for a minute. They are not allowed a few free cutlass hacks at their attacker's kidneys as 'revenge' for goals.

Attackmen on a ride have the same restrictions.

[RockStar]

"Revenge" is not stated in my rule book as a reason to overlook a slash.

That's fine as long as you don't flag the revenge any more vigorously than the initial agression.

If you tolerate a bit of abuse on one side of the ball, let the same go on the other.

[laxfan25]

Rubbish. Defensemen on my fields do not 'wale'. The execute surgical checks within the bounds of safe and fair play or they find themselves watching their man down team for a minute. They are not allowed a few free cutlass hacks at their attacker's kidneys as 'revenge' for goals. :bull: (I can't believe that Lacrosse Forums actually censors some of the smilies! Guess which one I was trying to use...)

C'mon - I played defense myself for many years. Some of those surgical checks are more like the guy who got trapped by the boulder when hiking alone and had to hack his arm off with a pocket knife. That still gives me shudders.
There is no doubt that attackman walk away with more bruises from stick checks at the end of the day, but then they get the glory of prancing around after they've taken you to the hole - and they like to THINK that they get all the girls. (But we know better).