Faceoff Stringing

[astro22]

Just wanted to see if this is a legal way to string a head - it allows the ball to roll into the pocket off of a clamp and rake.

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234472.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802910)

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234579.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802912)

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234531.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802914)

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234686.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802915)

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234639.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802916)

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/4821234757.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4802917)

[RIT37FO]

i had that idea myself a while back wasnt sure if it was legal or not

[sammyduelist]

I saw something similar to this on e-lacrosse.com, I believe.
They didn't use two separate pieces and instead just cut a slit near the top just enough for the ball to slip in.
As for the legality, I know not for I am but a big slow defender :grin: Jk.

[LaxRef]

3:00 NR penalty and the stick is removed from the game.

[3rdPersonPlural]

"A crosse that has been altered in such a way as to give an advantage to an individual" is violated here.

IOW, many, if not most, officials will deem that very clever alteration to be 'somehow wrong' and ban the stick from the game (at best) or give you an USC.

However, I like the engineering that has gone into that pocket. You perhaps should reinforce the 'scoop' part of the upper mesh component so the mesh doesn't just bunch up when you try to rake, and maybe structure an inch or two of overlap so that the pocket will be functional once you rake the ball in.

Great work! Just don't try to use it in the Conejo or Condor leagues......

[3rdPersonPlural]

3:00 NR penalty and the stick is removed from the game.

Where in my NFHS rule book does it prescribe that penalty?

Not on pages 15-17....

[LaxRef]

Where in my NFHS rule book does it prescribe that penalty?

Not on pages 15-17....
P. 56 5.4 Situation I

[3rdPersonPlural]

P. 56 5.4 Situation I

Bingo!

Astro, Leave that stick at home. One face off ain't worth a 3 min. NR penalty, and an official placing the ball between the FOGO's sticks cannot fail to notice your alteration.

Thanks, LR. I knew I saw something somewhere about that....

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

Thanks astro22, now I have a great example of what to look for that is described in the case book!

[cali feeder]

Great work! Just don't try to use it in the Conejo or Condor leagues......

Aww man....why do you always have to spoil my fun?

Actually, I believe Mr. Wilson called Will Clasby for something very similar to this last year on his Proton Power...eh I can't remember.

You gonna be reffing on opening day? OP is playing T.O. I think.

[goalie1215]

just learn to pinch and pop effectively and you wont even need this alteration.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Clasby's had a bad history with illegal sticks. Hopefully his new prep school will fix that.

You gonna be reffing on opening day? OP is playing T.O. I think.

Where did Clasby go prep?

Is he PG ing or did he just transfer?

I don't think I have any OP games for a while. I'm doing a lot of games with new-ish refs, and OP gets a matched pair of old warhorses.

[astro22]

haha I don't face with that thing anyways, it was just an idea and I didn't know how to describe it so I strung it to get the more official opinions found here. Thanks fellas.

[cali feeder]

Where did Clasby go prep?

Is he PG ing or did he just transfer?

I don't think I have any OP games for a while. I'm doing a lot of games with new-ish refs, and OP gets a matched pair of old warhorses.

Not sure of the school, but I believe it's a Syracuse prep school in NY, and I think he is PGing.

[gfkeeper28]

Even if it is illegal, it was still a good idea. Nice work.

[TheKOB]

Why aren't other custom stringing styles flagged as well?

[3rdPersonPlural]

Why aren't other custom stringing styles flagged as well?

Because they don't have a big glaring open seam across the middle of the pocket?

Because they don't violate a specific rule in the rulebook?

Those are my guesses......

[Longpole5435]

Because they don't have a big glaring open seam across the middle of the pocket?

Because they don't violate a specific rule in the rulebook?

Those are my guesses......
I'm not sure I see how this violates the modification of the crosse to gain an advantage rule. Isn't any stringing an attempt to gain an advantage by having a better pocket than the other guy?

[3rdPersonPlural]

I'm not sure I see how this violates the modification of the crosse to gain an advantage rule. Isn't any stringing an attempt to gain an advantage by having a better pocket than the other guy?

More specifically, LR's citation of a specific situation ruling (5.4) that calls for a 3 min NR for a hole in the mesh intended to ensnare a faceoff is not open to interpretation. It's explicitly illegal, with a specific severe penalty prescribed for it.

It's also implicitly unfair, so even a less rigorously prepared official will disqualify the stick and have a general rule for penalizing the player.

[TheKOB]

Any stringing style is unfair. No one penalizes a custom strung pocket because some poor kid on the other team has to play with one that's an inch deep, but there is an advantage gained.

As with the other faceoff thread, what's to stop the other player from gaining the same advantage? Just because someone thinks of it first doesn't make it unfair, it makes it innovative.

I'm just saying there's nothing explicitly stated against it, so it should be allowed....kind of an open rather than closed interpretation of the rules, which I think keeps them more consistant across the board...which is the whole point of a standard set of rules anyways...

EDIT: does the rule stated actually say "no holes to aid in faceoffs" or is that your interpretation? I tried to look it up but it didn't seem to work on my computer...

[SuperSully]

does that function well, besides on faceoffs?

[Longpole5435]

More specifically, LR's citation of a specific situation ruling (5.4) that calls for a 3 min NR for a hole in the mesh intended to ensnare a faceoff is not open to interpretation. It's explicitly illegal, with a specific severe penalty prescribed for it.

It's also implicitly unfair, so even a less rigorously prepared official will disqualify the stick and have a general rule for penalizing the player.
I can understand calling it illegal under LR's citation, but lets say that doesn't exist. How is it fair to penalize someone for a new idea, just because it is vastly different from existing setups? When Rock-it Pockets were first created, I'm sure they represented a huge step in traditional stringing and presented a large advantage the the few users who had them. Are you saying that things like that should be flagged? I just see this line of thinking as counterintuitive to the evolution of the game.

[3rdPersonPlural]

KOB, the rule is explicit that 'a hole in the mesh designed to snare the ball on faceoff' is a 3 min NR. Page 56 of the NFHS rulebook, and I'll bet that an NCAA ref could cite a similar regulation.

Pole, you know darned well that I'm a big proponent of innovative ideas. Look at the threads I started in the offseason on the stick doctor's board.

I expressed admiration for the thinking behind this pocket, and I meant it. However, it is expressly illegal.

Now, a variation of my defenseman's pocket with the zip ties aligned just so will pick up a ball like a pair of kitchen tongs, and there is NO explicit rule prohibiting that.

[LaxRef]

Any stringing style is unfair. No one penalizes a custom strung pocket because some poor kid on the other team has to play with one that's an inch deep, but there is an advantage gained.

You are severely confused about what is fair and unfair. If the rule makers thought it was unfair to adjust the pocket, they would have made rules to that effect. But, no, they specify that the pocket can't be too deep and make a few other requirements.

Now, granted, this may be a case where they could have come out explicitly and stated that custom pockets are legal, but this is obviously understood by the overwhelming majority of people associated with the game.

Remember, rules tell you what you can't do. There are rules about "altering the crosse to gain an advantage," but, again, it's understood that they aren't talking about adjusting the pocket within the other rules.

As with the other faceoff thread, what's to stop the other player from gaining the same advantage? Just because someone thinks of it first doesn't make it unfair, it makes it innovative.

I'm just saying there's nothing explicitly stated against it, so it should be allowed....kind of an open rather than closed interpretation of the rules, which I think keeps them more consistant across the board...which is the whole point of a standard set of rules anyways...

Do you even read the threads you post in?

EDIT: does the rule stated actually say "no holes to aid in faceoffs" or is that your interpretation? I tried to look it up but it didn't seem to work on my computer...

As I stated a long time ago:

P. 56 5.4 Situation I

Since you're obviously having problems here:

*5.4 SITUATION I: During an equipment check or at any other time, the officials discover that A1 has a hole in his mesh designed to snare the ball on a face-off. RULING: 3:00 nonreleasable penalty and the crosse is removed from the game.

Both rulebooks have this piece, which is on-point as well:

Note 1: Any crosse in which the net is woven to the head in such a manner that a lip or hook is formed that might ensnare the ball is illegal.

If that hole doesn't constitute a lip that could ensnare the ball, I don't know what they're talking about!

[TheKOB]

EDIT: does the rule stated actually say "no holes to aid in faceoffs" or is that your interpretation? I tried to look it up but it didn't seem to work on my computer...

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL LAXREF If i'm going to ask for help, you can tone down the indignant response. Grow up.

I was going for NCAA rules by the way. As for lip or hook, that's not at all what they're talking about. You probably didn't know that because of your lack of experience with the sport. As I've mentioned before feel free to go to other forums and try to learn about the sport and maybe do away with your ignorance about something you apparently think you're an expert at. If a player's stick is hitting the plastic part of his head, it's hitting the "lip". "Hook" is also referred to as "whip", which is when the pocket throws downward.

Basically they don't want a pocket that is woven around the ball so that it withholds it from play. I could reciprocate the douchebaggery and say, yes, you DON"T know what they're talking about, but that would be impolite, wouldn't it?

[REFNCOACHK]

Thanks for tipping us who may do some USC games this year, KOB. We know what you consider fair and the "personality" we'll be dealing with. 10 spot checks during the game will probably not be sufficient.

[TheKOB]

You don't know anything about me, my personality, etc yet you feel the need to come in here and judge me?

All I did was add some discussion, laxref returned with animosity and I gave as good as I got. Now you call me a cheater?

You can grow up too. I come here for honest discussion (why it's called a forum and not a blog) and I get chewed out.

Ya'll don't know a thing about me (especially you Refncoack) and you come with insults and don't add anything to the discussion.

What does this have to do with fair and my personality? I'm calling into question where in the NCAA rulebook it says that this type of stringing is illegal. I asked for someone to post the rules, and the mod came back with a smart remark which was uncalled for and immature. Then you come attack me? I'm really glad that you guys are not representitives of the reffing profession, since I know many and have worked as one.

[stinisonfire]

You don't know anything about me, my personality, etc yet you feel the need to come in here and judge me?

All I did was add some discussion, laxref returned with animosity and I gave as good as I got. Now you call me a cheater?

You can grow up too. I come here for honest discussion (why it's called a forum and not a blog) and I get chewed out.

What does this have to do with fair and my personality? I'm calling into question where in the NCAA rulebook it says that this type of stringing is illegal. I asked for someone to post the rules, and the mod came back with a smart remark which was uncalled for and immature. Then you come attack me? I'm really glad that you guys are not representitives of the reffing profession, since I know many and have worked as one.

Dude, if you really need to go to a rulebook to see if a a pocket like that is illegal (and then fight about it because we say you're clearly wrong in saying custom pockets are illegal), you're in the wrong sport. First off, that takes away from all talent/skill it takes to clamp/jam/rake/whatever and win the faceoff. Second, how in the world could you even throw with a pocket that is two pieces of mesh with a hole in between them?

You need to quit telling people to grow up and do it yourself. So what if someone tells you you're wrong? It happens, get over it.

It doesn't matter if no one knows about you, your personality, etc. The fact still remains that you come into discussions and completely miss the point. Custom pockets are not illegal, it's simply a matter of how you play the game. Are you suggesting that everyone has a certain pocket? A certain head? Cleats? Gear maybe? Won't happen.

[TheKOB]

You completely missed the point. We're talking about rules, not what's fair. This is the rules discussion forum right? I was comparing the advantage gained from this to the advantage gained from another custom strung head. Both of these are custom strung heads...get it? The only difference is that this has a hole in it.

I didn't miss the point of the discussion. The point is whether it's legal or not. In NCAA play, there does not seem to be a rule that says that it's illegal, but in NFHS there is. People get bent out of shape when you bring up an opposing view...alot of them are mods....that I don't understand. Isn't that what a forum is for?

[stinisonfire]

You completely missed the point. We're talking about rules, not what's fair. This is the rules discussion forum right? I was comparing the advantage gained from this to the advantage gained from another custom strung head. Both of these are custom strung heads...get it? The only difference is that this has a hole in it.

I didn't miss the point of the discussion. The point is whether it's legal or not. In NCAA play, there does not seem to be a rule that says that it's illegal, but in NFHS there is. People get bent out of shape when you bring up an opposing view...alot of them are mods....that I don't understand. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Yes, that's the reason for the point of a forum, but if you'd like to talk about the fairness of a custom pocket (such as a pookie pocket, rock-it-pocket, etc) make your own thread. Don't bring up a different discussion in a thread clearly asking if said string job is illegal, not unfair.

And this 'custom head' is clearly illegal. You simply can't have a gaping hole in the mesh (or meshes) to give it an unfair advantage.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[LaxRef]

I was going for NCAA rules by the way.

Then stating that would have avoided confusion. There was a rule stated that applied directly to the situation, which was an NFHS rule, and you said there was nothing explicit in the rules against it.

As for lip or hook, that's not at all what they're talking about. You probably didn't know that because of your lack of experience with the sport. As I've mentioned before feel free to go to other forums and try to learn about the sport and maybe do away with your ignorance about something you apparently think you're an expert at.

Other people think that, too. It's okay if you don't agree.

If a player's stick is hitting the plastic part of his head, it's hitting the "lip". "Hook" is also referred to as "whip", which is when the pocket throws downward.

This is the rules forum, not the stick tech forum. While you are probably right concerning the use of these terms as jargon in stick stringing, the rules do not use words like "lip" and "hook" as jargon, but in the everyday use of the words (since they can't define every word they use, although I'm the first to say they should define more and assume less than they do to avoid confusion). And, given the everyday meanings of these words, it is an entirely reasonable and expected interpretation of the pocket pictured as a "lip" that could "ensnare the ball." You might not agree, and you don't have to call it that way in your games, but I think the majority of people would agree that it's a lip.

In the sense you're using the words, with "hook" meaning "whip," does it even make sense to think of "a whip that could ensnare the ball"? The words don't even fit right.

Basically they don't want a pocket that is woven around the ball so that it withholds it from play. I could reciprocate the douchebaggery and say, yes, you DON"T know what they're talking about, but that would be impolite, wouldn't it?

Look, here's the deal. I may have gotten a bit snippy with you, and I apologize. However, in the rules forum, we deal with the rules. There have been several times when you've been asked to justify your position with a rule, and you've sidestepped and declined to do so. There is a major element of "put up or shut up" when it comes to rules discussion. Someone can insist that a loose ball push results in a free clear, which is wrong, and if they can't produce a rule citation to back up that position, we declare them to be wrong (I'm not saying you said this, this is just an example). They may have seen a loose-ball push awarded a free clear in their games, or they may have been confused about what was actually called, but none of that matters: if you can't cite a rule that can at least be interpreted to support the position, you lose the argument. And sometimes there are conflicting rules that need to be resolved logically or with a rule change.

You also seem to feel strongly that the officials should be responsible for all of the equipment inspection stuff and don't seem to believe—and I may not be representing your position accurately, but this is what it seems like you're saying to me—that the coaches shouldn't have to deal with it despite the fact that they certify that their players are legally equipped by rule. You're entitled to that position, but it is not one shared by many. At national officials meetings, a common refrain is that we will help the coaches in their desire to clean up the illegal sticks, but that the coaches need to shoulder some of the responsibility because the rules require that they certify before the game.

We may have to agree to disgaree on this point, but I can't understand why you have chosen to focus on the fact that the officials are paid to inspect equipment as part of their job but ignore the fact that coaches are paid to inspect equipment as part of their job as specified in the rules. It may be a matter of perspective.

And I'm not trying to say you're a bad person, or make value judgments about you, when I say that a coach who certifies that his players are legally equipped by rule when they are not is lying. That's just the definition of the word: "A false statement deliberately presented as being true." Considering that, by rule, answering yes to the question says that the head coach has personally inspected all of the equipment, if the coach didn't inspect it and he said he did, that's a lie. People can rationalize because they don't like being accused of lying, but in this situation the logic is inescapable.

[TheKOB]

I was comparing a custom stringing job to this, which is another stringing job, saying that there is an advantage gained. If for example both players have the same pocket, there isn't an advantage gained. Basically, if there is an advantage to be had (not an advantage in terms of legality) then wouldn't a lot of other faceoff guys do it, thus negating the "unfair" advantage? Seems like that's the way innovation takes place, inside the rules. I was basically drawing a parallel between two different custom stringing jobs....why wasn't mesh, when it came onto the scene, viewed as an unfair advantage?

The question that I still haven't had answered is, is this legal for NCAA play. If not, what's the wording? Not sure how often you peruse this forum, but not everything that is unfair is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unfair. Rules don't always have to make sense.

[LaxRef]

I was comparing a custom stringing job to this, which is another stringing job, saying that there is an advantage gained. If for example both players have the same pocket, there isn't an advantage gained. Basically, if there is an advantage to be had (not an advantage in terms of legality) then wouldn't a lot of other faceoff guys do it, thus negating the "unfair" advantage? Seems like that's the way innovation takes place, inside the rules. I was basically drawing a parallel between two different custom stringing jobs....why wasn't mesh, when it came onto the scene, viewed as an unfair advantage?

The only answer I can give is because the consensus on the rules committee is that something is or isn't fair or reasonable. I mean, you could apply that thinking to almost anything: Why can I push from the front and not the back when my opponent has the ball? Why can I have a crosse that is 40" long but not 39" or 43"?

The question that I still haven't had answered is, is this legal for NCAA play. If not, what's the wording? Not sure how often you peruse this forum, but not everything that is unfair is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unfair. Rules don't always have to make sense.

I understand that. That's why I've worked hard to submit suggestions to the rules committee over the past 5 years or so, and why there have been many clarifications trying to make them make sense.

Here, the only on-point rule which I am aware of is the one about a lip or hook that could ensnare the ball. I think it applies. Others may disagree. At this point, it becomes a rules interpretation issue as opposed to an issue of what the rules say.

[laxfan25]

The question that I still haven't had answered is, is this legal for NCAA play. If not, what's the wording?

Here is the wording that 99.9% of officials would apply to the innovative modification by astro22;
Under Crosse Prohibitions - A crosse that has been altered in
such a way as to give an advantage to an individual is illegal.
In this case the crosse has certainly been altered, and since this is not something that is commercially available or a crosse that has been reviewed by the Mens' Rule Committee -

The Men’s Lacrosse Rules Committee suggests that manufacturers planning innovative changes in lacrosse equipment submit the equipment to the committee for review before production.
While the committee does not regulate the development of new equipment and does not set technical or scientific standards for testing equipment or the approval or disapproval of specific playing equipment, the committee may provide manufacturers with informal guidelines as to the equipment performance levels it considers consistent with the integrity of the game. The committee reserves the right to intercede to protect and maintain that integrity.

A reasonable official would determine that this is a modification designed to give an individual an advantage. I would also aver with a high degree of certainty that if this was presented to the NCAA Rules Clinic at the US Lacrosse convention in Philadelphia that there would be unanimous agreement that this stringing style would threaten the integrity of the game.
In a nutshell, it's illegal because we say so, and I would use the quotation above as my proof of authority.

[TheKOB]

In response:

1) it's only advantage because the other fogo hasn't thought of it.
2) just because the committe reserves the right doesn't mean that they will do something about it in the future, and we shouldn't guess what they'll think of in the future and call it that way now.

while I understand where you both are coming from, I think that this is more serving to quash innovation than anything else. Like what you (laxref) said in the other faceoff forum, if it starts to be a problem, the rules people will address it...unless it's a warrior product <cou(big nasty)gh>

I think it's great and shows a lot of innovation on the original poster's part. I think I might string one...not that I play on a team...or face off...but just 'cause it's kind of a neat idea.

[LaxRef]

BTW, I checked with the national NCAA rules interpreter. He said at least a 1:00 NR penalty for something like this.

[okemosLAX]

Dude that is sweeeet!!

[laxfan25]

In response:

1) it's only advantage because the other fogo hasn't thought of it.
2) just because the committe reserves the right doesn't mean that they will do something about it in the future, and we shouldn't guess what they'll think of in the future and call it that way now.

while I understand where you both are coming from, I think that this is more serving to quash innovation than anything else. Like what you (laxref) said in the other faceoff forum, if it starts to be a problem, the rules people will address it...unless it's a warrior product <cou(big nasty)gh>

I think it's great and shows a lot of innovation on the original poster's part. I think I might string one...not that I play on a team...or face off...but just 'cause it's kind of a neat idea.
While I agree that it is a very innovative idea, that doesn't mean we need to let it pass just because the national committee hasn't ruled on it. After all, it is just one individual tricking up a stick. So while I might admire the handiwork, I would still instruct astro to take the stick to the sidelines until he can come back with a LaxDoctor's certification of approval. At least that's how it will be handled in my game - good luck with the next ref! :drool: