Crease situation

[LaxRef]

Someone e-mailed me the following:

Attackman A1 with ball is running towards the crease. He shoots the ball. Then he jumps. Then the ball completely crosses the plane of the goal. Then A1 lands in the crease.

Good goal? No goal? The rulebook does not take into account when the shot is taken relative to when he jumped, right? So it appears, by rule, that the goal should be disallowed.

What if A1 jumped in order to avoid tripping over B1 who was on the ground? Would that change things?

What do you think?

[CardinalPuff]

like pornography, i know it when i see it....but as described i would probably waive off the goal in situation 1 and count it in situation 2....

[eme]

This is a good one. The rule about no diving was put in place to protect both the shooter and the goalie.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

A strict interpretation of the rules tells us that there is no goal. But, I'm with CP that it looks like a dive in the process of trying to score, waive off the goal. If it was to avoid another player (who may have otherwise been injured) or for another similarly valid reason, the goal is good.

[Longpole5435]

Once the player shoots, he is no longer in possession of the ball. At that point, he is neither in the crease nor in the process of jumping. If he does not jump until after his shot (for whatever reason), then I am inclined to count the goal. His action does not violate the spirit of the Air Gait rule and therefore he should not be penalized.

[MElaxRef]

I'm with Longpole5435 on this one. I'd probably allow the goal in both situations.

Of course, if A1 lands in the crease and crushes the goalie, there should be an illegal bodycheck call.

[TBALAX]

Both the NCAA 19a. pg 50 Rule 4 Sec 19 and NFHS pg 37 Rule 4, Sec 20 ART 1. both say the same thing " ...If an offensive player deliberately leaves his feet by diving or jumping and his own momentum carries him into the crease and the shot goes into the goal, the goal is disallowed".

The AR than reafirm a jump or dive that takes him into the crease, not just toward or over at an angle to clear the crease are all no goals.

In reference to jumping to avoid: I would still say no goal, the player must maintain control of his body, crosse etc. One would think he had the option to avoid the other player and to continue by, pass, shoot or not shoot. Choosing to shoot than jump or jump than shoot still put him in the crease. Maybe not the popular choice but I would still say no goal. The player puts himself in an out of control position by jumping over another player toward the crease and could easily injure himself or the goalie. Safety first is what I believe covers the rules intent here.

[Longpole5435]

Both the NCAA 19a. pg 50 Rule 4 Sec 19 and NFHS pg 37 Rule 4, Sec 20 ART 1. both say the same thing " ...If an offensive player deliberately leaves his feet by diving or jumping and his own momentum carries him into the crease and the shot goes into the goal, the goal is disallowed".

The AR than reafirm a jump or dive that takes him into the crease, not just toward or over at an angle to clear the crease are all no goals.

In reference to jumping to avoid: I would still say no goal, the player must maintain control of his body, crosse etc. One would think he had the option to avoid the other player and to continue by, pass, shoot or not shoot. Choosing to shoot than jump or jump than shoot still put him in the crease. Maybe not the popular choice but I would still say no goal. The player puts himself in an out of control position by jumping over another player toward the crease and could easily injure himself or the goalie. Safety first is what I believe covers the rules intent here.
That AR, doesn't justify your call really, especially when you take into account what it was intended to prevent. You can't logically explain how jumping after a shot is in any way connected to the Air Gait rule, which was a dive then a shot.

[pboyd]

Agree with LP.

[PlayOn]

Jumping AFTER the shot is key here. If this same situation occurred before the shot then you'd have to rule it no goal so says the rule book.
If there really was a guy, we'll call him B1, who was injured right in front of the crease and A1 was actually running towards this person with enough speed to first shoot the ball, then jump over the injured guy and land in the crease then you'd definitely have to say he was being unsafe. You would have to assume that some time had passed between B1's injury in front of the crease and the time it takes for A1 receive the ball in a location above the crease that would allow him to generate this kind of momentum. If this was to occur you would probably blow the play dead for safety purposes anyway because there would be an injured person on the ground with a solid distance between him and the action right in front of the net. Plus you cannot deviate from this rule because what if you had an injured player A2 from the same team as A1 in front of the crease. This would create a major loophole in the rule about charging the crease because you could just have guys falling in front of the crease faking an injury so your man could just charge in off an iso or a draw and jam it in.