Trick Play

[LaxRef]

A1 is awarded possession after B1 is sent off for a 1:00 penalty. After a clean restart, A2, A3, A4, and A5 huddle together with A1 at the top of the box, then all break out in different directions (so that the defense doesn't know who has the ball).

As the players break out, there is some contact with the defensive players as the defensive players pick up the offensive players, but not enough to call either the defensive or offensive players for interference (i.e., there is some light contact, but no one is interfering with the free movement of another player). A3 has the ball, shoots, and scores.

Ruling?

[lacrosse_queen1]

we try this play all the time and confuses refs all over.... from what the head lacrosse guy here says is that its a good play IF they huddle around the ball after the whistle.. this is in box though

[kingwolf]

im pretty sure this is legal my friends call it the annexation of Puerto Rico i dont see any real reason it would be illegal

[spyopticgoggles]

im pretty sure this is legal my friends call it the annexation of Puerto Rico i dont see any real reason it would be illegal
hahahaha the annexation of puerto rico...the little giants is such a great movie. but anyway i dont see any problem if there isnt any interference

[laxgthreeone]

i dont get how this is confusing if its from the box its not hard to tell who has the ball if there coming from the box can someone give me more details so I know wats so hard and confusing about it thanks//.

[The Doors]

no goal......dangerous play.

Puts the goalie in a very bad position and highly increases the risk of injury if he doesnt know where the ball is coming from.

Granted, I am not a referee, but I would have a refs head if he allowed this play to continue more than a second or two

[RottingMind13]

This feels like a brain teaser because A1 has the ball but A3 scores with no mention of a pass......

[3rdPersonPlural]

If A1 starts, say, in an alley and scoots upto a spot above the restraining line, where he convenes with several other players, no foul so far.

Everybody breaks out of the huddle cradling, still no foul. Nothing wrong with cradling with no ball in the stick.

A2,3, or 4 has the ball, not A1. Again, a very short pass is still a pass, and is not specifically against any rule.

Sounds clean...

[RottingMind13]

A1 is never in the huddle though according to the first thing, i dont know maybe I'm just reading it wayy to much.

[LaxRef]

A1 is never in the huddle though according to the first thing, i dont know maybe I'm just reading it wayy to much.


Sorry, A1 is in the huddle as well.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

"Clean restart" implies the restart occurred at the right place (20 yards lateral of the goal, center X, etc.). If the huddle took less than 10 seconds outside of the box, still clean. But, is there an offsides occurring? We have 5 players (A1-A5), but where is A6? No goal if he is offsides. Goal otherwise at this point.

[pboyd]

Enforcement of 5 yards on the restart (for all players) would negate this "armadillo" play.

[LaxRef]

Enforcement of 5 yards on the restart (for all players) would negate this "armadillo" play.

I said that they huddled after a clean restart, meaning that there were no players within 5 yards of A1 on the whistle.

[Lax_Lurker]

what do you do when the defense lays out a guy he thinks has the ball? that is A2 is fake cradling and moving towards the goal.

[laxgthreeone]

^^ you laugh haha

[LaxRef]

what do you do when the defense lays out a guy he thinks has the ball? that is A2 is fake cradling and moving towards the goal.

It is technically an illegal bodycheck to check a player who does not have the ball and is not within 5 yards of a loose ball.

[MainLax28]

We ran this a couple of times before, we called it the hobbit. It is not the armadillo play, but I do know what that is as well, and they are similair.I've never seen it get called, and I don't know of any rule that is violates. Maybe a moving pick? I don't know of anything else.

[jrb]

When A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5, huddle at the top of the box, you might have withholding the ball from play.

[MElaxRef]

I like jrb's call.

What if B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 run up and surround the A-cluster. Since everybody is within 5 yards of the ball, any contact initiated by A2, A3, A4 or A5 presumably would have to be interference.

Of course, if everyone just stood there for 10-12 minutes, the officials' job would be really easy (and the game would be really boring).

[LaxRef]

When A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5, huddle at the top of the box, you might have withholding the ball from play.

The ball was clearly never withheld. They just dropped the ball from one stick into another and broke the huddle.

[LaxRef]

I like jrb's call.

What if B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 run up and surround the A-cluster. Since everybody is within 5 yards of the ball, any contact initiated by A2, A3, A4 or A5 presumably would have to be interference.

The 5 team B players stayed well away from the huddle in a zone set. I agree that if the Team B players are near the huddle and the Team A players initiate significant contact, you probably have interference.

[VicLaxRef]

Legal Play, hopefully the refs can see who has the ball before the shot so as to see the ball crossing the goal line.

[MElaxRef]

I agree that this a legal play. Stupid, but legal. There are lots of reasons why you won't see this play on TV on Memorial Day.

[Bobsch]

I agree that this a legal play. Stupid, but legal. There are lots of reasons why you won't see this play on TV on Memorial Day.
I agree. I hate when teams do this....I don't remember ever seeing it work.

[Shorelax]

I believe this is a legal play. I have seen it attempted - but never successfully.

About 25 years ago, there was a youth team who tried the following tactic. The kids all had orange mesh with white circles painted in the center. They would use the play described above. The league put a stop to it after a couple of games.

[Shorelax]

Granted, I am not a referee, but I would have a refs head if he allowed this play to continue more than a second or two

Have the ref's head?? Didn’t realize this was allowable by rule.

[villelax35]

o wow...the scrum play..check out laxpowers archives from 2006 go to somerville vs lawrence. Somerville is down by one with 7 seconds left. We bust out that trick play to tie it with three seconds left. Sideline goes nuts. We win in ot. Amazing play amazing game

[Lurch22d]

our club team did it and so does our varsity...only it is with only 2-3 ppl when we do..not 4 or 5...they fake all run while cradling and usually score...we call it the ham and cheese...dunno why

[mrmccool]

Isn't there a "no armadillo play" rule? If not, I'd say it's legal.

[Beacher]

The armadillo play is when you go into the huddle, and then move down the field like that (without breaking the huddle) to protect the ball. The play being discussed in this thread is (as far as I can tell) legal.

[wolfenburg]

are we talking about something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1Mk5UyECQ

[TheKOB]

The armadillo play was not was is being discussed here. It was effectively a way of withholding a ball from play. Taken from E-Lacrosse:
Armadillo (The Armadillo play) \ n. \ Jack Emmer's 1983 Washington & Lee team used this infamous play, almost to success, against a far superior North Carolina team. Five players locked arms with one player in the middle with the ball in a sawed-off goalie stick with a very deep pocket so that the ball could not be dislodged and as a unit they marched up the field at will. The play was banned immediately. See Picture 30.


One thing e-lax might've (depending on interpretation of "immediately") had wrong was that Jack Emmer checked with the ref before the game concerning this game plan and he said it was fine as long as the player wasn't holding the ball to his chest (withholding). It was banned after the game.

This play I believe is illegal for the reason someone stated. I don't agree with it since you're still allowed to screen the goalie and if the goalie doesn't know where the ball is that's his problem. Should they outlaw fake passes too? If you're worried about the goalie being injured then dress 'em up like the women's goalies and outlaw "dangerous shots". I think then we'd all have to wear kilts as well at that point...and probably wouldn't need cups.

This play is rarely done, and when it's done I've never seen it called. We were about to try it a few years ago but then some meathead from the opposing team decides it's a good time to try and bulldoze through the huddle, hitting a few guys in the back. Probably worth a 30 second push with possession for him, also probably should've been unsportsmanlike.

[LaxRef]

I couldn't find anything wrong with this play, except that in the actual play the guy with the ball was wide open (4 guys went one way and the goalie watched them) and missed an easy shot.

The coach of the defensive team insisted it was an illegal offensive screen because the offense had guys moving within 5 yards of the ball—at least, I think that was his argument—but the actual rule says:

No offensive player shall move into and make contact with a defensive player with the purpose of blocking a defensive player from the man he is playing, nor may the offensive player hold his crosse rigid or extend his crosse rigid to impede the normal movements of the defensive man. If contact is made between offensive and defensive players as a result of the offensive player’s setting a screen, the offensive player must be motionless before the contact occurs.

I didn't see any contact that met these requirements. The only other thing I could see was:

A player may not interfere in any manner with the free movement of an opponent, except when that opponent has possession of the ball, the ball is in flight and within 5 yards of the players, or both players are within 5 yards of a loose ball. (Exception: Interference with the goalkeeper in the crease.) (See 6-3-a, c).

Note 1: This rule is not intended to prohibit a legal offensive screen.

Note 2: A player may not kick or step on his opponent’s crosse.

Again, I didn't see anything that met the requirements for interference either. I allowed the play. There may have been some incidental contact, but nothing that prevented the free movement of any player.

[TheKOB]

yeesh...I was getting riled up about nothing. I've heard it was illegal, but never have heard a rule cited. Glad to hear that the rule book and my point of view coincide every once in a while :) ...

[jvt510]

it should be illgeal cause someone could get hurt and i mean really who wants to get hit when they dont have the ball

[TheKOB]

probably the same kind of lacrosse player who goes to the goal when he knows he's gonna get laid out.

Basically, the kind of player who I want on my team...

[3rdPersonPlural]

Fzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzst!!! TheKOB takes round 1, with a sizzling counter!

On top of that he's right.

Welcome to the game of lacrosse.

[lehighvalleylax]

I had this play done in HS varsity this year, but they did not do it well, as one of the offensive players (without the ball) was more like a lead blocker than decoy. I called interference (more than five yards from the ball) and turned the ball over. It was obvious.

[b-boy_laxman]

i am so showing my coach this play! it sounds awesome it would be good for box because the contact would not really matter.

[laxer26]

despite what the rules say... all the good refs call it. unfair advantage or something similar

[wolfenburg]

Why?
If you open your eys you can spot the ball and comunicate it to your team.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I just saw an attempt at this play at a MS tourney game yesteday, and before team A could try to make it work, B1 slashed and A1 retaliated with an IBC. And here I thought I could see if it really worked!

[LaxRef]

despite what the rules say... all the good refs call it. unfair advantage or something similar

Rubbish. There's no "unfair advantage" rule. Do you wave off the goal when they do a fake pass and then shoot? Or when they do a fake flip pass behind the goal, then the guy without the ball cradles like crazy and heads for one side of the goal while the guy with the ball jogs to the other side and shoots?

Isn't offense all about deception? If the rulemakers thought it was unfair, wouldn't there be a rule against it?

In the play I described, the only reason it had a decent chance of working was that the defense let them do it. They sat in a zone and let it happen. If a few defenders had gone over to the huddle, it would have been interference or an illegal screen when the huddle "exploded." So how is it an "unfair advantage" for the offense to take advantage of a lack of defense?

[laxer26]

its called because they go into the Huddle. Im sure if they did not do this there would be no grounds to whistle the play dead. that is the crucial difference between all of the fake passing, ball flips that you mention. You gain an unfair advantage when you are allowed to huddle up and disburse the ball among all 6 offensive players while taking advantage of the fact that one team is playing man down and cannot extend or cover all 6 offensive players.

I think the ref called an Illegal Procedure (withholding the ball from play) and it went the other direction.

[LaxRef]

its called because they go into the Huddle. Im sure if they did not do this there would be no grounds to whistle the play dead. that is the crucial difference between all of the fake passing, ball flips that you mention. You gain an unfair advantage when you are allowed to huddle up and disburse the ball among all 6 offensive players while taking advantage of the fact that one team is playing man down and cannot extend or cover all 6 offensive players.

I think the ref called an Illegal Procedure (withholding the ball from play) and it went the other direction.

There is no unfair advantage rule!

So, by what rule did the official call it illegal? Just because an official calls something illegal doesn't mean it actually is! It they go into the huddle for a second or two, it sure isn't withholding. If they stay there for a while, maybe it is, but I'd have to believe that the action was actually keeping the ball from play. Sure, we have the phrase "withholding the ball from play in any manner," but you have to excercise judgment, because the guy who just stands near midfield with the ball could be said to be withholding the ball from play but no one is going to call that, especially if the defense makes no attempt to play him.

And how the heck can it be illegal for the offense to take advantage of the fact that the defense is man-down and can't cover everyone? :thinking: Isn't that the whole point of being man-up?

There's no specific reference to this play in the rules and no on-point rules that seem to prohibit it. So unless you can support your position using actual rules rather than opinion, I think you need to give it up.

[laxer26]

I already said what they called. Withholding the ball from play. I think that it is a fair call that cannot be disputed given the huddle. if they dont do that, i agree, you dont really have a leg to stand on.

Maybe some of this comes from being a bit of a purist. it seems cheap, as opposed to the other trick plays that require skill. the fact is I dont like the play, and as a coach would never allow my kids to use it, regardless of how well it works. because of this, I would try to find whatever basis in the rules to call it. Withholding the ball from play fits, under the team section, despite the lack of an AR.

it seems pretty straight forward to me that if i send a player out to play the ball, but they form a huddle, it becomes impossible to do that. hence the Withholding the ball from play. But then, I am not a ref.

[Longpole5435]

But then, I am not a ref.

Thankfully. We don't need any more bad referees.

[LaxRef]

I already said what they called. Withholding the ball from play. I think that it is a fair call that cannot be disputed given the huddle. if they dont do that, i agree, you dont really have a leg to stand on.

Maybe some of this comes from being a bit of a purist. it seems cheap, as opposed to the other trick plays that require skill. the fact is I dont like the play, and as a coach would never allow my kids to use it, regardless of how well it works. because of this, I would try to find whatever basis in the rules to call it. Withholding the ball from play fits, under the team section, despite the lack of an AR.

it seems pretty straight forward to me that if i send a player out to play the ball, but they form a huddle, it becomes impossible to do that. hence the Withholding the ball from play. But then, I am not a ref.

I agree completely that if there are defensive players trying to get at the ball and there is a huddle around the ball carrier then the play breaks down. In that case, you could call withholding if they're protecting the balll carrier or, more likely, interference or a moving screen as soon as the players come running out of the huddle bumpring into defenders. But if they do a quick huddle, a quick drop of the ball into another player's stick, and then break the huddle with no defenders around, I don't see how I can call a violation there.

That didn't happen when I saw this play. The defense stayed in their zone and let them do it, which is why it worked enough to get someone wide open (he missed his shot).

[laxer26]

Thankfully. We don't need any more bad referees.


Ziiiiiiiing


but can you explain to me how the situation isnt witholding the ball?

[laxer26]

I agree completely that if there are defensive players trying to get at the ball and there is a huddle around the ball carrier then the play breaks down. In that case, you could call withholding if they're protecting the balll carrier or, more likely, interference or a moving screen as soon as the players come running out of the huddle bumpring into defenders. But if they do a quick huddle, a quick drop of the ball into another player's stick, and then break the huddle with no defenders around, I don't see how I can call a violation there.

That didn't happen when I saw this play. The defense stayed in their zone and let them do it, which is why it worked enough to get someone wide open (he missed his shot).

ok thanks for the (rational) explanation. i buy that.... there isnt much the defense can say if they dont move..... even though I still dont like it.

[Stubs]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this play. We see it all the time. 2,3,4, or 5 guys huddle, "pass" the ball to one player, and all head to the cage. There are several dimly lit fields here where I expect at least one "dove covey" every game. Most of the time the "D" picks out the ball, but there is that time when everyone gets faked out. I can't imagine how a goalie would be injured - except his pride. :jawdrop:

If you are planning to run the "dove covey" in a game, I suggest the captain or coach inform the ref in the pre-game, and ask him to not divulge the info to the other team, and to recognize the play as it happens and "let the boys play".

I did hear of a similar play a couple years ago. MS game, man-up restart at the top left corner of the box. Players are running into place, ref was watching the field. Attackman running in stops to talk to the middie that has the ball, and as they chat he has the middie dump the ball in his stick. The attackman jogs to position, next to the goalie. Ref never noticed the handoff, blows the ball in play. Attackman walks over and tosses the ball in the goal behind the goalie's back. NO ONE saw that happen! After about ten seconds, folks realized the middie did not have the ball, and looked over to see the attackman pointing at the ball in the net. Fortunately, the ref did make the right call, and the ball was re-started at the corner, no goal, add ten seconds to the clock time.

The question came up though that if the attackman had remained outside the box, say in the alley near the corner, should the ref say "Goalie, ball is top left with number 7." and then point at the player with the ball, or, seeing the deception, say "Goalie, ball is top left" and just blow the ball in?

[Laxking31]

We run this all the time in summer leauge. Everyone on the offense huddles together and they give someone the ball. Then they break apart all cradeling. I dont see anything wrong with this play. Granted, Im not a ref........

[Stubs]

No different from a fake pass or the fake flip-pass.

[Tehb2]

Is it illegal to trade sticks with someone? Say two teammates go at one another, and one has the ball. It looks like the player without the ball is coming in for a pick, but as they meet, instead of play where they flick the ball (or fake it), they literally trade sticks and run in opposite directions, the former non carrier now holding the ball, only is in the other player's stick, now in his hands. I saw this in an alumni game for my club team, it was great, but I have no clue if it was legal.

[LaxRef]

Is it illegal to trade sticks with someone? Say two teammates go at one another, and one has the ball. It looks like the player without the ball is coming in for a pick, but as they meet, instead of play where they flick the ball (or fake it), they literally trade sticks and run in opposite directions, the former non carrier now holding the ball, only is in the other player's stick, now in his hands. I saw this in an alumni game for my club team, it was great, but I have no clue if it was legal.

Teammates may exchange crosses on the field during a live or dead ball per NCAA rules. It doesn't address possession; since it doesn't say you can't, you probably can.

[LaxRef]

I saw this play in a game today with one team leading by about 12 goals. It worked this time. The defense tried to claim the play was illegal, but I was watching for withholding and for interference/illegal screens. Since the defense stayed in their 3-2 zone (they were man-down) there was no illegal contact as they broke the huddle.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

Was this in response to the dog bark by the goal play?

[LaxRef]

Was this in response to the dog bark by the goal play?

No. They scored a goal with this first. Then they broke out the bark like a dog play. Then the fans were giving a player from the losing team a hard time and he flipped them the bird.

[LaxRef]

I saw this play this weekend in a box play, but one of the defenders ran up to the huddle. As soon as the huddle broke and two guys bumped him as they broke out of it, <tweeeeet!>