Push with possession

Stubs · 10-29-2009, 08:22 PM

I have seen this a few times, and it never fails to bring on discussion.
Attackman has possession, either right on the end line or sideline, or in the box when ahead in the last 2 minutes right next to the restraining line. The D-man places his gloved hand, still on the stick, in the attachman's back and gives him a very light push, causing the attachman to step on the line or out of bounds. There was even a televised Navy game last year with this action. The officials gave the ball to the D team. Seems to me it is a Push with possession, T. You would not usually make this call a push, but following TPOAD, the slight push did indeed give the D the advantage. Seems that the only thing to look for is equal pressure, and the attackman loses his balance/position, or the push is what takes him out of bounds/the box.
Thoughts?

massref · 10-29-2009, 08:34 PM

This drives me a little nuts too.

Even if it is a hard push from the rear along the sideline, it is usually called an OOB change of possession rather than what it should be called, a push with possession T. If a push is a push in the middle of the field, a push should be a push along the sideline. I see VERY few officials call a push with possession T when there is the push from the rear along the sideline and the player being pushed ends up OOB. I don't really understand why!!

cannons196 · 10-29-2009, 09:15 PM

Count me in with agreement. I'm not sure why it isn't called more often. Even in HS with a player running up the sideline with the ball and gets pushed at the shoulder from behind it doesn't get called. Why not?

LaxRef · 10-29-2009, 10:05 PM

I always call the push from behind with possession if it forces a player in possession OOB, since he's clearly been disadvantaged. But I had a discussion with a more experienced official about this stalling scenario, and his thought was that the rule was put in place to help the defense, so letting the offense hang near the attack-area line to draw a cheap push with possession call runs counter to the intent of the rule. If it's a hard push, call it, he said, but if it's a light push and the attackman steps out of the attack area, well, maybe he shouldn't have been standing so close to the line.

I'm not 100% sold on this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

mdlc-lax · 10-30-2009, 09:28 AM

Many times when the ball handler is caught on end or sidelines, he executes a "spin"; therefore the push is negated and the OOB is called. Have seen this repeatedly. Last year we had a high school level keeper repeatedly spin and repeatedly get pushed OOB. The coach was incensed at us refs and said nothing to his GK concerning his inability to give up the ball when he was WAY out-of-position. Lack of foot speed didn't help the GK's cause either.

Many refs don't call the spin or indicate (hand signal) spin when one is warranted. Causes confusion when the OOB is called. I always indicate.

I'm just as willing to call a push when the ball handler has established position, and then is pushed OOB by the defender.

Agree that both calls in this scenario are guaranteed to produced a moan & groan from either bench and/or player.

Stubs · 10-31-2009, 12:18 PM

LaxRef, I understand the reasoning for wanting to call the OOB instead of the Push, but I would still go with the push. The pressure is on the D-man to try and get the Attack to try and spin or turn to get off the sideline/restraining line. A double-team would help, as would a good check made by reaching around.

laxzeeb · 10-31-2009, 01:16 PM

I would lean towards calling the push. When offensive players are close to the line defenders seem to lose their smarts and just focus on getting the guy OOB by whatever means. Calling the push serves as a deterrent message that it has to be a proper check.

When I see a player in possession close to OOB I am also concerned for watching for IBC's and UR's for the same reason.

LaxRef · 10-31-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stubs

LaxRef, I understand the reasoning for wanting to call the OOB instead of the Push, but I would still go with the push. The pressure is on the D-man to try and get the Attack to try and spin or turn to get off the sideline/restraining line. A double-team would help, as would a good check made by reaching around.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, because I stated I go with the push call and not the OOB.

LaxRef · 10-31-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxzeeb

I would lean towards calling the push. When offensive players are close to the line defenders seem to lose their smarts and just focus on getting the guy OOB by whatever means. Calling the push serves as a deterrent message that it has to be a proper check.

When I see a player in possession close to OOB I am also concerned for watching for IBC's and UR's for the same reason.

I agree with all of this with respect to OOB. But does anyone have comments on the stalling situation?

laxfan25 · 10-31-2009, 06:23 PM

Did a 3-game college fall ball set this afternoon. In one game A1 was being harrassed in one of the alleys by B1 and B2. at one point he was stationary about 2 feet in from the sideline with his back to the field, cradling in tight. B2 shoves him in the back out of bounds. I threw the flag for a 30 sec. push.

I understand MDLC's points about players sometimes turning into a push, and I see that fairly frequently. I will often give a little finger twirl and say "he turned", even though that signal has been co-opted by other mechanics!

Where I see this push occur most often is on a player running up the sideline (as was shown in one of the semi games last spring) and the defender is beat and gives a shove in the back. I also see it happen to players on the crease - the defender will push them into the crease. If they've just done a roll dodge that's one thing, but if they've just established better inside position you've gotta go witht he push call.

In my training classes I always talk about seeing the cause of a line violation, not just the positioning of the feet; sideline, creaseline and midline on a slow roller where the A & D are jockeying for position.

laxzeeb · 10-31-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaxRef

I agree with all of this with respect to OOB. But does anyone have comments on the stalling situation?

I totally understand the logic, especially in a tight game in the second half. But it could be a really hard sell if it is a "light" push from behind. It still is a push from behind. You are interpreting the player's intent in being close to the line, so I suppose if it is really obvious there are more grounds. Some might say if he's in the box it is permitted conduct to creep the line as the focus of the push call should be solely on the defender's conduct, unless the offensive player turns into it. I guess you'd rest your case that it wasn't enough to qualify as a "thrust or shove".

Whatever call you make, in a close game, one coach is probably going to be fuming.

Coach MacLax · 10-31-2009, 10:13 PM

A push is a push. Light or heavy. Regardless of the attackers intent.

LaxRef · 10-31-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach MacLax

A push is a push. Light or heavy. Regardless of the attackers intent.

I don't mean this to sound sarcastic, but I want to understand what you are saying here. Do you mean to say that you want everything that is technically a foul called during the game regardless of whether an advantage is gained?

laxzeeb · 11-01-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach MacLax

A push is a push. Light or heavy. Regardless of the attackers intent.

I wish it were that simple, but you can't take some judgment out of making calls anymore than you can make the language of the rules perfect. That is what makes the stall/push scenario so difficult. But, even with the routine push in the back, I'm generally not going to call unless it alters the offended player's course or stride [the disadvantage aspect]. I also have to decide whether it is a brush or a slash and if someone is tripped, whether positive action caused it. What roughness is unnecessary. I can't measure the five yards away from the ball for a hit that becomes an IBC. One of the benefits of the discussions in this forum are to help us refine the use of that judgment.

DaytonLax · 11-02-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaxRef

so letting the offense hang near the attack-area line to draw a cheap push with possession call runs counter to the intent of the rule. If it's a hard push, call it, he said, but if it's a light push and the attackman steps out of the attack area, well, maybe he shouldn't have been standing so close to the line.

I'm not 100% sold on this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

Good discussion topic. I have called a push for pushing out of the attack-area during a stall and/or during last 2 minutes of game for the same reasoning you used for the OOB call. However, I also understand the other gentleman's perspective about the light push. Maybe the D should be working harder at checking the stick if his back is turned or maybe double teaming to force the move. Would this scenario also be covered as a possible withholding if the player is hiding out at the edge of the box with his back turned and not offering a defensive player opportunity to play the ball without committing an infraction?

cannons196 · 11-02-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaxRef

I always call the push from behind with possession if it forces a player in possession OOB, since he's clearly been disadvantaged. But I had a discussion with a more experienced official about this stalling scenario, and his thought was that the rule was put in place to help the defense, so letting the offense hang near the attack-area line to draw a cheap push with possession call runs counter to the intent of the rule. If it's a hard push, call it, he said, but if it's a light push and the attackman steps out of the attack area, well, maybe he shouldn't have been standing so close to the line.

I'm not 100% sold on this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

I'll address the stalling question. I don't agree with your experienced official. The stalling penalty wasn't put in to help the defense. It was put in place to help the opposing team's offense. The point is to force the team in possession of the ball to attack the goal. If they fail to do so, you give the ball back to the opposition so they can get the ball to their offense to try to make it a closer game.

If the team in possession can dance around the border of the offensive box, then good for them. It shouldn't take an illegal push, no matter how "light" to get the ball back. It should be good team defense. I don't buy it and I would still call a push a push.

massref · 11-02-2009, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonLax

Good discussion topic. I have called a push for pushing out of the attack-area during a stall and/or during last 2 minutes of game for the same reasoning you used for the OOB call. However, I also understand the other gentleman's perspective about the light push. Maybe the D should be working harder at checking the stick if his back is turned or maybe double teaming to force the move. Would this scenario also be covered as a possible withholding if the player is hiding out at the edge of the box with his back turned and not offering a defensive player opportunity to play the ball without committing an infraction?

This would be very unlikely as the defense IS allowed to exit the box so an attack player turning his back in a situation like this would serve no real advantage.

Stubs · 11-02-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonLax

Good discussion topic. I have called a push for pushing out of the attack-area during a stall and/or during last 2 minutes of game for the same reasoning you used for the OOB call. However, I also understand the other gentleman's perspective about the light push. Maybe the D should be working harder at checking the stick if his back is turned or maybe double teaming to force the move. Would this scenario also be covered as a possible withholding if the player is hiding out at the edge of the box with his back turned and not offering a defensive player opportunity to play the ball without committing an infraction?

That's how I see it. The attackman can keep his stick covered by his body, as long as he does not hold the ball on his chest. Stand right next to the line, and bait the D-man to push him in the back and step over the line.

A well-coached D-man will commit to the off-goal side and force the attackman to spin, getting the ball back in play, giving the D s shot at getting the ball.

LaxRef · 11-03-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannons196

I'll address the stalling question. I don't agree with your experienced official. The stalling penalty wasn't put in to help the defense. It was put in place to help the opposing team's offense. The point is to force the team in possession of the ball to attack the goal. If they fail to do so, you give the ball back to the opposition so they can get the ball to their offense to try to make it a closer game.

I disagree here. I believe the stalling rule is intended to help the opponent by not allowing a team with a lead to run out the clock. I think it's considered unfair by most people to allow a team with a one goal lead to gain possession and then use the whole field to kill the clock. That's why we have an automatic stall warning in the last two minutes: it's assumed that that's what the team in the lead is going to try to do if they can.

Limiting the offense's options clearly doesn't help them. Instead, it penalizes them for not creating offensive opportunities. In that sense, it is encouraging the offense to try to score, but it is certainly not helping them to do so.

Personal Foul · 11-03-2009, 09:40 AM

I for one don't really agree with the entire stalling rule anyway, esp. in the last 2-minutes of the game. I think if a team worked hard all game and has the lead why should they be disadvantaged by having to keep the ball in. I think it is a smart stratgegy and they are doing what is necessary to win the game. It is not unsportsman like. This does not disadvantage the team that is behind, they just have to continue to work hard as well like they should be the whole game and try to get the ball back. Adding a shot clock and eliminating the stalling rule would be a good move for lacrosse.

Anyway a push with possession should be called if it is there.

Lax Fan26 · 11-03-2009, 09:49 AM

It is fascinating to me that players & refs that were probably not even born when the stalling rule went in the book are so certain of the rationale behind it.

LaxRef · 11-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Personal Foul

I for one don't really agree with the entire stalling rule anyway, esp. in the last 2-minutes of the game. I think if a team worked hard all game and has the lead why should they be disadvantaged by having to keep the ball in.

Because it makes the game boring to watch. People like exciting finishes, and if every lacrosse game ended up with 2-3 minutes of glorified keep-away, it wouldn't have nearly the fan base that it does. If you're ahead in the last two minutes with the current rule, you still have some work to do to win the game, and the defense still has a chance.

Personal Foul · 11-03-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaxRef

Because it makes the game boring to watch. People like exciting finishes, and if every lacrosse game ended up with 2-3 minutes of glorified keep-away, it wouldn't have nearly the fan base that it does. If you're ahead in the last two minutes with the current rule, you still have some work to do to win the game, and the defense still has a chance.

Ok maybe, however, if the defense presses the ball well they could create the turn over, rather than give the advantage to the defense by shortening the playing area. I think it unfairly disadvantages the offense. Either way the team ahead and the team behind need to work. Most sports have some way/strategy for the teams to try and keep the lead at the end of a game without creating a advantage for the team that is behind. Again this is just my opinion. Let the defense create their own chances and capitalize on the mistakes of their opponents rather than have a rule to create one (a chance) for them.

I don't see what is exciting about a team being ahead by 6-8 goals then trying to score more in the last 2-minutes anyway.

mdlc-lax · 11-03-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Personal Foul

Ok maybe, however, if the defense presses the ball well they could create the turn over, rather than give the advantage to the defense by shortening the playing area. I think it unfairly disadvantages the offense. Either way the team ahead and the team behind need to work. Most sports have some way/strategy for the teams to try and keep the lead at the end of a game without creating a advantage for the team that is behind. Again this is just my opinion. Let the defense create their own chances and capitalize on the mistakes of their opponents rather than have a rule to create one (a chance) for them.

I don't see what is exciting about a team being ahead by 6-8 goals then trying to score more in the last 2-minutes anyway.

I believe you need to witness a stall (legal) in wlax to appreciate how much it takes away from the game. Once the offense spreads the field, it's essentially impossible to defend. You can run the clock until you're blue in the face, and they do.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

LaxRef · 11-03-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Personal Foul

I don't see what is exciting about a team being ahead by 6-8 goals then trying to score more in the last 2-minutes anyway.

That's a red herring argument: no one says that this rule is intended to have any impact on a 6-goal game. Most likely, at team that has a 6 (or more) goal lead will bring the ball into the attack area and not try to score but instead try to run out the clock, and if they end up with a stalling violation, so what? They're going to win anyway.

No, the point of the stall rule is to keep a team with a slim lead from running out the clock by playing keep-away, which is far less exciting than watching the two teams play lacrosse.

Coach MacLax · 11-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Coach MacLax
A push is a push. Light or heavy. Regardless of the attackers intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaxRef

I don't mean this to sound sarcastic, but I want to understand what you are saying here. Do you mean to say that you want everything that is technically a foul called during the game regardless of whether an advantage is gained?

No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is - if it causes the attacker to step outside the area (the advantage has been gained) it is a push. Light or heavy.

laxfan25 · 11-08-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach MacLax

Originally Posted by Coach MacLax
A push is a push. Light or heavy. Regardless of the attackers intent.

No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is - if it causes the attacker to step outside the area (the advantage has been gained) it is a push. Light or heavy.

I agree - if a violation by Team A is caused by any illegal action by Team B - you have to penalize Team B, even if it's a fairly inocuous push. If in your opinion that nudge is what caused the player to step out, they've been disadvantaged, and if the ball gets turned over - it double-sucks ( a new term in the 2010 Training Manual).

laxsavage · 11-08-2009, 01:42 PM

Anyone who is opposed to stalling rules should check out some "four corners offense" before the shotclock came around in basketball, bleh!

LaxRef · 11-08-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxfan25

I agree - if a violation by Team A is caused by any illegal action by Team B - you have to penalize Team B, even if it's a fairly inocuous push. If in your opinion that nudge is what caused the player to step out, they've been disadvantaged, and if the ball gets turned over - it double-sucks ( a new term in the 2010 Training Manual).

You need to discuss this with your evil twin, since he's the one who had the contrary viewpoint here.

Laxref_36 · 04:44 PM

The key to any loose ball technical foul is, advantage vs disadvantage.

flowwenn · 11-08-2009, 04:42 PM

in college lacrosse the game tends to be played with a little bit more "loose" if you will. not everything will be called, its much more physical, even when dealing with legal and illegal checks, pushes, etc. the ref might of missed this call depending on the angle, and where the defenseman's other hand is place. if its on the hip, or slightly infront of the body, it most likely wouldnt be called. its just the level of play, no matter how unfair it can be.