Lacrosse Forums

NFHS case 7-6 C: B1 commits technical foul (slow whistle). Team A scores. Technical foul cancelled by goal. Then A1 commits a personal foul. RULING: A1's penalty is enforced. Ball is awarded to team B at center. These are not to ge considered simultaneous fouls. Team B's foul is cancelled by goal.

My question is why does team B get the ball? A1's personal foul is a dead ball foul. I understand A1 being sent off. I know loose ball TECHNICAL fouls are awarded to the opponent. But a dead ball PERSONAL? The penalty is being sent off. Why the ADDITIONAL penalty of possession to team B? Is this because it followed B1's technical foul slow-whistle situation?

Suppose the horn blew, ending the period while in B2's crosse. No flags down or anything. No man down. Between periods and before the face-off, B1 commits a personal foul. B1 is sent to the penalty box for sure. Would team A be awarded the ball to start the next period, or would this be a face-off?

I'm confused about dead ball personal fouls and how they affect the restart.

Put it in the order they happen.

Any time there's a time-serving penalty--personal or technical, dead ball or live ball--the ball is awarded to the offended team (in the absence of other circumstances such as simultaneous fouls).

[quote]NCAA Rule 5

Penalty
SECTION 2. The penalty for a personal foul shall be suspension from the
game of the offending player for one to three minutes, depending on the
official’s judgment of the severity and perceived intent of the personal foul.
The ball shall be given to the team fouled.[quote]

And, of course, if there's a time-serving technical foul, that means someone had possession, and that team keeps possession (absent other circumstances). (Quiz: There's *one* exception to this in NCAA rules; what is it?)

[quote]Originally posted by LaxRef
Any time there's a time-serving penalty--personal or technical, dead ball or live ball--the ball is awarded to the offended team (in the absence of other circumstances such as simultaneous fouls).

[quote]NCAA Rule 5

Penalty
SECTION 2. The penalty for a personal foul shall be suspension from the game of the offending player for one to three minutes, depending on the official’s judgment of the severity and perceived intent of the personal foul. The ball shall be given to the team fouled.

Quote:

And, of course, if there's a time-serving technical foul, that means someone had possession, and that team keeps possession (absent other circumstances). (Quiz: There's *one* exception to this in NCAA rules; what is it?)

An exception to what? That someone had possession? That they keep possession? Ask a question or state a situation, and then ask what the exception is. I don't know what you are asking the exception is TO?!?

Under NCAA rules. there is ONE time when no one has possession and yet a particular technical foul is time-serving (plus the offended team gets possession). What is it?

One situation quickly comes to mind. A1 is pushed by B1 during a loose ball, causing a play-on situation. When A1 is trying to scoop it during the play-on, A2 and B2 BOTH commit loose ball PERSONAL fouls by punching each other. Any loose ball personal causes an immediate whistle stopping play. Now the official must sort it out.

Sooooooo, since these are considered simultaneous fouls against B1, A2 and B2, all three players get sent off. Team was the offended team originally. Since total penalty time is: Team A 1 minute; team B 1 & 1/2 minutes, the ball is awarded to team A for less time assessed during simultaneous fouls.

Why does the loose ball technical become time-serving? Because of
7-6.b.2.b: 2. If the team in possession (or entitled to possession) commits:
(b) Any personal foul, all players involved will serve penalty time.

So, it meets your criteria: Nobody had possession (although team A was ENTITLED to it), a technical foul was committed, it became time-serving (due to the simult. foul rule quoted), and the originally offended team gets possession.

Now I have a question for YOU:

There is only one situation (at least that I know of) where a player serves time for a technical foul that occurred when neither team had possession, and play is also STARTED with neither team in possession.

1) What is the time-serving technical foul assessed for?
2) How is play started?

dunno about 1), but my guess is a technical before a game starts. and it should start as a faceoff.

But raine. Suppose the teams are called out to start the game. A1 commits a technical foul (let's say a conduct foul). That would be penalized by awarding the ball to team B to start the game and A1 would NOT serve any penalty time. So, technical fouls before the game starts or between periods award the ball to the opponent without any penalty time assessed (the penalty comes in the form of possession to the other team). True?

:omg

Oops. TWO exceptions, CoachRob's objection notwithstanding. Although only one of them occurs during play, and you could argue in Raine's situation that one team IS entitled to possession, depending on how you enforce it.

And CoachRob's answer isn't what I'm looking for. I've seen that rule, and I don't think they really mean what they say. At least *I* don't know anyone who would call it that way.

LaxRef,

1) Are you disagreeing with my response to raine? A technical foul before a face-off results in a ball awarded to to the opponent (think delay of game) and you don't serve any time. What do you disagree with in that statement? You lost me with everything after "Oops...".

2) My answer to YOUR question is correct. All players fouling, technical OR personal, during a simultaneous foul situation are sent off so long as the offended team commits ANY personal foul; that's exactly what the rule says. So why is my answer to your question not correct? Please explain.

3) You didn't answer MY question. Are you waiting for something else from me?

You need to give up on simultaneous fouls

1) Field not meeting specifications, which goes hand-in-hand with a 3:00 NR USC.

2) Faceoff.

This is one of the exceptions I mentioned: you serve time for a technical foul even though no one had possession. Note this contradicts your claim that a technical before the game is just possession; however, you could make the case that USC is assessed first (dead-ball personal), and with it possession is awarded, followed by the technical, which is now time-serving because there is possession.

I'll wait for Snake~eyes to get a crack at my question (about a time-served technical foul during the game even though no one has possession) before I cough up the answer.

You got mine correct. (I'm pissed!)

PALax-Ref and I want to know what the answer is, so don't wait too long. Snake-eyes may be on vacation.

I looked through the whole NCAA rulebook and found every place the word "exception" appeared. But your question did not come up. I don't think it is listed in rule 6 for some reason.

I guess you don't accept my scenario where a loose ball technical play-on ends with simultanous personal fouls and the technical foul gets 30 seconds?

well, i was right about the faceoff. the 1) thing was an absolute guess.

LaxRef,
A.R. 12. Team A before the start of the game fails to correct a situation in which the field does not meet specifications and Team B was not made aware of the situation in writing. RULING: Team A starts the game down two players. One player serves a three-minute non-releasable penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct and another player serves a 30-second releasable penalty for field not meeting specifications. The game starts with a face-off. This is an exception to time-serving penalty rules.

Does it ALWAYS have to be a 3-minute NR PLUS a 30-second technical for a bad field? In NFHS, suppose the goal (of field) does not meet specs and CANNOT be repaired in time for the game (suppose the goal post got bent and there is not a replacement goal available). How would you penalize this? (The coach has not refused to correct it, he just CANNOT correct it.)

I thought a bad field was a 1-minute NR in NFHS.

NFHS has some weak rules about a bad field; when I officiated under NFHS rules, we had a league rule to penalze it the same as NCAA. In NCAA, it's 3:00 NR + 0:30 technical + faceoff.

The 30-seconds is for the field not meeting specs (as stated in the A.R, which does not have a matching case play in the NFHS rulebook).

Is the 3-minute NR always for USC? In the case of the bent goal, the coach apologized and would have replaced it, but he didn't have an extra goal in his pocket. Why should his team be hit with a 3-minute NR USC for this? That doesn't seem fair. That's what the 30-second penalty should be for.

Why should we believe that the coach didn't have prior knowledge of the problem and that he didn't have time to correct it? Why should we believe that anymore than a player that said he didn't have any knowledge that his stick was altered to gain an advantage?

The coach is responsible, and a USC pennalty is assessed:

Here's the answer to my quiz:

Although no one is due possession, A1 serves penalty time and Team B is awarded the ball.

Okay, here's the deal. I've noticed this rule, and there's just NO WAY that they mean exactly what it says. Consider this:

B1 slashes A1, flag down. Then A1 wards off at exactly the same time A2 slashes B2. If you interpret this rule as you say, then B1 would serve 1:00, A2 would serve 1:00 and A1 would serve 0:30! There's just no way they intend for a ward to be a time-serving penalty.

I think what they're going for is that all of the players committing personal fouls will serve penalty time, even though that's not what it says. There's just no reason that a penalty that wasn't time-serving should become time-serving because of what someone else did. I know you aren't going to like it, but--you may have heard this before--Rule 7-6 is a mess, and this part does not reflect what any official would do in practice.

I actually considered sending my example in to the rule committee with my other comments, but you have to pick your battles, and I thought if I pointed it out they'd just say, "This guy's an idiot; we all know the rule doesn't mean THAT!" and throw out the rest of my comments as well.

In any case, your example is incorrect even under your interpretation. B1's push does NOT occur during a play-on; it creates the play-on.

B1 slashes A1, flag down. Then A1 wards off at exactly the same time A2 slashes B2. If you interpret this rule as you say, then B1 would serve 1:00, A2 would serve 1:00 and A1 would serve 0:30! There's just no way they intend for a ward to be a time-serving penalty.

No, I strongly disagree. Team A is offended by the slash. When A1 wards and A2 slashes AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME, these end the slow-whistle. A2 has committed a personal foul, which means that ALLwho committed penalties during the simult. foul serve time. 7-6.b.2.b does NOT say only personal fouls serve; it says ALL penalties serve. Thus, B1 and A2 both serve 1-minute for slashing; A1 serves 30 seconds for warding, and team B is awarded the ball due to less penalty time assessed.

Since you disagree, how would you restart it? If you choose A1's ward to end the slow-whistle, then A2's slash goes unpunished, and vice versa. If you select the slash, then A2 and B1 both serve 1-minute, you ignore A1's ward, and team A gets the ball due to equal simult foul time when they had possession. If you select A1's ward, then B1 serves 1-minute, A1's ward simply ended the slow-whistle, A2 doesn't serve ANY time, and team A retains possession. Is that fair? Team has committed TWO fouls, while team B has committed just one. Do you really want to award team A the ball, essentially rewarding them for committing MORE fouls than team B?

Whether I like it or not is not the issue; it seems clear to me from the wording that all fouls during a simult. foul situation are doing time.

There would seem to be NO way that A1 should serve 30-seconds for a technical penalty while HE had the ball. Yet, as your case demonstrated, he does (and the goal even counts to boot! Sweet deal!). There is NO time when you get a time-serving penalty for a technical foul when your OWN team has the ball (do you think that's what "they" want?), yet YOUR case proves this statement false.

I know YOU aren't going to like it, but I believe that is the intent of the simult. foul rule. If all fouls are technical, they cancel. If the offended team commits any personal foul, EVERYBODY serves time for their fouls.

However, 7-6 is tricky and very open to interpretation. But I wouldn't say you're correct because "there's just no way they intend for a ward to be a time-serving penalty". How do you know that?

A1's ward ends the slow whistle. Why would A2's dead ball slash go unpunished. It would be 1:00 plus B's possession.


Here's how. Consider the following three cases:

1) B1 slashes A1, flag down. A1 then wards B1, followed by A2 slashing B2 .01 seconds later.

RULING: B1 serves 1:00 for the slash. A1's ward ends the slow whistle situation. A2 commits a dead-ball slash and serves 1:00. Penalities and NR since they occurred between the foul creating the flag down and the whistle to restart play and because penalty times are equal. Award the ball to team B because of the dead-ball slash.

2) B1 slashes A1, flag down. A2 slashes B2, followed by A1 then wards B1 .01 seconds later.

RULING: B1 serves 1:00 for the slash. A2's slash ends the slow whistle situation, and A2 serves 1:00. Penalities and NR since they occurred between the foul creating the flag down and the whistle to restart play and because penalty times are equal. You ignore the ward since it occurred during a dead ball and you can't ward during a dead ball. Award the ball to team A because the flag down denotes possession (Rule 7-6-c-2-a).

3) B1 slashes A1, flag down. A2 slashes B2 and, simultaneously, A1 wards B1.

Now, you're saying in this situation you'll put A1 in the box for 0:30 NR? What has changed? Has is team A's ward any more or less onerous than it was in (1) and (2)? In those situations, A1 serves NO penalty time; if they really want him to serve now, then what is the reasoning? Does that hundredth of a second disadvantage team B or give team A an advantage? It simply DOESN'T MAKE SENSE that that foul is now time-serving because of the tiny fraction of a second.

And if you continue to chant that "That's what the rule says," I'll simply counter that it is mathematically impossible for the two fouls to actually BE simultaneuous (occurring at the same time to an infinite number of decimal places). Sure, a human might not be able to tell which one came first, but you want to put A1 in the box for 30 seconds just because of the failings of human perception? I *know* one of the fouls came before the other one, I just don't know which one, so why don't I just rule that the ward was first and the slash was dead-ball to give team B the benefit of the doubt.

Finally, if you ever officiate and put a guy in the box for a ward in this situation, be prepared to eject the coach and assistant coach as well, because you're going to have to!

Why is it different? For the following reasons.

In your case (2), A1's ward occurred DURING a dead ball, and you cannot call a dead ball ward. So, this is not similar to (3). In (1), you have the ward occurring FIRST, ending the slow-whistle. Rules tell us that a techical foul by the team in possession ends a slow whistle. A1's dead ball slash that follows is penalized and helps us determine restart possession.

However, if they are TRULY simultaneous (and let's be real, these are NOT going to be exactly simultaneous; this is simply an exercise in rules intepretations), then neither A1's ward NOR A2's slash occurred first. Thus, they should BOTH be penalized. To ignore one makes no sense.

If they truly are simultaneous, how do you decide who gets the ball? By penalty time. Since team A committed TWO penalties (ward and slash), they OUGHT to lose the ball. (I forgot, LaxRef doesn't consider A1's ward serious enough to warrant any time, but a push against B2 does? Can you spell A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y?).

Let's look at it THIS way.

4) B1 slashes A1, flag down. B2 then pushes A1 (2nd flag down), followed by A2 slashing B2 1 second later.

Here, B1 gets one minute (slash), A2 gets one minute (slash), and B2 GETS 30 SECONDS (push). Tell me, what makes B2's 30-second technical foul any WORSE than A1's ward ? They're BOTH technical fouls, aren't they?

Since in case (3) A1's ward occurred at the SAME time as A2's slash, neither takes precedence, and 7-6.b.2.b tells us if the offended team commits ANY PERSONAL FOUL, all fouls will be time-serving for purposes of simultaneous penalty enforcement.

For heaven's sake, you just gave us a case where a technical foul (lack of a mouthpiece) was punished by 1) 30-seconds in the box AND 2) a loss of possession. Does THAT make sense?

Finally, if you ever officiate and put a guy in the box for a ward in this situation, be prepared to eject the coach and assistant coach as well, because you're going to have to!.

That's okay, I'm tough. I've sent my kids to bed without supper and taken away their scooters, had to evenly divide a chocolate bar knowing that just one millimeter difference is bound to make one child hate me more than the other, and I've been blasted by parents for so long, I'm essentially deaf!

Coaches? They're the LEAST of my worries. :=)

Wow, you want to put a kid in the box for 30 seconds because he wards? Even though its not our job to make the coaches happy, LaxRef is right, we will most likely be flagging coaches if they know anything abiout the rules. I still don't see the backing o your argument CoachRob, but the bottom line is that that is not the intent of the rules.

Snake~eyes, I can see a literal reading of 7-6-b-2-b making someone think that a ward in this case should be time-serving, but I'm pretty darn sure that that's not what they meant. But I'm wondering if you have any idea what that rule does mean, since it doesn't seem to make any sense.

Ahh, now I understand. Personally I think its just a mistake by the rule writers, I couldn't really tell you to be honest. I still don't believe that's what they want to happen and I couldn't even give you an explanation as to why they would make that mistake. It's an interesting flaw but I'm not sure.

I've asked my district rules interpreter for an explanation/ruling but haven't heard back yet (I'm actually waiting for 3 of these now). I just hope one of these days they figure out what a mess rule 7-6 is. I don't think anyone understands what they're getting at.

There you two guys go again, ganging up against me! :=)

But, I don't think it is just an "interesting flaw" Snake-eyes. I believe if you can put a player in the box for a possession push against the OFFENDED team, I feel it is just as likely you can put a player in the box for a ward when HE has possession if it happens when a teammate commits a PERSONAL foul. Why do you feel one technical is so deserving, but the other couldn't be? While a technical when you HAVE possession doesn't get you a penalty, if it occurs during a simultaneous foul, I believe it DOES by the way the rule is worded.

I'll be interested in the rules interpreter's view. But again, if you are willing to put a technical foul in the box under one circumstance, then it should allow you to at LEAST consider it when you HAVE possession, so long as it's simultaneous. (Plus, this is likely to occur once/season at the most, so it's not going to be happening NEARLY as often [or at all] as a time-serving penalty against the OFFENDING team.)

I'll be away until next weekend, so I'll be interested to see what the rules interpreter says. LaxRef, if you get interpretations, can you post them all in ONE post so I can see what he thinks in all three cases? (I don't remember the other cases, but i know I was involved in the threads of some other situations we disagreed on and that you said you'd be submitting to get his opinion on.)

Have a good week!

To me, there are a few key issues, but by far the most important is that it simply doesn't make any sense to punish the ward--or any other technical foul by the team in possession--with a time-serving penalty just because it happened at the same time as another foul by that team. As you agreed earlier, a fraction of a section earlier or later and no time is served by the player committing the penalty. I just don't see anything that should make it more serious just because it happened at the same time as another foul.

Believe me, I'll post alll of the interpretations if I ever get them. If I don't hear by next week, I'm going to send them to the next level in the chain. The other two were "What happens if a goal is scored while there are stacked, releasable penalties?" and "Should there be a faceoff if the period ends when a team has possession and both teams are down the same number of players?"

Awesome. Those are the ones; I hadn't written them down.

I look forward to the answers. My bets:
1) They don't agree with me about the warding being time-serving.
2) If stacked, the one waiting does NOT go back after a score before serving his time
3) No face off if a team has possession and BOTH teams have a man off, because ther rule states a "man in the box", not that one team must be man-up or man-down.

Thanks, and I'll write next week. Early flight to catch tomorrow, so off to bed.

By the way, can you believe not a SINGLE player has taken me up on my offer to reimburse them $2 if they are one of the first eight to purchase a rule book? Really lame if you ask me. :=/

I agree with your bets except number 2, I'm going to guess that all players are released, even when stacked.