2006 NFHS Rules Bulletin (2/17/06)

[LaxRef]

This just in--I haven't even had time to read them. I realize this doesn't apply to MDIA lacrosse, but these need to be distributed as widely as possible as soon as possible.

2006 Boys Lacrosse Rules Corrections and Clarifications – February 17, 2006

1. In light of the rule revision regarding Rule 4-14, delete Rule 6-5-q on page 41 from the rule book as it is no longer needed.

2. Rule 6-5-s on page 41should read: "s. Failure to advance the ball beyond the midfield line into the goal area in 10 seconds."

3. 1.7.4 SITUATION on page 62 indicates that, if it is discovered during a routine stick inspection that a player is using a stick with another manufacturer's guard stop, the player is assessed a 3 minute, non-releasable penalty. The ruling for this situation should indicate no foul. There is no advantage gained by using another manufacturer’s guard stop and it is difficult for officials to identify the manufacturer of some guard stops. Thus, this situation should read as follows:

1.7.4 SITUATION: During the course of a routine stick inspection at the opposing coach’s request, the following situations are discovered: (a) the crosse has two guard stops, (b) the crosse has a guard stop from another manufacturer, (c) the crosse has no guard stop. RULING: (a) Illegal. Assess a three-minute, non-releasable penalty. In (a), the intent of the player was to make it more difficult for the defender to check the ball free. Provided the player makes the necessary corrections, however, the crosse may be used again during the game. (b) No foul. (c) No foul. Stop the game and remove the crosse from play until corrected.

4. 3.1.2. SITUATION A and 3.1.2 SITUATION B on pages 64 and 65 should read as follows:

3.1.2 SITUATION A: After four minutes have elapsed in the third period, Team B scores a goal to go ahead by 12 goals. The referee evokes the point differential rule. RULING: Correct. The clock will only be stopped for a team time-out, an officials’ time-out or an injury time-out. Should the score fall below the 12-goal differential, normal time would again take place.

3.1.2 SITUATION B: With three minutes remaining in the second period, Team A scores a goal, which causes a 12-point differential. The referee invokes the running clock procedure. RULING: Incorrect. The running clock does not apply until the second half. Should the 12-point differential be present at the start of the second half, then the running clock procedure would be in effect at the start.

5. In light of the rule revision regarding “ball in flight as the period ends,” delete 4.6 SITUATION A, 4.6.SITUATION B, and 4.6 SITUATION C on pages 67 and 68.

6. In light of the rule revision regarding the “20 second count,” 4.20 SITUATION K on page 72 should read as follows:

4.20 SITUATION K: The goalkeeper leaves the crease with possession of the ball and loses it as the 20 second count winds down. He inadvertently kicks the ball back in the crease. Does the goalkeeper get a new four-second count? RULING: Yes, but the 20 second count continues.

7. Delete 6.10 SITUATION A and 6.10 SITUATION B on page 82 and replace with the following situation:

6.10 SITUATION A: Team A is playing man-down and appears to be trying to keep the ball from play. Can Team A be warned for stalling? RULING: Yes. Team A must try to create a scoring opportunity even when man-down.

[Sonny]

Thanks for sharing LaxRef.

I noticed another typo/error in the Federation book last night. I had to review this section again after this came up in one of my local H.S. games last night.

Page 18, Rule 1-10 -- Articles 8 & 9 seem to contradict each other.

Article 9 states headsets are usuable by the coaches & non-players during the game, but not by the players. Article 8 doesn't provide that qualification.

It sounds as if Article 8 should be stricken totally from the rulebook and leave Article 9 as is.

Thoughts? Also, is there any obligation on the home team's part to provide headsets to the visiting team (ala football)? Seems to me that would be a huge advantage.

[laxfan25]

Wow, that must have been a big-time game if they're using headsets. I have to say I've never had this come up, in HS or college, in my 20 years. I would go with the section saying that they can't be used...

[LaxRef]

Wow, that must have been a big-time game if they're using headsets. I have to say I've never had this come up, in HS or college, in my 20 years. I would go with the section saying that they can't be used...

So, for NFHS, you'd ignore the section that explicitly says that they can be used by coaches and other non-players?!

And in NCAA, there's no restricition on such things at all.

[Sonny]

This just in--I haven't even had time to read them.

Do you know when/where these Federation Rule Updates be officially published LaxRef? When did this bulletin come out? The NFHS web site has nothing officially published (yet).

[laxfan25]

This just in--I haven't even had time to read them.

Do you know when/where these Federation Rule Updates be officially published LaxRef? When did this bulletin come out? The NFHS web site has nothing officially published (yet).

This was in an e-mail from Kent Summers, the NFHS editor of the lax rule book - the document is dated Feb 17th, so it is hot off the press.

[Sonny]

Just got the Kent Summers email within the last few minutes.

[Sonny]

Following up on my question above - Does anyone know how we report other errors/typos in the Federation book?

[TexOle]

I have never been happy with the Federation rule book. It is tough for me to read. I prefer the NCAA rulebook setup.

[laxfan25]

I have never been happy with the Federation rule book. It is tough for me to read. I prefer the NCAA rulebook setup.

I heartily agree with you there - but if your area is in Fedland, it's what you use for HS. What I particularly don't like is that they have a separate section for the "cases" (A.R.'s) rather than having them under the rule they pertain to - doesn't make any sense.

[LaxRef]

Following up on my question above - Does anyone know how we report other errors/typos in the Federation book?

The easiest thing to do is to send them to me. I've talked to Kent Summers about this and I will be coordinating the voice of the officials through US Lacrosse. I keep a list of all of the typos and rule suggestions, then submit them in the spring.

[Sonny]

Following up on my question above - Does anyone know how we report other errors/typos in the Federation book?

The easiest thing to do is to send them to me. I've talked to Kent Summers about this and I will be coordinating the voice of the officials through US Lacrosse. I keep a list of all of the typos and rule suggestions, then submit them in the spring.

Do you have an official relationship with Kent and/or the NFHS? High school lax officiating has nothing to do with USL.

What do you think about my original question? Page 18, Rule 1-10 -- Articles 8 & 9 seem to contradict each other. Is that a typo?

[LaxRef]

Following up on my question above - Does anyone know how we report other errors/typos in the Federation book?

The easiest thing to do is to send them to me. I've talked to Kent Summers about this and I will be coordinating the voice of the officials through US Lacrosse. I keep a list of all of the typos and rule suggestions, then submit them in the spring.

Do you have an official relationship with Kent and/or the NFHS? High school lax officiating has nothing to do with USL.

I am the US Lacrosse Scholastic Officials Committee Chair; I spoke with Kent at the convention and agreed to coordinate suggestions from the officials.

What do you think about my original question? Page 18, Rule 1-10 -- Articles 8 & 9 seem to contradict each other. Is that a typo?

They obviously updated 8 and meant to replace it with 9; since 9 is more specific than 8, ignore 8 and officiate by 9. I'll add this to "the list."

[Sonny]

What do you think about my original question? Page 18, Rule 1-10 -- Articles 8 & 9 seem to contradict each other. Is that a typo?

They obviously updated 8 and meant to replace it with 9; since 9 is more specific than 8, ignore 8 and officiate by 9. I'll add this to "the list."

Any chance we could get the NFHS to put this in print officially? Wonder why this wasn't included in the 2/17 Rules Bulletin (latest update)

[LaxRef]

What do you think about my original question? Page 18, Rule 1-10 -- Articles 8 & 9 seem to contradict each other. Is that a typo?

They obviously updated 8 and meant to replace it with 9; since 9 is more specific than 8, ignore 8 and officiate by 9. I'll add this to "the list."

Probably no one submitted it. However, the specific rule always overrides the general, so there shold be no confusion.