Scoring with a glove or shoe question

[Sonny]

Kinda of vague question, don't you think? Couldn't a player take a goal-scoring shot without being in a scrimmage area? Thoughts?

HERE IS THE QUESTION:
A1, with possession, is going to the goal and loses a glove or shoe. He shoots and scores.

[laxfan25]

After watching Harvey from Florida make a sack and Jeremy Shockey make a catch and run without their helmet, the rule here seems wimpy, especially if you just lose a shoe.

A.R. 109. A1, with possession, is going to the goal and loses a glove, a shoe or his helmet. He shoots at the goal and scores. RULING: No goal, technical foul and award the ball to B1.

The theory is that if you lose equipment, you should get rid of the ball immediately, otherwise you are in violation of the rule against playing without required equipment. More importantly, why is this A.R under Official Timeouts Sec 4-26?? It is more appropriate for Section 4-9 Goal Not Scored. When you're in a game situation and trying to find this ruling, you don't have time to scan the whole book to locate this!

[Sonny]

What about a fast break? R U going to kill a Fast Break if they shooter with the ball loses a shoe on the way to the goal uncontested and give the ball to the other team?

[laxfan25]

What about a fast break? R U going to kill a Fast Break if they shooter with the ball loses a shoe on the way to the goal uncontested and give the ball to the other team?

By rule, yes (unfortunately), unless he dumps off the ball to a teammate.
Lesson #1 - make sure your shoes are tied tight!
Also, what if you choose to let the play go on (since we don't want to make such a wimpy call, even though it's in the book) and Coach B, an avid reader of Rules forums, calls you over and demands that the goal be taken off the board per Rule 4-26 A.R. 109? What do you do then?
Make no mistake, I'm not in favor of this rule - I think it should be up to the ref to determine if the player is in danger of injury, and a shoeless fast break with a defender trailing five yards behind doesn't seem to be in imminent danger to me.
I don't make the rules though - I'm just out there to enforce them.
In another vein, what if an attacker is going one on one with a D man, and you notice he has his mouthpiece half-out, and he's chewing on one end. Immediate whistle and give the ball to the D for playing without required equipment?

[Kyle Berggren]

I've seen folks called for half a mouth piece, but I'm curious as to how a cleat or tennis shoe is protective equipment?

Sadly if you're playing on a muddy field (happens from time to time in the NW), you can lose a shoe running through the mud.

[laxdad03]

One other potential complication, what if the lack of equipment is a direct result of contact by the D guy (e.g. steps on his heel => shoe comes off, or mouthpiece is half dislodged by a check, etc.)? I'd guess that might depend on the legality of the contact (e.g. trip if intentional?), so if it's otherwise a legal contact (just like when O guy loses stick on a check) this clearly stops the O guy. Could this rule be used as a ploy by a defender, sort of like in basketball "fouling" a guy on an otherwise sure-thing layup, just hoping that the ref doesn't see it as intentional?

[Phantanimal]

Wouldn't a player still be in violation because they contined to the goal knowing their equipment had become illegal for one reason or another?

[laxfan25]

Wouldn't a player still be in violation because they contined to the goal knowing their equipment had become illegal for one reason or another?

Yes

[stickdoctor]

One other potential complication, what if the lack of equipment is a direct result of contact by the D guy (e.g. steps on his heel => shoe comes off, or mouthpiece is half dislodged by a check, etc.)? I'd guess that might depend on the legality of the contact (e.g. trip if intentional?), so if it's otherwise a legal contact (just like when O guy loses stick on a check) this clearly stops the O guy. Could this rule be used as a ploy by a defender, sort of like in basketball "fouling" a guy on an otherwise sure-thing layup, just hoping that the ref doesn't see it as intentional?

I know that a couple of times when I was playing when I saw the player drop his off hand and the glove appeared loose I managed to poke his glove off and force a turnover that way - they really didn't like that .

[benji]

In the scenario where a player is on a fast break, uncontested, and loses a shoe, I agree that is should definitely be subject to the referee's judgement.

True, losing the shoe may not pose any imminent danger to the player with the ball, but what if the shoe and/or glove becomes a hazard to the other players on the field? Yes, a shoe or a glove is of little consequence to someone running, but i've seen players trip over less. It certainly seems like a gray area in the rule book. The opposing team should not have to be responsible for avoiding equipment obstacles during live play.

As for the equipment loss being a result of contact, once again the opposing team shouldn't have to aim their contact so to avoid one losing their shoes/gloves. If it's blatant and a foul is committed, then a flag should be thrown or play should be whistled dead, depending on the foul. Otherwise, I think play should be stopped as mandated by the rule if the referee deems it appropriate.

[laxfan25]

True, losing the shoe may not pose any imminent danger to the player with the ball, but what if the shoe and/or glove becomes a hazard to the other players on the field? Yes, a shoe or a glove is of little consequence to someone running, but i've seen players trip over less.

But Benji, the teams would get mad if we didn't line the field, just because your players trip over them!

[LaxRef]

After watching Harvey from Florida make a sack and Jeremy Shockey make a catch and run without their helmet, the rule here seems wimpy, especially if you just lose a shoe.

A.R. 109. A1, with possession, is going to the goal and loses a glove, a shoe or his helmet. He shoots at the goal and scores. RULING: No goal, technical foul and award the ball to B1.

The theory is that if you lose equipment, you should get rid of the ball immediately, otherwise you are in violation of the rule against playing without required equipment. More importantly, why is this A.R under Official Timeouts Sec 4-26?? It is more appropriate for Section 4-9 Goal Not Scored. When you're in a game situation and trying to find this ruling, you don't have time to scan the whole book to locate this!

It's because an offensive player losing gear used to result in an official's timeout in this situation. I'll add this to the list.

Actually, it's already in "goal not counted" because it's a foul recognized before the goal. This should probably get moved to illegal procedure.

[benji]

True, losing the shoe may not pose any imminent danger to the player with the ball, but what if the shoe and/or glove becomes a hazard to the other players on the field? Yes, a shoe or a glove is of little consequence to someone running, but i've seen players trip over less.

But Benji, the teams would get mad if we didn't line the field, just because your players trip over them!

What ever will we do? We have enough trouble with the jack-rabbit droppings on our fields.