Revisiting waived goal ruling

[Rudyfan]

2 weeks ago we had a thread discussing a ruling in a recent game. To reset, during an unsettled situation in front of the Team A's goal, Team B took 3 shots in quick succession, the third one scoring a goal. No whistle was blown during the flurry, which lasted perhaps 6 or 7 seconds.

After the goal was scored, the goalies stick was found to be broken, not snapped, but damaged. The goalie had not stopped trying to defend, and had made no indication to anyone that his stick was damaged. The 3 refs huddled and ruled no goal, and awarded the ball to Team A.

We had the occasion to talk to a long-time SD-area ref (college and HS) over the weekend. We reviewed the waived goal situation at length. He was very surprised that the goal was reversed. His reasoning was that since there was no way to determine when the stick was damaged, the goalie made no indication that the stick was broken, and no whistle was blown, so no official noticed it either, that COMMON SENSE dictated that the goal count. He said he would have negated the goal only if it was clear to the officials the stick was broken and play stopped BEFORE the goal. In this situation, who's to say the stick didn't break on the shot that scored? He thought it was a blown call.

Official's error doesn't come into play unless one of them noticed the break, and failed to blow the whistle prior to the score. That was not the case in this incident since they didn't know the stick was broken until the goalie pointed it out AFTER the score. COMMENTS?

[laxfan25]

In a COC newsletter from earlier this spring, they had this AR, as a clarification on the broken or missing goalkeeper equipment issue:

COC Newsletter AR (never made it into this year's rulebook for some reason)

A1 takes a hard shot on a cold day from close to the crease. The shot deflects off the keeper's crosse, breaking the head, and deflects into the goal. Ruling: Legal Goal

While it may not be exactly on point with whatt you described, I personally would have a hard time taking a goal off the board if no one noticed that the goalie's stick was broken beforehand, since you have no way of knowing when it broke (could have been on the shot).

[LaxRef]

In particular, you run the risk of the goalie intentionally playing with a broken stick, then calling attention to it after a goal is scored to get the goal waved off. I think the goal shoudl count, but the rules need to make this clear. I've added ths one to "the list."

I'd like to see them put the onus on the GK for making us realize the crosse is broken, say by dropping the stick and leaving the crease. If the ball goes in the goal before the officials blow the whistle to stop play and the crosse is broken, the goal is waved off. If the crosse is not broken, the goal would stand. But this procedure seems like sort of a kludge. I'm wondering if anyone has a better solution.

[shrekjr]

I'd like to see them put the onus on the GK for making us realize the crosse is broken, say by dropping the stick and leaving the crease. If the ball goes in the goal before the officials blow the whistle to stop play and the crosse is broken, the goal is waved off. If the crosse is not broken, the goal would stand. But this procedure seems like sort of a kludge. I'm wondering if anyone has a better solution.

I like your logic. Can't think of a better solution.

[Champ]

I'd like to see them put the onus on the GK for making us realize the crosse is broken, say by dropping the stick and leaving the crease. If the ball goes in the goal before the officials blow the whistle to stop play and the crosse is broken, the goal is waved off. If the crosse is not broken, the goal would stand. But this procedure seems like sort of a kludge. I'm wondering if anyone has a better solution.

Thought I'd save some people the time...

Onus:
A difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation.

Kludge:
A clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.

[LaxRef]

Thought I'd save some people the time...

Onus:
A difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation.

Kludge:
A clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.

Sorry! I wasn't trying to send people scrambling for the dictionary.

[Lax_Stats]

Weren't "Onus" & "Kludge" characters on the Andy Griffith show?? LOL

[LaxRef]

The rules committee apprrently liked my take on this issue. The rule now says:

During the course of play if a goalkeeper's stick becomes broken or any
other required equipment becomes broken or dislodged, the officials will
stop play as soon as they notice the problem, regardless of whether the
goalkeeper is in or out of the crease.

When play is stopped for this reason, the ball is awarded to the team
that was in possession when play was stopped or, if the ball was loose,
by alternate possession.

If the goalkeeper notices the broken equipment, he should verbally
notify the officials immediately during the play.

A.R. 84. A1 shoots and scores. When the official goes to get the ball out of the goal,
the goalkeeper shows him that his crosse or any other piece of required equipment is
broken. RULING: The goal stands since the problem was not noticed by the officials nor
acknowledged by the goalkeeper before the goal.

A.R. 85. Goalkeeper B1, seeking to stop play in an unsettled situation, (1) Intentionally
breaks required equipment or drops a glove; or (2) Yells to the officials that he has broken
equipment when he does not to get them to stop play. RULING: The officials stop play
and assess a two-minute nonreleasable unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on B1.

A.R. 86. While team A is in possession, goalkeeper B1 drops his crosse. RULING: Play
does not stop for a dropped goalkeeper crosse, only a broken one, so B1 must retrieve his
crosse. If B1 plays on without a crosse, he is guilty of illegal procedure.

New text in italics.

[grinderpete]

Sorry to revisit this topic, but at a recent high school game using high school rules, a goalie was carrying the ball up the field and had his stick break in two on a check. The other team picked it up and scored while he ran back to the goal with his broken stick, which i realize is a penalty, but i still felt like the whistle should have stopped play. I thought that the rule was the same in HS as NCAA but I guess I was wrong (Ref's told me I was wrong after the game). I couldn't find a pdf version of the HS rules so I couldn't check it out. Any help would be appreciated.

[LaxRef]

Sorry to revisit this topic, but at a recent high school game using high school rules, a goalie was carrying the ball up the field and had his stick break in two on a check. The other team picked it up and scored while he ran back to the goal with his broken stick, which i realize is a penalty, but i still felt like the whistle should have stopped play. I thought that the rule was the same in HS as NCAA but I guess I was wrong (Ref's told me I was wrong after the game). I couldn't find a pdf version of the HS rules so I couldn't check it out. Any help would be appreciated.

The high school rules are messed up on this point and they neglected the opportunity to fix them (I submitted the same suggestions to NCAA and NFHS, and the NCAA accepted them but the NFHS did not).

The NFHS rules says that play is stopped immediately if any required goalie gear is broken. But then there's an A.R. that says to penalize the goalie because he played on without a glove outside the crease. The obvious question is, "How can we penalize the goalie for playing on when, by rule, we were required to stop play when he loses his glove?" And then you remember, "Wait, participating in the play without equipment other than the crosse isn't even explicitly a technical foul in NFHS!" Sigh.

See NFHS 4-27-5 and situations 6-5 d–h (after you buy a rulebook, because they are not available online).

(BTW, for liability reasons, I'm erring on the side of caution and following the letter of 4-27-5, killing the play if there goalie breaks or even loses any equipment.)

Hey, maybe that's the distinction they're making: if he breaks equipment, kill the play, but if he loses equipment you don't. Certainly that makes sense with the crosse, but not with, say, a throat protector.

[Jolly Roger]

Although I might add that in the situation in which the goalie is outside his crease, clearing the ball, he isn't afforded the same protections as a when he's inside his crease - he's eligible for body checking, etc. So by extension, wouldn't his broken cross be treated the same way as a field player's until such time that he is in a position to defend the goal?

[LaxRef]

Although I might add that in the situation in which the goalie is outside his crease, clearing the ball, he isn't afforded the same protections as a when he's inside his crease - he's eligible for body checking, etc. So by extension, wouldn't his broken cross be treated the same way as a field player's until such time that he is in a position to defend the goal?

No, it wouldn't. There is no rule that says the goalie is the same as any other field player when outside the crease. There are certain protections and priviliges he has only while in the crease, but there are many ways in which a goalie is different from a regular field player outside the crease:

• He can't face off unless his team is man-down.
• He gets 5 seconds to get back to the crease on any restart.
• He is allowed (requires, actually) to use a stick with different dimensions.
• He doesn't need arm pads or shoulder pads.
• He needs a chest protector and throat protector.
• Under NFHS rules, a 1:00 warmup is allowed if he leaves due to a penalty or injury (while in or out of the crease).
• He can't be in the wing area on a faceoff unless his team is man-down.
• He can have a deep pocket.
• His gloves need not match his teammates'.
• He cannot switch sticks with a teammate during play.
• If he has to sub due to injury or penalty (while in or out of the crease), the 20-second limit is not strictly adhered to.

Thus, I don't think you can make a valid argument that Rule 4-27-5 just doesn't apply when out of the crease. If they'd meant that, they would have needed to say that in 4-27-5.

Writing rules is tricky business, and you must be very precise with both the language and the logic.

[laxfan25]

In my HS games I would treat broken goalie's equipment the same as under NCAA - immediate whistle. Had this happen last weekend in a scrimmage.

[Jolly Roger]

LaxRef,

I agree with your statements. I didn't say he was the same, I said he lost some of the special protection of his position.

When I look at it from a common sense stance (not with a rulebook in front of me) the reason the goalie is afforded the protection from playing with broken equipment as a safety issue, since in his primary role, he is attempting to stop shots propelled at him at high velocity. When he is outside the crease and clearing the ball, his primary responsibility is no longer to stop shots and in my opinion, he should no longer be afforded the special safety protections he has while in the crease.

It seems you'd be taking away a riding team's advantage if the goalie's stick was broken during a clear and the riding team was able to move it to the goal quicker than the goalie could possibly recover.

Not looking to argue, just putting it out there for thought.

[grinderpete]

Sorry to revisit this topic, but at a recent high school game using high school rules, a goalie was carrying the ball up the field and had his stick break in two on a check. The other team picked it up and scored while he ran back to the goal with his broken stick, which i realize is a penalty, but i still felt like the whistle should have stopped play. I thought that the rule was the same in HS as NCAA but I guess I was wrong (Ref's told me I was wrong after the game). I couldn't find a pdf version of the HS rules so I couldn't check it out. Any help would be appreciated.

The high school rules are messed up on this point and they neglected the opportunity to fix them (I submitted the same suggestions to NCAA and NFHS, and the NCAA accepted them but the NFHS did not).

The NFHS rules says that play is stopped immediately if any required goalie gear is broken. But then there's an A.R. that says to penalize the goalie because he played on without a glove outside the crease. The obvious question is, "How can we penalize the goalie for playing on when, by rule, we were required to stop play when he loses his glove?" And then you remember, "Wait, participating in the play without equipment other than the crosse isn't even explicitly a technical foul in NFHS!" Sigh.

See NFHS 4-27-5 and situations 6-5 d–h (after you buy a rulebook, because they are not available online).

(BTW, for liability reasons, I'm erring on the side of caution and following the letter of 4-27-5, killing the play if there goalie breaks or even loses any equipment.)

Hey, maybe that's the distinction they're making: if he breaks equipment, kill the play, but if he loses equipment you don't. Certainly that makes sense with the crosse, but not with, say, a throat protector.

Thank You.