Fouling Out

[laxfan25]

It revolved around whether either team had to keep the ball in the attack area in the last two minutes when the score was tied. I said neither did, and you said both did.

Can probably be attributed to Michigan winter brain freeze early in the season?

Worse - MINNESOTA brain freeze!

[lgriemsman]

Laxfan25 and I were working a play and play-play all day-play day in the middle of summer. It was a hot afternoon and we were on a JV game. A long stick had a couple of serious slash calls made against him. Again I found him on the field throwing lumber on his attackman's body hitting everything except the gloved hand on the stick and the stick. It was one of those whack, whack, whacks where after throwing my second flag I lost myself and even threw my hat in the air. The entire field was exasperated. After bringing the young man to the sideline he threw his equipment down and broke down crying saying that it was too hot and claimed he didn't know it was wrong. I didn't need to eject him as his coach took care of that. I hope the coach found this a teachable moment. Laxfan25 was as cool as a cucumber.

[LaxRef]

After bringing the young man to the sideline he threw his equipment down and broke down crying saying that it was too hot and claimed he didn't know it was wrong.

"Officer, it was too hot and I didn't know she was only 14!"

[RefZee]

I had a game a few years ago in which the offending player could not understand what a crosscheck was and fouled out with 11 min remaining in the 3rd!!!

Only other foul out I've had was by the Player/Coach of a small Michigan college(which no longer fields a lax team) in about 1976. His linebacker instincts made it almost impossible for him to not hit from behind. He left the contest rather early also, as I recall.

Face it guys, you have to really WORK at it, to foul out, unless you have lots to say about an officials' ancestry.

[LaxRef]

I had a game a few years ago in which the offending player could not understand what a crosscheck was and fouled out with 11 min remaining in the 3rd!!!

Only other foul out I've had was by the Player/Coach of a small Michigan college(which no longer fields a lax team) in about 1976. His linebacker instincts made it almost impossible for him to not hit from behind. He left the contest rather early also, as I recall.

Face it guys, you have to really WORK at it, to foul out, unless you have lots to say about an officials' ancestry.

And you really have to work to foul out of a HS game, which is 20% shorter than a college game.

BTW, it is possible to foul out of a game by committing only technical fouls. Sort of. Anyone care to explain why?

[ritzy]

repeated technical fouls = unsportsmanlike conduct

[LaxRef]

repeated technical fouls = unsportsmanlike conduct

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Either it was too easy or you're too smart! It's only "sort of" because, really, if you're getting 5 USCs for committing the same technical foul, you're really committing 5 personals even though they're normally technicals.

One thing a lot of people miss is that it is a releasable USC. In addition to the obvious importance of getting this right, getting a releasable USC does not count toward the limit of two USCs in NFHS lacrosse.

Have any of you guys ever called this (USC for repeatedly committing the same technical foul)? I never have, nor have I felt like I was close to calling it.

I worked one game where the same player went offside 4 or 5 times in the first half. My crew chief informed the head coach that the next time he'd assess the USC for committing the same technical foul; he didn't go offside again. While this is certainly allowable under the rules, I get the impression that it's intended more for a situation where there is intentional violation of a rule (e.g., Coach A calls for his fifth unsuccessful equipment check in a row with no timeouts remaining). In that way, I view it like the "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause.

The other aspect of this rule that's interesting is that it just says "repeatedly committing the same technical foul," with no mention of whether the fouls are time-serving. Thus, if one guy committed a whole bunch of crease violations, you could up it to a USC even if they all occurred with his team's possession.

Don't you just know that there's a rookie official somewhere for whom "repeatedly" is 2 or more?

[ritzy]

Have any of you guys ever called this (USC for repeatedly committing the same technical foul)? I never have, nor have I felt like I was close to calling it.

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

[Sonny]

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

Not really. His team keeps losing the ball in that case.

[ritzy]

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

Not really. His team keeps losing the ball in that case.

At first, I thought, "True, his team would lose the ball." On the other hand, <i>any</i> time a team commits a technical foul, the other team gains possession if not a 30-second penalty.

Does this logic therefore transfer to repeated pushes, repeated offsides, repeated holds? If so, we would <b>never</b> call USC for repeated technicals since the offending team is already penalized

Perhaps this is material for another thread...but...what is the point of this rule if it is never used?

[LaxRef]

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

Not really. His team keeps losing the ball in that case.

I agree. In this case, the penalty already rises to the level of the crime. But in that case where the coach keeps fishing for illegal sticks, he's clearly abusing the rule and slowing down the game. Without that USC available, you'd be hard pressed to shut it down (remember, he could be doing this before faceoffs and when his team has possession, so there might not be any time-serving penalties). Of course, if he'd filled up the penalty area and kept doing it, you could eventually call the flagrant misconduct, but if it ever got to that point it would be because the coach was asking for it.

I'm struggling to think of other situations where you'd assess the USC for repeatedly committing the same technical foul. Maybe a team that keeps running too many men onto the field in order to have more defenders in a game they were leading? I've never seen it happen, and I'd probably call a regular USC for that.

I think it's probably one of those "I'll know it when I see it" fouls, rarely used but nice to have available if the right situation ever comes up.

[RefZee]

Technically You cannot foulout for 5 USCs in HS since 2 USC's and you are gone! NFHS rulles

[LaxRef]

Technically You cannot foulout for 5 USCs in HS since 2 USC's and you are gone! NFHS rulles

That is not the rule. Under NFHS rules, you are expelled for your second non-releasable USC foul (with a 3:00 NR penalty for the second USC and a suspension to be served under most state association rules). But you can get up to 5 releasable USCs in HS or NCAA before fouling out for getting 5 personal fouls.

[ritzy]

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

Not really. His team keeps losing the ball in that case.

I agree. In this case, the penalty already rises to the level of the crime. But in that case where the coach keeps fishing for illegal sticks, he's clearly abusing the rule and slowing down the game. Without that USC available, you'd be hard pressed to shut it down (remember, he could be doing this before faceoffs and when his team has possession, so there might not be any time-serving penalties). Of course, if he'd filled up the penalty area and kept doing it, you could eventually call the flagrant misconduct, but if it ever got to that point it would be because the coach was asking for it.

I'm struggling to think of other situations where you'd assess the USC for repeatedly committing the same technical foul. Maybe a team that keeps running too many men onto the field in order to have more defenders in a game they were leading? I've never seen it happen, and I'd probably call a regular USC for that.

I think it's probably one of those "I'll know it when I see it" fouls, rarely used but nice to have available if the right situation ever comes up.

A recent (March 20) USILA/COC memo suggested that repeated faceoff violations justifies the use of USC. Comments?

[LaxRef]

I was also thinking of the faceoff middie who repeatedly gets called for withholding.

Do you think this is an appropriate venue for (at least) the threat of USC?

Not really. His team keeps losing the ball in that case.

I agree. In this case, the penalty already rises to the level of the crime. But in that case where the coach keeps fishing for illegal sticks, he's clearly abusing the rule and slowing down the game. Without that USC available, you'd be hard pressed to shut it down (remember, he could be doing this before faceoffs and when his team has possession, so there might not be any time-serving penalties). Of course, if he'd filled up the penalty area and kept doing it, you could eventually call the flagrant misconduct, but if it ever got to that point it would be because the coach was asking for it.

I'm struggling to think of other situations where you'd assess the USC for repeatedly committing the same technical foul. Maybe a team that keeps running too many men onto the field in order to have more defenders in a game they were leading? I've never seen it happen, and I'd probably call a regular USC for that.

I think it's probably one of those "I'll know it when I see it" fouls, rarely used but nice to have available if the right situation ever comes up.

A recent (March 20) USILA/COC memo suggested that repeated faceoff violations justifies the use of USC. Comments?

I agree that it justifies it, but I've never seen a situation that I thought merited it.

Heck, a lot of officials won't call the possession violations on the face-off unless they're particularly egregious. But if I saw the same guy, say, pick up the ball with his hand 3 or 4 times on the face-off, I could see giving the USC (releasable version).