Stick Question

[Arklax]

B1 stick checks A1, and A1 loses his stick. However, the ball stays in the head. B1 then swipes at A1's stick as it lays on the ground (to jar the ball loose). The ball flies out of the stick and goes out of bounds. Is it legal to hit a player's stick if it falls on ground, or would that depend on whether or not a ball was in the head? Assuming it is ok to hit the stick to knock the ball loose, does the ball belong to team A, whose stick it touched last (technically), or to team B, who hit the downed stick and caused the ball to go out of bounds?

[Kyle Berggren]

It was my understanding (I'm not sure why, and I won't check the book), but you can play the stick on the ground, but you must be playing the ball. Knocking the ball loose is fine, knocking the stick to midfield, not okay. I would assume you would be out of bounds on you, not the other team.

[LaxRef]

It isn't really addressed in the rulebook. IIRC, I've gotten a ruling from the national rules interpreter that an inadvertent kicking of a loose crosse is no foul; if it's intentional, to try to keep the guy from getting it, it's a USC. However, that doesn't cover the ball being in the crosse or checking the crosse on the ground with the crosse. Thus, you're likely to find this (rare) event inconsistently officiated.

For me, if the ball stays in the crosse when it lands on the ground, I think I'm likely to call "withholding the ball from play" and award the ball to the opponents. In any case, it's kind of like the "ball mired in the mud" rule, where you kill the play immediately and award the ball by A.P.; I can't see anything good happening by letting the play continue in this case. So, whether you award the ball to the defense or go A.P., get the ball off the ground IMO.

Of course, with no rule on it, you may have the officials do something crazy because they lack guidance. You should hear some of the stories I have about officials who made up crazy rulings on situations the rules didn't address correctly.

[Sonny]

For me, if the ball stays in the crosse when it lands on the ground, I think I'm likely to call "withholding the ball from play" and award the ball to the opponents.

Sounds to me LaxRef that you are the one "making up a call" here. How can you call withholding the ball from play if the player in question doesn't even possess his crosse?

[LaxRef]

For me, if the ball stays in the crosse when it lands on the ground, I think I'm likely to call "withholding the ball from play" and award the ball to the opponents.

Sounds to me LaxRef that you are the one "making up a call" here. How can you call withholding the ball from play if the player in question doesn't even possess his crosse?

Not at all. First of all, if the ball stays in the stick as it gets checked out of someone's hands and it stays there all the way until it hits the ground and even after it hits the ground, that's a pretty good indication that the ball is lodged in the crosse. That's withholding by rule 4-7.

BTW, the language in the rules is pretty clear:

When a loose ball is on the ground, a player may not lie on the ball, trap it with his crosse longer than is necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner.

Leaving your crosse on top of a loose ball, one can argue, is withholding it from play. As I said, the rules don't address it directly, and I think you could sell either withholding or A.P. The only call I think is not defensible is to just give the ball back to the guy who dropped his stick.

[Sonny]

BTW, the language in the rules is pretty clear:

When a loose ball is on the ground, a player may not lie on the ball, trap it with his crosse longer than is necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner.

Leaving your crosse on top of a loose ball, one can argue, is withholding it from play. As I said, the rules don't address it directly, and I think you could sell either withholding or A.P. The only call I think is not defensible is to just give the ball back to the guy who dropped his stick.

I don't buy your argument LaxRef. That rule you quoted starts off with "When a loose ball is on the ground." In my opinion, the scenario that Arklax described above is different. (The ball was never loose to begin with. It was always in A1's crosse. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that A1 was leaving his crosse on a loose ball.)

I agree that I wouldn't give it back to A1 (the guy who dropped/lost his stick). I'd let play continue provided that B1 was playing the ball and B1 didn't intentionally kick/move A1's crosse out of the way. Also watch A1's attempting to pick up his own crosse in the (loose ball) scrimmage area.

[LaxRef]

BTW, the language in the rules is pretty clear:

When a loose ball is on the ground, a player may not lie on the ball, trap it with his crosse longer than is necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner.

Leaving your crosse on top of a loose ball, one can argue, is withholding it from play. As I said, the rules don't address it directly, and I think you could sell either withholding or A.P. The only call I think is not defensible is to just give the ball back to the guy who dropped his stick.

I don't buy your argument LaxRef. That rule you quoted starts off with "When a loose ball is on the ground." In my opinion, the scenario that Arklax described above is different. (The ball was never loose to begin with. It was always in A1's crosse. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that A1 was leaving his crosse on a loose ball.)

So, based on your interpretation, it wouldn't be withholding the ball from play if GK B1 dropped the ball on the back of the goal net--not on the ground--and then he and 6 teammates crowded around the back of the goal to keep team A away from it?

Anyway, if the ball is stuck in the crosse, it is withholding. See:

If at any point the ball becomes stuck in the front or back of the crosse, there shall be an immediate whistle and the ball shall be awarded to the opposing team.

Rule 4, A.R. 11 makes it fairly clear that this is indeed withholding.

I agree that I wouldn't give it back to A1 (the guy who dropped/lost his stick). I'd let play continue provided that B1 was playing the ball and B1 didn't intentionally kick/move A1's crosse out of the way. Also watch A1's attempting to pick up his own crosse in the (loose ball) scrimmage area.

What if the crosse is on top of the ball on the ground? Are you still going to bar the player from the other team from moving the crosse to get to the ball?

[Sonny]

Let's not move the goalposts LaxRef. One argument at a time. Arklax presented this game situation.

B1 stick checks A1, and A1 loses his stick. However, the ball stays in the head.

Based on this situation, I do not think A1 is intentionally withholding the ball from play.

If the ball is clearly stuck in the head of the crosse, then Rule 4-7 would apply. However, I saw a situation happen in a club game once with my own two eyes where the ball remained in the crosse when checked out of a players hand. It didn't appear stuck or jammed in the crosse. Thus I allowed play to continue.

Maybe if we had some more information describing the play, you could make a call definitive one way or the other.

[LaxRef]

Let's not move the goalposts LaxRef. One argument at a time. Arklax presented this game situation.

B1 stick checks A1, and A1 loses his stick. However, the ball stays in the head.

Based on this situation, I do not think A1 is intentionally withholding the ball from play.

It doesn't have to be intentional.

If the ball is clearly stuck in the head of the crosse, then Rule 4-7 would apply. However, I saw a situation happen in a club game once with my own two eyes where the ball remained in the crosse when checked out of a players hand. It didn't appear stuck or jammed in the crosse. Thus I allowed play to continue.

Maybe if we had some more information describing the play, you could make a call definitive one way or the other.

My original point stands: the rules don't make it clear what, if anything, players are allowed to do when this happens, so I don't think more info about the situation will allow you to make a definitive call. Fortunately, this doesn't come up often and, as I said, I think you could sell A.P. or awarding the ball to the opponent. I think it's patently unfair to allow play to continue if you intend to penalize the other team if they try to access the ball while it's under the crosse.

[Sonny]

I think it's patently unfair to allow play to continue if you intend to penalize the other team if they try to access the ball while it's under the crosse.

Who said I would do that? You are putting words in my mouth.

I say play ball as long as A1 doesn't impact the scrimmage area without his crosse and B1 doesn't chuck A1's cross halfway across the field.

[LaxRef]

I think it's patently unfair to allow play to continue if you intend to penalize the other team if they try to access the ball while it's under the crosse.

Who said I would do that? You are putting words in my mouth.

I say play ball as long as A1 doesn't impact the scrimmage area without his crosse and B1 doesn't chuck A1's cross halfway across the field.

I didn't say you said that. What I'm saying is that if you know you'd penalize the other team for trying to get to the ball, then you have to kill the play, since it's the only fair thing to do.

However, you did say:

I'd let play continue provided that B1 was playing the ball and B1 didn't intentionally kick/move A1's crosse out of the way.

That makes it sound like if B1 did move the crosse out of the way to get to the ball you'd have an issue with it.

[Sonny]

That makes it sound like if B1 did move the crosse out of the way to get to the ball you'd have an issue with it.

I maintain my belief that there is a difference between trying to dislodge the ball out of the head of the crosse on the ground (trying to play/secure the ball) and flicking the opponent's fallen crosse across the field. It's one of those 'grey' areas that we the officials get paid the big bucks to decide on game day.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Regardless of which team the refs award the ball to, I'm calling for a stick-check on the player who lost his crosse to begin with.

[Matt_Gardiner]

Surprisingly enough, the stick was legal. In fact it was checked twice. Once previously, and once when I used a stick check to get my guys a quick breather without burning a timeout.

[LaxRef]

Regardless of which team the refs award the ball to, I'm calling for a stick-check on the player who lost his crosse to begin with.

Don't you risk becoming a pariah if you call for an equipment check?

(Just kidding; I know in some circles the coaches think calling for an equipment check is "dirty," but I think the dirty thing is playing with illegal equipment in the first place.)