LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

2007 NCAA Rules:

Team A is man-down and has been warned for stalling. They are still man-down when the second period ends with Team A in possession. To start the third period, they have possession at the corner of the attack area, and A1 steps inside the box and runs the ball back out.

Ruling?

Clearly, the motive for stalling in this scenario is to escape the first half, so I don't believe that the warning should apply during the early moments of the third quarter. In my mind, if there's a stoppage of play after any warning is issued, that warning should be nullified.

But then again, I have no idea.

The 2007 wording says:

A stall warning remains in effect until:
1) The defensive team gains possession of the ball.
2) A goal is scored by the offense; or
3) The period ends, resulting in a faceoff

Want to change your answer?

Touche.

Why are you warning a man-down team for stalling. That's like calling a delayed substitution on a team when their opponent has the ball the attack area.

Jolly Roger wrote:Why are you warning a man-down team for stalling. That's like calling a delayed substitution on a team when their opponent has the ball the attack area.

No, it's not. In fact, one of the most likely times for a team to stall is when they are man-down to try to kill the penalty. Now, if the stalling team was man-up you might have a point.

LaxRef wrote: In fact, one of the most likely times for a team to stall is when they are man-down to try to kill the penalty.

So what is it a stall or a penalty kill?

We should agree that the man down team is at a disadvantage. So by making them keep it in, you're putting them at what amounts to a second disadvantage by limiting their playing area? I don't think it's reasonable to force them to make a move to the goal when in fact they are probably getting doubled and mostly just trying to maintain possesion.

I'd have trouble justifying that call - other than saying "..it's how the rule reads coach."

Jolly Roger wrote:

LaxRef wrote: In fact, one of the most likely times for a team to stall is when they are man-down to try to kill the penalty.

So what is it a stall or a penalty kill?

We should agree that the man down team is at a disadvantage. So by making them keep it in, you're putting them at what amounts to a second disadvantage by limiting their playing area? I don't think it's reasonable to force them to make a move to the goal when in fact they are probably getting doubled and mostly just trying to maintain possesion.

I'd have trouble justifying that call - other than saying "..it's how the rule reads coach."

I guess if they don't like the pressure of having to attack the goal when man-down they shouldn't put themselves in man-down situations.

Seriously, if you allow a man-down team to play keep-away with occasional tags in the attack area, they end up not being penalized for their foul. This is especially true when one team is better than the other: they can foul and be fairly confident that they'll be able to kill the penalty.

I would say that maybe you'd apply a different standard to a man-down tea—if they're getting constantly double-teamed and harassed, then maybe they are doing their best to attack the goal—but if it's completely obvious that they're just trying to kill time and keep the ball away, I see no reason not to put the stall warning on. I mean, if they didn't want the stall warning to apply to a man-down team, why wouldn't they say so in the rulebook?

LaxRef wrote: I see no reason not to put the stall warning on. I mean, if they didn't want the stall warning to apply to a man-down team, why wouldn't they say so in the rulebook?

I think you would be the first to assert that the rulebook doesn't always address each situation.

In my opinion, the idea of calling a stall on a man-down team is so outrageous, the rules author's never had the idea cross their collective minds or, if it did, they considered the idea so ludicrous, that it didn't need to be addressed specifically. BTW, how long do you give the man-down team to demonstrate that they are not going to the goal? 10 seconds, 30 seconds - oops they might not be man-down anymore.

If by stalling, they are negating the other team's advantage, I think it's incumbent upon that team to assert THEIR ADVANTAGE to regain possession of the ball.

I also find it disturbing that you might

apply a different standard to a man-down team

within a game. Maybe at different levels of play (College/HS/Youth) but different standards for two teams in the same game????

Jolly Roger wrote:

LaxRef wrote: I see no reason not to put the stall warning on. I mean, if they didn't want the stall warning to apply to a man-down team, why wouldn't they say so in the rulebook?

I think you would be the first to assert that the rulebook doesn't always address each situation.

In my opinion, the idea of calling a stall on a man-down team is so outrageous, the rules author's never had the idea cross their collective minds or, if it did, they considered the idea so ludicrous, that it didn't need to be addressed specifically.

That makes as much sense as saying "I'm sure the idea of calling an illegal body check penalty against a team that is man down is so outrageous, the rules authors never had the idea cross their collective minds." Which is to say it makes no sense.

The rule writers have to think of these things, digest them, and put them in the book. You make it sound like this idea has never come up, or that it did come up and the rules were never modified to reflect it.

It turns out that the rules used to specifically say that you could not be called for stalling when man-down, but this statement was in the old section on defensive stalling (which was a ridiculous rule to start with because as written there was no provision for enforcement). There was confusion about whether this A.R. applied to offensive stalling as well, but no longer since they took that provision out completely when they went to the 20-second count for clearing.

Thus, the idea that it never occurred to anyone is just plain wrong. And the fact that it isn't in the book now points to the logical conclusion that stalling can and should be called against a man-down team that is not trying to create a scoring opportunity.

Jolly Roger wrote:BTW, how long do you give the man-down team to demonstrate that they are not going to the goal? 10 seconds, 30 seconds - oops they might not be man-down anymore.

There is no set time for calling a stall. However, a rule of thumb is that the team needs to be trying to create a scoring opportunity within 45-60 seconds. The rules say nothing about going to the goal, just trying to create a scoring opportunity. I think most of us can tell when a team is trying to keep the ball out of play (another rulebook phrase).

Jolly Roger wrote:If by stalling, they are negating the other team's advantage, I think it's incumbent upon that team to assert THEIR ADVANTAGE to regain possession of the ball.

Let me rephrase your statement:

If by setting illegal screens, interfering, withholding the ball from play, holding, pushing, and warding they are negating the other team's advantage, I think it's incumbent upon that team to assert THEIR ADVANTAGE to regain possession of the ball.

Why are all of these other technical fouls any different than stalling? They certainly aren't different in the eyes of the rules.

Jolly Roger wrote:I also find it disturbing that you might

apply a different standard to a man-down team

within a game. Maybe at different levels of play (College/HS/Youth) but different standards for two teams in the same game????

Whoa! I'm not saying, "Well, we'll apply one standard to Team A and another to Team B!"

What I'm saying is that what we mean by "trying to create a scoring opportunity" may be different for an even-strength team and a man-down team. If the man-down team is being harrassed by a tough double-team and doing the best they can to maintain possession, they might be doing the best they can to create a scoring play. OTOH, if they are not harassed and they are simply tagging the box every 9 seconds and staying far away the rest of the time to wait for a 3-minute penalty to expire, they're stalling and should be warned.

And remember: a stall warning is not a turnover. They just need to keep the ball in the attack area. Granted, that's harder, but they could have avoided that by (a) not stalling or (b) not getting a 3-minute penalty to begin with.

In fact, when I was a fledgling COC official, I had exactly this situation. Team A got a 3-minute stick penalty, and they ran the ball around and killed the penalty. An evaluator—a COC big-wig from out of town—chastised me for not giving team A a stalling warning. So if the rule makers have thought about this issue and decided it doesn't belong in the rulebook, and if the people evaluating college officials think a man-down team that is stalling should be warned, I guess I have a hard time buying your position.

LaxRef wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:If by stalling, they are negating the other team's advantage, I think it's incumbent upon that team to assert THEIR ADVANTAGE to regain possession of the ball.

Let me rephrase your statement:

If by setting illegal screens, interfering, withholding the ball from play, holding, pushing, and warding they are negating the other team's advantage, I think it's incumbent upon that team to assert THEIR ADVANTAGE to regain possession of the ball.

Why are all of these other technical fouls any different than stalling? They certainly aren't different in the eyes of the rules.

The instances you cite are not negating the man up team's advantage, they are the man-down team gaining an unfair advantage. Maybe that's little ticky tack on my part.

LaxRef wrote:It turns out that the rules used to specifically say that you could not be called for stalling when man-down, but this statement was in the old section on defensive stalling (which was a ridiculous rule to start with because as written there was no provision for enforcement).

Looks like they need to put it in again.

Jolly Roger wrote:Looks like they need to put it in again.

Here's what they did put in:

2007 NCAA Rule 6-11 wrote:A.R. 58. Team A is man down and has possession. It does not appear to be attempting to create a scoring play. Can the team be warned for stalling? RULING: Yes, a team that has one or more players out of the game due to penalty, injury or expulsion is still subject to the stalling rules.