Cross-checking, in the back

by **LaxDude** on Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:27 pm

Can anyone explain to me why at all levels players insist on cross checking their opponents in the back while referees let them get away with this? An example would be a midfielder coming down a side and the defender is driving the offensive player away from the goal with a push. The push in this case is against the back of the offensive midfielder with two hands separated and the cross makes obvious contact with the back of the opponent.

I was always under the impression that you had to have both hands together if you wanted to initiate a push and it has to be in the front or at the very least, the side.

**Sponsor**

by **laxfan25** on Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:38 am

A mvery good question, and one of my pet peeves for years. There are two potential fouls that could be called, one is a hold, what used to be called a "crosscheck hold", where the offensive player was held off with the portion of the stick between the gloves. If the defender is continually thrusting out with his stick it could be called a crosscheck - personal foul.

While it is clearly spelled out in the rulebook, as you noted it is allowed at virtually all levels and in all areas. However, what I have seen this year is that the coaches are not looking to have that call made. I've seen games where both teams were working over the other team on the back, no calls were made and no complaints rained down. What's funny though is if the attackman moves his arm at all they're all screaming for a "WARD!", whether it actually occurred or not.

A team that actually plays by the rules is really disavantaged in this instance, but if you step out and make this call you get a lot of strange looks - "they've never called THAT before!" Therefore it becomes the status quo. Good luck trying to change it.

by **LaxDude** on Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:29 pm

I guess its one of those things nobody calls unless you put a player on the ground. Below is an example of what I am talking about. I guess its a lot like basketball where you're allowed to have your hand on a guys back but not allowed to do anything else. Even though players obviously use this tactic to steer their opponent in basketball.

In one game a guy did it, I yelled "cross-check in the back!" and the referee gave me a funny look and said "No Cro-" as soon as the defender did it again even worse. Then the referee just gave me the "Ok, it was a cross-check, you're right but I won't call it just because"-look. Its just like the one-handed riding attackman check that's a slash they never call either. What's the use of having a rule if its not enforced? I suspect referees are giving the defense leeway since these sticks are crab-nets and taking the ball away is virtually luck.

by **LaxRef** on Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:06 pm

I knew LF25 would chime in on this one!

At least where I am, I don't see any cross checks being uncalled, but cross-check holds do not seem to get called. I used to call it, but decided it made me look like an idiot because few others call it.

Actually, I do call it occasionally when it's blatant, but not all the time.

LaxDude wrote:What's the use of having a rule if its not enforced?

I have asked this question before regarding the cross-check hold, and was told, essentially, "Well, we can't get the officials to call it, but if we make it legal then there will be more cross-checks."

by **BlueJaysLaxFan** on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:06 pm

LF25 is correct that the trend is not to call the crosscheck hold unless the offensive player is disadvantaged, and even then it may not get called. The rules go into a lot of detail (relative to rules on other technical fouls) of what is and is not a legal hold, and the result is the opportunity to interpret the rules that many holds can be deemed legal or illegal.