LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:56 am**

MEMORANDUM

October 25, 2007

TO: Men’s Lacrosse Head Coaches and Officials.
FROM: Willie Scroggs, chair
NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Rules Committee.
SUBJECT: Rules committee updates and interpretations.

The NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Rules Committee held a conference call recently to clarify several rulings for the 2008 season:

1. Gloves. Any glove that has the palm or fingers cut out from it (during the manufacturing process or by the player) will not be allowed in NCAA play.

2. Rule 4-3, Faceoffs. Before a face-off, if a wingman commits a technical violation, that team’s face-off man must leave the field through the special substitution area as the official begins play with a quick restart at midfield.

The committee hopes that penalizing wing and face-off violations in this manner will reduce the number of face-off violations during 2008.
A new approved ruling was added to assist with the administration of this rule:

SITUATION: As soon as A1 is whistled for a faceoff violation can he sprint to the special substitution area so his substitute can enter the field of play. RULING: Yes.

3. Rule 4-13-c, Ten-second count. The new rule regarding the ten-second count on a ball being thrown outside the attack area by the offense will be enforced in all situations (e.g., a shot which hits the goalpost or a player and rebounds outside of the attack area).

A new approved ruling was added to assist with this rule:

SITUATION: B1 throws a clearing pass to B2 that goes over his head and touches the ground across midfield. Does a 10 second count start when the ball touches the ground across midfield? RULING: Yes.

4. Approved type of ball. The committee ruled that a new ball submitted to it for review met the NCAA specifications and is legal for play. The ball has a surface which has a slight texture to it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:34 am**

I've got that "deja vu all over again" feeling here... or is it just a "senior moment"? Although my own pair of gloves, last used in men's club play in the late '80s (after which I retired) have the palms cut out, this rule has been on the books for well over 20 years now, yes? Why this "clarification for the 2008 season" now? Was the rule not being enforced in NCAA play? Our MCLA zebras sure enforce it, and consistently...

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:17 pm**

Sonny wrote:
4. Approved type of ball. The committee ruled that a new ball submitted to it for review met the NCAA specifications and is legal for play. The ball has a surface which has a slight texture to it.

Hopefully this rids the planet of slippery balls.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:20 pm**

Dan Wishengrad wrote:I've got that "deja vu all over again" feeling here... or is it just a "senior moment"? Although my own pair of gloves, last used in men's club play in the late '80s (after which I retired) have the palms cut out, this rule has been on the books for well over 20 years now, yes? Why this "clarification for the 2008 season" now? Was the rule not being enforced in NCAA play? Our MCLA zebras sure enforce it, and consistently...

I believe I recall seeing a new glove out there with the palms missing. Maybe, and I could be wrong, the old rule said players could not cut the palms out, but never said anything about it coming from the manufacturer like that.
Below is a link to the Harrow gloves. I think Gait had a pair too

http://www.laxshopper.com/index.htm?equ ... tm~laxmain

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:22 pm**

Ravaging Beast wrote:
Sonny wrote:
4. Approved type of ball. The committee ruled that a new ball submitted to it for review met the NCAA specifications and is legal for play. The ball has a surface which has a slight texture to it.

Hopefully this rids the planet of slippery balls.

I'd be interested in seeing these. Anyone know who makes them? Are they the warrior MLL balls?

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:00 pm**

Dan Wishengrad wrote:I've got that "deja vu all over again" feeling here... or is it just a "senior moment"? Although my own pair of gloves, last used in men's club play in the late '80s (after which I retired) have the palms cut out, this rule has been on the books for well over 20 years now, yes? Why this "clarification for the 2008 season" now? Was the rule not being enforced in NCAA play? Our MCLA zebras sure enforce it, and consistently...

The rule stated that you couldn't cut out the palms, and that verbiage left open the argument that if you bought them without palms then you hadn't cut them out and so the gloves were legal.

This is similar to a change I suggested a few years ago. The old NCAA rule 1-20 had:

A.R. 20. May a player alter or camber his handle? RULING: N o . Three-minute nonreleasable penalty. Crosse removed for the duration of the game.

while the revised version is:

A.R. 17. May a player use an altered or cambered handle? RULING: No. Three-minute nonreleasable penalty. Crosse removed for the duration of the game.

This is basically the same, but it cuts out the argument, "Well, I didn't camber it, my coach did it!"

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:56 am**

In reference to rule 4-3: Will there be any new language about face-off violations themselves, or is this the only ruling that will be coming out? This seems to be aimed at wing violations, not actual face-off violations. I know it says that this is how both will be punished this season; but I have a long-winded situation that I was going to ask about, however it involves a face-off violation. I didn't want to post a long question if there will be more coming out about the actual face-off violations and how different situations with those types of violations will be handled. Although it looks like I haven't been too successful in keeping this one short....... :roll:

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:33 am**

woulax23 wrote:In reference to rule 4-3: Will there be any new language about face-off violations themselves, or is this the only ruling that will be coming out? This seems to be aimed at wing violations, not actual face-off violations. I know it says that this is how both will be punished this season; but I have a long-winded situation that I was going to ask about, however it involves a face-off violation. I didn't want to post a long question if there will be more coming out about the actual face-off violations and how different situations with those types of violations will be handled. Although it looks like I haven't been too successful in keeping this one short.......

The new rule is about pre-whistle face-off violations, not just wing violations. So: go early, you get sent off. Stick not parallel to the line, you get sent off. Left hand not on the ground, you get sent off.

Does that help?

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:42 am**

LaxRef wrote:
woulax23 wrote:In reference to rule 4-3: Will there be any new language about face-off violations themselves, or is this the only ruling that will be coming out? This seems to be aimed at wing violations, not actual face-off violations. I know it says that this is how both will be punished this season; but I have a long-winded situation that I was going to ask about, however it involves a face-off violation. I didn't want to post a long question if there will be more coming out about the actual face-off violations and how different situations with those types of violations will be handled. Although it looks like I haven't been too successful in keeping this one short.......

The new rule is about pre-whistle face-off violations, not just wing violations. So: go early, you get sent off. Stick not parallel to the line, you get sent off. Left hand not on the ground, you get sent off.

Does that help?

But if wingman goes early, faceoff man goes off. But it doesn't say anything about sending the wingman back to the wing.

Send the D pole wingman early, and have him keep running to the face off X. By the time the call is made, you have the face-off guy covered and the fast break prevented. Fall your other wingman in and play a 4 man zone, till the substituion gets there (man down box & 1).

If you face off guy knows it coming, and you have the subs in the box it won't take too much time to get the new player on for defense.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:05 pm**

So if team A jumps, team A FOGO has to sub. Couldn't team A's wingman closest to the box just move to the middle of the field to cover team b FOGO, then when team A sub is made it is at least team A is a bit closer to the team B box side wingman?

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:43 pm**

Pinball wrote:So if team A jumps, team A FOGO has to sub. Couldn't team A's wingman closest to the box just move to the middle of the field to cover team b FOGO, then when team A sub is made it is at least team A is a bit closer to the team B box side wingman?

I have seen nothing in the wording of the rules so far to prevent this. In fact, because this was potentially an contentious issue—and because the old language could have been interpreted to mean that the wing middies were not released from behind the line until the whistle to restart play on a pre-whistle faceoff violation—I submitted a suggestion to make it clear that the wing middies are free to roam and/or sub on a faceoff violation. I believe it was approved, but we'll have to wait and see if it gets into the book.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:43 pm**

WOuld not the wing man still be frozen on the wing since the play has not begun, and there has been no possession called, until the whistle blows?

A. Blue Face off man lifts hand prior to whistle. Award ball to Red and blow whistle. FOGO is still moving off field; now either all the Wings are still frozen until the restart whistle blows or they all have to freedom to run to middle of field, or anywhere. While they free to leave their man open to cover the RED player with the ball, it might be better to leave the FOGO alone. Interesting strategies, if they are FREE to move.

Currently on "prior to" Face Off violations where one team is awarded the ball are the wings free to move on the award?

Yes..... Face offs should be even more of a fun time!

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:15 pm**

RefZee wrote:WOuld not the wing man still be frozen on the wing since the play has not begun, and there has been no possession called, until the whistle blows?

A. Blue Face off man lifts hand prior to whistle. Award ball to Red and blow whistle. FOGO is still moving off field; now either all the Wings are still frozen until the restart whistle blows or they all have to freedom to run to middle of field, or anywhere. While they free to leave their man open to cover the RED player with the ball, it might be better to leave the FOGO alone. Interesting strategies, if they are FREE to move.

Currently on "prior to" Face Off violations where one team is awarded the ball are the wings free to move on the award? Yes..... Face offs should be even more of a fun time!

The usual interpretation is that the wing men are not frozen on a faceoff violation, but the exact wording in the 2007 and prior books could be construed to mean they are frozen (there's no doubt about the attack and defense--they can't cross the restraining line until the whistle blows to restart play). And, in fact, I've been told there are some officials out there who keep the wing middies behind the restraining line in such situations.

This inconsistency probably wasn't a major problem before, but with the new rules it could be, which is why I submitted the suggestion to change Rule 4 A.R. 23 to:

A.R. 23. If a non-time-serving foul is committed before, during or after a faceoff (but before possession and before the ball crosses the defensive-area line), wing players will be released immediately, but players will not be released from behind the defensive-area line until the whistle blows, resuming play.

That would end all debate on the issue. The 2008 rules are still not posted as of right now.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:18 pm**

Nice job. They almost used your verbiage verbatim in A.R.24. I am looking forward to seeing this rule (faceoff violation) in action.

LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

COC Memo - Oct. 25, 2007

COC Memo - Oct. 25, 2007

Re: COC Memo - Oct. 25, 2007

Re: COC Memo - Oct. 25, 2007

Faceoff

Re: Faceoff