possibly the best hit i've seen

by **Danny Hogan** on Tue May 01, 2007 10:54 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl2ANYtUpc

buddy sent it to me, from the recent Salisbury/WAC game.

**Sponsor**

by **Dan Warren** on Tue May 01, 2007 11:00 am

why the flag? Seems like he took 3 steps, the hands were down, and closed together.

Great clip...

by **yourmom** on Tue May 01, 2007 11:19 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl2ANYtUpc[/youtube]

by **Timbalaned** on Tue May 01, 2007 11:48 am

wow, that kid got tattooed

by **BOWSER** on Tue May 01, 2007 11:57 am

the only way i see a flag is if the ref thought it was high, otherwise looks clean, at least to me, but hey i played defense and am biased.

by **Danny Hogan** on Tue May 01, 2007 1:17 pm

over-zealous ref penalizing because something looks violent

by **shrekjr** on Tue May 01, 2007 1:37 pm

Ref looks screened to be able to tell if the hit was "high" or otherwise illegal, but it could certainly be called unnecessary if the flow of the game at that time didn't warrant a hit like that. It is the type of hit that if allowed to go unpunished will lead to revenge and more violent hits later. By making the call then, there is a good chance the players on both teams see it will not be tolerated and those types of hits cease for the rest of the game.

by **laxfan25** on Tue May 01, 2007 1:40 pm

I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the clip yet (they won't let me download streaming media at the office).
What I will say is that it is the ref's primary duty to enforce safe play on the field, and our charter says the following;

Unnecessary Roughness
SECTION 9. Unnecessary roughness includes the following:
a. An excessively violent infraction of the rules against holding and
pushing (see Rules 6-4 and 6-10).
b. Deliberate and excessively violent contact made by a defensive player
against an offensive player who has established a screening position.
c. Any act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or crosse.
Note: A check delivered with the gloved hand or hands may not be delivered with a punching blow.

So while we may all enjoy seeing a guy get blown up on a play - even if the bodycheck appears to be legitimate, the referee may be of the opinion that is was excessively violent. He may also have thought that if the hands were leading, even if they were together, that it was delivered with a punching blow. Bodychecking, while a very real part of the game, must be within certain bounds, and those bounds are really determined by the official on the play and his interpretation.
I look forward to watching the clip, but I thought this general observation may help to understand why a flag might get thrown on any given hard bodycheck.
(Don't let Kevin O'Brien see this post - he thinks U.R. calls should be stricken from the rulebook!)

by **laxative** on Tue May 01, 2007 2:01 pm

I have to flag that ref for excessive wussyness!

by **Danny Hogan** on Tue May 01, 2007 2:06 pm

shrekjr wrote:but it could certainly be called unnecessary if the flow of the game at that time didn't warrant a hit like that.

the guy had the ball and was trying to shoot. in my eyes there is no such thing as unneccesary roughness with a body check in that situation.

even so, the hitter's helmet is clearly lower than the hittee's. perhaps even on the numbers. pause it at about :02 left in the clip.

by **shep** on Tue May 01, 2007 9:44 pm

There's no reason to call UR on a clean hit like that. UR should be called if someone goes out of their way to maul a pick setter or something, but if you're moving down the field with the ball and don't keep your head up or if your teammate is dumb enough to toss you a buddy pass you shouldn't expect to be artificially "protected" by the refs.

by **mavlax23** on Fri May 04, 2007 7:58 pm

Damn good hit, but there are a number of things that are illegal about it:

1. He only has one hand on his stick during the hit.
2. He extends his arms after contact (only holding the stick with one hand also) which is a push with possession and a 30sec penalty.

I think the ref threw the flag because it looked violent, but it was an illegal hit. I would be curious to know what the ref called on the play. I am a defensemen and would be pissed if I got called for a hit like that, he was trying to be clean, but it was an illegal hit.

by **TheBearcatHimself** on Fri May 04, 2007 8:46 pm

I agree, it was definitely an attempt at just a good defensive play, the defender did however seem to strike the facemask or just below the facemask with his elbow which seems to extend as well through the hit.

I think it was a great hit but I am not surprised that it was flagged. If it was called on me I would have some words on the way to the box...and would probably then be flagged some more.

by **Danny Hogan** on Sat May 05, 2007 12:05 am

mavlax23 wrote:
1. He only has one hand on his stick during the hit.
2. He extends his arms after contact (only holding the stick with one hand also) which is a push with possession and a 30sec penalty.

1 ?? it was from the front.

2 his off hand appeared to come of after the hit, i can' t see for sure, i doubt you could either.

by **mavlax23** on Sat May 05, 2007 8:57 pm

It doesn't matter if it was from the front, in lacrosse you cannot extend your arms through the hit, no matter if it's from the front or the back. You are supposed to use the shoulder. Check the rule books and get back to me.
Your right it is hard to see if he has one hand on his stick during the hit or not but it sure looks like it to me.