Delayed Substitution

[GrayBear]

LOL

[laxfan25]

Craig,
Here are a few;
SECTION 9. A point on the center line, equidistant from each side, shall be
marked with a 4-inch by 4-inch square that is a contrasting color and shall
be designated as the center.

Under-jerseys, compression shorts or sweat pants may be worn, but if visible to others, must be of a solid color that is limited to white, gray or one of that team’s official colors

The head coach shall act in a courteous manner and also shall endeavor
in every way to achieve the same from team members.

Special Substitution
SECTION 23. Substitution may take place without the necessity of waiting
for suspension of play by an official. One player at a time may enter the
field of play from the special substitution area under the following conditions:
a. The player must be equipped and ready to play.
b. He may not enter the special substitution area until his substitution is
imminent.
c. The player leaving the field of play must exit via the special substitution
area.
d. The substitute must wait until such player is off the field of play, and
the substitute may not delay his entry onto the field.
A.R. 109. During a special substitution, A1 delays his entrance onto the field. The trailing official sees the delay. RULING: Silent play on with an officials arm in the air unless A1 participates in the play, technical foul. This does not remove the responsibility of a team to adhere to the offsides rule.

Here's a common one:
Cross Check
SECTION 3. A player may not check his opponent with his crosse in a
cross-check position—that is, check him with that part of the handle of his
crosse that is between his hands, either by thrusting it away from his body
or by holding it extended from his body.
(If this and cross-check holds were called every time, most middies would have to re-learn how to play one-on-one defense).

Another big one:
Slashing
SECTION 7. Slashing includes the following actions:
b. Striking an opponent in an attempt to dislodge the ball from his crosse...
c. Striking an opponent in any part of the face, on the neck, in the chest, on the back, on the shoulders, in the groin or on the head with the crosse
(including its butt end)...
Note: In all situations except when a player’s gloved hand on his own crosse is in contact with a line marking, that hand shall be considered part of his crosse.

So, should we call every strike of an opponent that doesn't get stick or gloved hand? Every check on the back, shoulder, legs, upper arms? Better get those D-men under control.

Holding
A.R. 15. B1, with gloved hand over end of crosse, is exerting pressure from the rear against A1, who has possession of the ball. B1 exerts enough pressure to force A1, against his will, to move away from goal. RULING: Technical foul against B1. Only equal pressure may be used.

with;
Pushing
SECTION 10. A player shall not thrust or shove an opponent from the rear. A push is exerting pressure after contact is made and is not a violent blow. Pushing is permitted from the front or side when an opponent has possession of the ball or is within 5 yards of a loose ball. In this case, pushing must be done with either closed hand, shoulder or forearm and both hands must be on the crosse.

I guess when those defenders push hard enough to have the attacker move away from their intended path, a pushing/holding call should be made?

And my favorite;
Withholding Ball from Play
The glove hand cannot grasp any portion of the head of the crosse.This is intended to cover faceoffs and a player in possession of the ball who is “thumbing” the ball or choking up and grasping the plastic portion of the crosse.
So if I see your glove hand wrapped around the base of your stick head - loss of possession, correct? 3/4's of the players will have to re-learn how to cradle.

Where the authority comes from is called judgement and common sense. If all of the above were called "by the rule book" I think you might hear a few complaints about ticky-tacky calls, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "let 'em play", which implies to me that you 1) make the calls that protect player safety 2) make the calls where an advantage is gained and 3) make the obivous calls that everyone can see. Other than that, you try to use the same judgement at both ends of the field and throughout the game.

Hope this helps explain where ShrekJr was coming from in his post.

[Zeuslax]

We had a situation where one of our guys sub'ed badly. Thus, we were playing D in a 6-on-5 situation. The offensive team took a relatively bad shot, our guy was just finishing the substitution as the shot was made, his sub (replacement) stepped on the field, our goalie made the save, and hit him with an outlet pass. This pass led to a direct goal on our end. We haphazardly created a 4-on-3 fast break. The ref's didn't know what to call. They eventually gave the goal to us. The head ref determined that at the time of the substitution we didn't have an advantage, technically.

[laxfan25]

We had a situation where one of our guys sub'ed badly. Thus, we were playing D in a 6-on-5 situation. The offensive team took a relatively bad shot, our guy was just finishing the substitution as the shot was made, his sub (replacement) stepped on the field, our goalie made the save, and hit him with an outlet pass. This pass led to a direct goal on our end. We haphazardly created a 4-on-3 fast break. The ref's didn't know what to call. They eventually gave the goal to us. The head ref determined that at the time of the substitution we didn't have an advantage, technically.

If by sub badly you mean that he took himself off the field while the other team was fast breaking - that would be bad. If there wasn't a delay in the replacement comeing on the field, no problem. If the sub was delayed getting back on though, and caught that fast break pass the other way - I think that would have merited a whistle and turnover.
Hope your summer is going well!

[SDSULAX]

Good answer and good examples!

[GrayBear]

Good answer and good examples!

Amen. Those are classic examples (especially the slash and cross checks). I think the essence of the frustration is that if the game has obviously evolved beyond the utility and practicality of certain rules to the extent that those rules routinely must be ignored, then the correct thing to do is to revisit, and change, the rules.

It's easier for everyone involved to minimize the instances requiring "judgment" calls in favor of bright line decision making. Then everyone knows what to expect. [my 2c].

[Zeuslax]

Probably the biggest infraction that I see that is barely ever called. Is the slash to the legs. A lot of defensemen take advantage of this especially during a GB scuffle. They know that it can look inadvertent. Rarely do I see a slash called when it's just to the legs or hips! Actually, I think I've only seen it called once or twice, and that's with ref's in Jersey. Nothing like a slash across the shins. We all know how that feels.

[laxfan25]

Probably the biggest infraction that I see that is barely ever called. Is the slash to the legs. A lot of defensemen take advantage of this especially during a GB scuffle. They know that it can look inadvertent. Rarely do I see a slash called when it's just to the legs or hips! Actually, I think I've only seen it called once or twice, and that's with ref's in Jersey. Nothing like a slash across the shins. We all know how that feels.

Coach,
Sounds like you're reminiscing about your time in Big Rapids!

[laxfan25]

It's easier for everyone involved to minimize the instances requiring "judgment" calls in favor of bright line decision making. Then everyone knows what to expect. [my 2c].

GrayBear,
You'll never be able to reach that point, since the rulebook cannot make go/no-go decisions on every play in the game, and that is why experienced refs with good judgement are invaluable.
For example, a check to the arm is now considered a slash, but as we know, not every check to the arm draws a flag. If we now change the rule and say checks to the arm are allowed, I dare say you woulsd see much harder checks to the arm. If you change the rule and say that no checks to the arm are allowed, period - you've got a lot more flags and not a lot of fun.
Multiply this by every rule in the book and you see the Pandora's Box you would open.
Your quest is a common one, Grasshopper, but I don't believe you can ever make the rulebook and it's enforcement totally black & white. The challenge as a team entering a game is trying to get a handle on how this ref crew calls the game. As referees, this is why a good pre-game conference is important - to get everyone on the same page - and why you need to be consistent, so the teams know what to expect.
That said, the game calling can and will change during a game if we see that a team is out of control and needs to be reined in.

[GrayBear]

Your quest is a common one, Grasshopper, but I don't believe you can ever make the rulebook and it's enforcement totally black & white.

You are wise, Master, but you must also consider the complete implication of my comment to achieve total consciousness . . .

No one is saying the rules must be "black and white". I certainly didn't. Obviously all calls involve some degree of judgment. My point (and I do have one, to quote Ellen DeGeneres) is that the obviously ignored rules, such as some of the ones you cite, don't belong in the rulebook if they are routinely ignored. To wit:

Here are a few;
SECTION 9. A point on the center line, equidistant from each side, shall be
marked with a 4-inch by 4-inch square that is a contrasting color and shall
be designated as the center.

Under-jerseys, compression shorts or sweat pants may be worn, but if visible to others, must be of a solid color that is limited to white, gray or one of that team’s official colors

The head coach shall act in a courteous manner and also shall endeavor
in every way to achieve the same from team members.

These are not subject to that much judgment. They either belong as part of the game or they don't. In other instances, such as the slash, I agree that there has to be a deference shown to "flow-of-the-game" concerns, as well as a feel for the tone of play and whether to call the game loosely or not. In the case of the cross-check, however, the rule (IMO) represents policy-making, not an opportunity to call it or ignore it. In other words, the rule, as you cite, is clear:

Cross Check
SECTION 3. A player may not check his opponent with his crosse in a
cross-check position—that is, check him with that part of the handle of his
crosse that is between his hands, either by thrusting it away from his body
or by holding it extended from his body.
(If this and cross-check holds were called every time, most middies would have to re-learn how to play one-on-one defense).

The policy, as embodied in the written rule, is speaking to the value of eliminating that conduct from the play of the game. Since a cross-check is a cross-check is a cross-check, unlike a slash, you either determine that the policy is sound and enforce the rule (and make the middies learn how to play legally), or you determine that the technique is a viable one get the rule the heck outta there. It's a cop-out to try to do both.

That's a total of four cents now.

[Zeuslax]

Laxfan25 wrote:

Coach,
Sounds like you're reminiscing about your time in Big Rapids!

Many a game when I was thanking GOD that I wasn't on the opposing sideline.