NCAA Proposes Stick Alterations, Rules Changes

[onpoint]

What about substituting long poles out during that time period? Under the logical solution you guys present, wouldn't the near side wing be able to sub during the wait?

I love what this new rule is trying to accomplish, but I agree that this could take a little sorting out. A ref at the Best of the West tourney made a couple good points that we will likely see: (a) less longpoles taking faces for fear of losing your pole for a violation and (b) less infractions in general because of the two-fold ramifcation of players being afraid to jump and refs being afraid to make the new call.

[Zeuslax]

What about substituting long poles out during that time period? Under the logical solution you guys present, wouldn't the near side wing be able to sub during the wait?

This was exactly my point. A team is not going to go 6 v 4 while they get thier pole on. They would rather be 6 v 5, with a zone (possibly using the pole to slow down the break) until the sub hits the field.

[laxfan25]

The rule will say specifically that it has to be the guy taking the face-off that has to leave the field - long-pole or not.
I like the idea that Coach Graff proposed, and agree that it will be a mess without it if the ball leaves the immediate area, but it would seem to violate the whole principle of the thing which is to get better flow back in the game. With this suggestion it'll be like arranging kids by height in kindergarten. "OK, you stand here while I go retrieve the ball. Johnnie!! Don't you be leaving early!! OK, ready, set, go!"
Meanwhile, little Robbie's on the other side yelling "Blow the whistle, blow the whistle!! I gotta go!"
Sigh. And everyone will be yelling at the refs...

While I appreciate the spirit behind the new rule, which is to cut down on the faceoff violations - I think the net result could easily be that even fewer get called - because of the increased sanction and the increased PITA quotient in enforcement. Certainly not gonna see many calls in a close game or the 4th quarter.
Easier to just go "Down" and whistle and let 'em fight it out, since everyone says they're both cheating anyway...

[Michael Martin]

It was interesting to see in the current Stripes that this rule may also apply to violations in the wing area. These violations do not occur until after the whistle has blown to start the faceoff. Even without the play on technique, this makes player placement interesting. The wing middies have been released and the ball can be anywhere. The penalty is enforced against the faceoff middie and the offending middie continues to play. Where does play begin - where the ball is or back at the site of the faceoff? Are the wing middies free to move about the field or forced to return to faceoff limitations?

Let's add another twist to the mechanics. During a fall game, one of my new faceoff middies was slow in getting down. The official had them coming up even before he was completely down. Before the whistle to start I requested a stick check, indicating it was a dead ball and I wanted a stick check. By the time the stick check was completed, the substitution was complete. Will substitution be prohibited during an extended dead ball situation following the foul? One could also call time out before the start of play.

Enforcement of the rule will be difficult, trying to play "freeze-tag" with the middies until the whistle blows to start play. I can envision the various mechanics that will be seen throughout the spring season.

This situation could be handled in other ways. Repetitively committing the same technical foul can be called unsportsmanlike conduct (Rule 5, section 10-d).

[Rob Graff]

..., but it would seem to violate the whole principle of the thing which is to get better flow back in the game. With this suggestion it'll be like arranging kids by height in kindergarten. "OK, you stand here while I go retrieve the ball. Johnnie!! Don't you be leaving early!! OK, ready, set, go!"
Meanwhile, little Robbie's on the other side yelling "Blow the whistle, blow the whistle!! I gotta go!"
Sigh. And everyone will be yelling at the refs...

While I appreciate the spirit behind the new rule, which is to cut down on the faceoff violations - I think the net result could easily be that even fewer get called - because of the increased sanction and the increased PITA quotient in enforcement. Certainly not gonna see many calls in a close game or the 4th quarter.
Easier to just go "Down" and whistle and let 'em fight it out, since everyone says they're both cheating anyway...

I think this is exactly correct - and the second paragraph bolded material will prove prescient. The frustrating part is that the rule does attempt to address a very real problem that was highlighted in the JHU/UDel game, and a problem for which the penalty was insufficient.

[Zeuslax]

This rule could also change the fundamental approach of the face off itself. Winning it going forward would seem to have an increased advantage. Especially if you anticipate the offense and some of the disadvantages outlined about where to start the ball. Having the ball 5 yards toward the goal your attacking is a much bigger advantage than 5 yards towards the goal you're defending.

[LaxRef]

It was interesting to see in the current Stripes that this rule may also apply to violations in the wing area. These violations do not occur until after the whistle has blown to start the faceoff.

I agree and I argued this until I was blue in the face, but to no avail.

Even without the play on technique, this makes player placement interesting. The wing middies have been released and the ball can be anywhere. The penalty is enforced against the faceoff middie and the offending middie continues to play. Where does play begin - where the ball is or back at the site of the faceoff? Are the wing middies free to move about the field or forced to return to faceoff limitations?

Let's add another twist to the mechanics. During a fall game, one of my new faceoff middies was slow in getting down. The official had them coming up even before he was completely down. Before the whistle to start I requested a stick check, indicating it was a dead ball and I wanted a stick check. By the time the stick check was completed, the substitution was complete. Will substitution be prohibited during an extended dead ball situation following the foul? One could also call time out before the start of play.

I would say that if you want the advantage you probably shouldn't call for a timeout or an equipment check just then!

Enforcement of the rule will be difficult, trying to play "freeze-tag" with the middies until the whistle blows to start play. I can envision the various mechanics that will be seen throughout the spring season.

This situation could be handled in other ways. Repetitively committing the same technical foul can be called unsportsmanlike conduct (Rule 5, section 10-d).

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen that called, I wouldn't have any more money than I do right now. I've seen it threatened once but never called. It's pretty vague; would you send a guy off for 1:00 (releasable) after he got called for warding 3 times? Four times? Five? Probably not. It's really intended for when the repeated technical fouls are being abused somehow, not for basic ineptitude.

You know, that might have been the best way to handle this whole thing: just put in an A.R. saying after 3 f/o violations the rest become time-serving penalties. Of course, then we'd need to be able to count to 4. . . .

[Michael Martin]

The stick check definitely took away the opponents advantage. My request was to check the stick of their faceoff specialist. Have him in a dead ball situation after just going down and putting pressure on his faceoff stick, and right next to the official.

I would continue asking for stick checks, even after the "free check". If you ask for another and don't find illegal equipment, it costs you a timeout. Right where you would be if you had called for a timeout instead of the stick check. May get lucky and find an illegal stick.

In my experience, I have never seen Rule 5, section 10-d enforced. Always wondered why it was in the rule book and when would the normal penalty for the technical foul not be appropriate? Would be interesting to know why the rule has been there all these years. Maybe this is "deja vu all over again".

Officials do a pretty good job of counting to 4 when the goalie has possession of the ball in the crease.

[LaxRef]

The stick check definitely took away the opponents advantage. My request was to check the stick of their faceoff specialist. Have him in a dead ball situation after just going down and putting pressure on his faceoff stick, and right next to the official.

Oh, that makes more sense! I thought the other team had the face-off violation and you called for a check. Seems like a legitimate tactic under the current rules to me.

I would continue asking for stick checks, even after the "free check". If you ask for another and don't find illegal equipment, it costs you a timeout. Right where you would be if you had called for a timeout instead of the stick check. May get lucky and find an illegal stick.

I would hope that with our new stick check mechanic of 6 per team per game that we're getting most of them off the field, but fire away!

In my experience, I have never seen Rule 5, section 10-d enforced. Always wondered why it was in the rule book and when would the normal penalty for the technical foul not be appropriate? Would be interesting to know why the rule has been there all these years. Maybe this is "deja vu all over again".

Officials do a pretty good job of counting to 4 when the goalie has possession of the ball in the crease.

Yeah, but that's all at one time! It's harder if it's spread out.

Rule 5-10-d is almost certainly intended as a tool for the official when a team is doing something obnoxious. For example, Coach A is out of timeouts, and he starts calling for equipment checks on player after player on Team B (okay, you can't get away with this any more since they took my suggestion to limit coach-requested checks to one per team per dead ball, but this used to be a possibility in NCAA and still is in NFHS). You can eventually bump up the penalty from a technical to a personal using this rule.

Of course, I guess you could do that under the "any other act considered unsportsmanlike by the officials" clause, but this makes it explicit.

[Michael Martin]

I have a question regarding the definition of "faceoff violation". Initially, I thought it only applied to the 2 faceoff middies (Rule 4, section 3). From this discussion, it also seems to apply to the positions of the other players (Rule 4, section 4). Rule 4, section 3 contains the phrase "If a player or team commits a foul before or during any faceoff, the ball shall be awarded to the offended team". Will this rule apply to "dead ball" fouls after a goal or before faceoffs to start a period?

[LaxRef]

I have a question regarding the definition of "faceoff violation". Initially, I thought it only applied to the 2 faceoff middies (Rule 4, section 3). From this discussion, it also seems to apply to the positions of the other players (Rule 4, section 4). Rule 4, section 3 contains the phrase "If a player or team commits a foul before or during any faceoff, the ball shall be awarded to the offended team". Will this rule apply to "dead ball" fouls after a goal or before faceoffs to start a period?

I can answer that if you can wait a month or so for the new rulebook to come out!

Seriously, we don't know for sure until we see the wording, but I'd like to believe that a face-off violation can't occur until after the word "down."

[Michael Martin]

The reason I asked was if Team A is willing to forego any attempt to win the faceoff and is willing to give Team B possession of the ball to prevent Team B from winning the faceoff and getting a fast break, then they need only commit a dead ball technical foul.

After a goal, Team A sends out a defensive middie line, which does not go to the required faceoff positions. The 20 second timer goes off, the official calls delay of game as Team A is not ready to play, and awards the ball to Team B. No faceoff, no faceoff violation, and no faceoff violation penalty enforced.

Doesn't this give us a situation similar to the JHU/UDel playoff game, reaching the same objective using different tactics?

[BucLax13]

but unlike jumping the faceoff man, you have no chance of actually winning the face... the problem was individuals pushing the envelope to counter a great face off man... we have always had the chance to completely concede the face-off to the other team.

this way they don't win two or three faces by cheating

right? or am I totally off base here

[Michael Martin]

Yes, you would be conceding the faceoff as a no contest, rather than trying to cheat.

I thought the playoff game strategy was not only to counter the opposing faceoff man, but to eliminate the his resulting fastbreaks. Isn't the new faceoff violation penalty trying to recreate the lost fastbreak opportunity.

If you were extremely concerned about the fastbreaks, you could opt out of the faceoff and lose ball possession, but not worry about any faceoff fastbreaks.

[LaxRef]

Yes, you would be conceding the faceoff as a no contest, rather than trying to cheat.

I thought the playoff game strategy was not only to counter the opposing faceoff man, but to eliminate the his resulting fastbreaks.

It was both. I go early on the face-off. Two things can happen:

1) The officials don't call it, and I have a huge edge because I went early.

2) I get caught for going early, but I have time to set up my D and there's no fast break off the face-off.

If you commit a dead-ball foul, you get to set up your defense but concede possession. That's a fair trade within the spirit of the rules. The thing the rules committee found offensive was that the team was taking advantage of the rules to intentionally cheat on the face-off knowing that there would be no real penalty for doing so (since they were going to lose the face-off anyway most likely).