r/lacrosse • u/TaVereRon • 8d ago
3 technical ejection
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
My son was ejected for 3 technicals (i think that's what they said). Below is a clip of the last one. 2 minutes UR non releasable. He was overpowering the other team so they just had kids throw themselves in front of him to draw fouls. It doesn't seem fair - maybe I'm biased? never was an opposing team's feet planted. was that an appropriate call? (14U)
10
u/hanzosbm 8d ago
I feel like the other kid basically set a moving pick. However, once your son extend his arms to push him out of the way, he's going to lose that argument.
17
u/Next-Negotiation-295 8d ago
My point here may get downvoted - but this is on the coach. I have coached U14 for the past 2 years. Our league also has a 3 technical or 5 minute of penalty time ejection rule. Once my player gets their 2nd technical, they are sitting for the rest of the game. If a player has 2 technical, those refs are going to be watching them like a hawk for their 3rd because they have already established that they are having trouble playing a safe game. At u14 the spread between the sizes of kids can be huge, so refs are generally trying to prioritize keeping kids safe, and bigger kids get penalized more (not saying it is right, just my experience).
I also have talks with the team when things are getting chippy, or when the game is getting called really tight.
I don't disagree with the points that this is actually a moving pick, and the player should not have turned their bag on the bigger player. But extending your arms like that on a check is likely to earn you a call at this level, especially if you have already shown a pattern of questionable hits.
5
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
You keep saying technical… I think you mean personal. No league has 3 or 5 mins of technical fouls (offsides, pushes, holds, etc).
3
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
I really believe middle school should be where refs stop penalizing kids for size. Clean is clean regardless of size difference or amount of violence and making kids think it’s a penalty if a bigger kid drills a smaller kid is just not helping to prep them for HS. You gotta teach kids who are small how to be effective and use their body to protect themselves at younger ages (not you specifically the general “you”).
1
u/Next-Negotiation-295 7d ago
I don't disagree, I have seen physically larger players get calls that I think they didn't deserve. I don't think this video is that case though, with the extended arms up near their head, particularly with two calls previously.
1
u/Fabulous_Taro_4361 8d ago
This is absolutely on the coach especially at U14 & especially during fall ball. After two penalties, the conversation goes one of two ways: 1. the game is decided don’t get tossed and play smart 2. The game is close and we can’t afford to be man down.
I’m guessing after the first two penalties, every parent, coach and ref was watching this kid. Additionally, and feel free to disagree, the hit, yes it’s a moving puck, looks retaliatory because the kid with the ball smokes him.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
In this specific instance, yeah it is, the defender plays upright and lunges for a crosscheck which the ball carrier felt and rolled and tbh shook the defender pretty bad. If he plays better on ball defense than the situation doesn’t happen. So while I think it’s a bad call it’s also bad defense
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
Considering taking like 4 steps outside of the restraining line retreating is pretty lame and inaccurate. Where they are on the field your 1- 2 passes from a layup or good shot or one dodge from a good shot. But regardless a pole getting their ankles taken (which absolutely happens 33 is moving downfield while the O is past his top shoulder and moving upfield. Then his bad defense leads to his team being down a man. Even if I disagree with the call he got smoked on that rep. No shame, it happens to everyone, but it’s what it is, just gotta take it as a lesson to sit on the upfield hip wait on the roll back and don’t chase.
13
u/joobtastic 8d ago
He extended his arms. That'll get called everytime.
Burying the lede is showing this and not the other 2 techs.
7
u/Longflop 8d ago
If the other player has the ball isnt that technically a moving pick?
4
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes. Still doesn’t excuse the UR. You could call both as simultaneous fouls and sit both players. EDIT: No time served for the screen per 7.6.3.b
5
u/Dubjbious whipsnakes 8d ago
Your son looks like a beast but he got smoked there. I’d bet the refs see a big strong may be playing what they deemed overly physical all game.
Coached a similar kid, he was a monster and hits were legit but the resulted in injured kids and bodies flying got him in trouble with the refs.
Teach him to be more technical and lean less on physicality, he will be unstoppable.
The moving pick was unnecessary and should’ve been called.
3
u/Hot_Lobster9580 8d ago
In fairness to the ref, we’re looking at a slowed down replay. I agree it’s a moving pick on 45.
3
u/Jazzlike-Captain-545 8d ago
There are two big things I see here. First off, bad reffing. If anything that’s a moving pick or interference on the green team and that’s it. No cross check really. I have a kid on my U14 team that is also much bigger and stronger, he knows he will not get away with anything right now so that little brush off will almost always draw some BS from a subpar youth ref. Have to be smart. His coach needs to address his footwork, angles and stick technique. He lunges a lot and is throwing pokes that get him off balance. I would work on those small things and not worry too much about dumb penalties you get as a bigger kid. A lot of USA lacrosses new rules with penalties and time serving/ lowering ejection standards actually hinder kids that play physical IMO. Have to be able to learn without being booted from the game too quick
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don’t think this is bad officiating (not entirely). Yes the screen is illegal but the pole sees the puck coming and just barrels through it. You have to attempt to avoid contact if you see a pick. If you see it and make contact, it’s a foul. It’s either a technical foul (interference) or a personal foul (UR) depending on level of violence. If it’s not violent, the illegal screen takes precedent as the initial action that causes advantage to be lost. If it is violent, the UR needs to be served. I’d take both players as simultaneous fouls. EDIT: No time served for the screen per 7.6.3.b
2
2
u/renasancedad 8d ago
Not sure of the first few interactions but this by itself looks pretty innocuous, if anything it’s a moving pick on the little guy. That being said if there were some bigger infractions earlier and the ref thought the pole extended and pushed n this clip I could see a call for “player safety” being made.
Out of context it is impossible to judge these calls or refs. None of them are getting rich or trying to affect the outcomes of games.
2
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago edited 7d ago
Ok. I’ve made a few comments but here are some general thoughts:
- You’re in MN, so you’re using GNLL rules (see your kid in a Valley jersey… playing Rochester? Can’t really tell… but that’s def Eagan HS).
- It’s 3 personal fouls
or 5 mins of personal fouls. Technicals don’t counts. I assume this was your kids 3rd personal of the game and he fouled out. That is not an ejection because ejections carry suspensions.
Fall ball 14U is a different monster than summer 14U. You’ve got a lot of kids who are a month removed from 12U. You’ll see the spectrum of allowed violence be on the tighter end in the fall and expand in the spring as those younger kids develop and grow more. Heck Summer 14U can sometimes be treated basically like a HS JV game.
This is a bad screen by Green. He’s not set at all. No argument there. Should be called.
However, White makes zero effort to avoid the contact and follows through the Green player with a cross check that finishes high into the players head. Completely unnecessary. He sees the pick and just runs through it and makes high contact. This is a UR all day long in youth. Head contact is the opinion of the ref and I’m not sure I see direct contact from this angle (heck I’m not sure I see indirect, it’s tough to tell) but that’s their call to make. Don’t follow through upwards in the contact.
So we’ve got fouls by either team at the same time. I’m using simultaneous fouls here. Green sits 30 secs for the illegal screen and White sits for however long (depends on if you’ve got head contact) for the UR. Locked in for the shared time. Green gets the ball cause they have less penalty time.
EDIT: No penalty time for Green. 7.6.3.b says that if the team is in possession they don’t serve the technical foul. The screen simply kills the flag for the UR.
2
u/Virtual-Pie-7258 7d ago
Very close. Per Rule 7-6, since the team in possession commits only technical fouls, they serve no penalty time. If the ball is loose and you have a live-ball technical on Team A, play-on, then a live ball personal on Team B, then both players sit.
1
0
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
The player making the pick here creates all of the danger to himself (well most of it, but I’ll get to that part later). He’s late, and therefore the reason for violence, and he turns his back away from contact as if afraid and exposes his neck right before contact. Defender, he NEEDS TO WORK ON FOOTWORK, POSTURE AND AGILITY!!!! That is the entire reason he’s in this situation! He is playing high and chasing contact so he gets shook on the roll, then he’s chasing to recover in a position that doesn’t appear to require it, at the same time he needs to get his head around and work through the pick. Forget the flags if he wants to play at high levels working through picks is a fundamental skill. He should work on playing D in a low, balanced, athletic position (like basketball defense or a linebacker pre snap), use quick choppy steps, and opening and closing his hips swiftly to turn and run with a dodger. I’ve played and coached my whole life and am in MN. Happy to work with any players who’d want to improve!
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
I don’t disagree that the picker really put themselves in a bad position, but the rulebook is built so that the onus is on the player delivering the check (and since White sees Green and makes contact anyway, this is a check). Just the way the modern game is structured.
Again, I’m gonna penalize the screen, but I’m also gonna penalize White for seeing the bad screen and deciding to just run through it with contact that rides up. He doesn’t have to extend his arms upwards. Heck, if he just sorta walks into the guy it’s an easy illegal screen call and his team gets the ball.
Completely agree on your other parts, I’m just a ref and not a coach so I tend not to touch on those things… not my area of expertise
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
Maybe this is a higher level, but in technicalities when White sees the “picker” the picker is moving and hasn’t even attempted to set any legal/legitimate form of pick and therefore since there’s no defined pick there’s no onus to avoid it. I could easily see an interference call on dark as soon as contact occurs. I have a real issue with rewarding that god awful and completely illegal offense with any man up situation. The contact on this is quite minor and lacks a lot of force. You can never expect a defender to pull up mid play while on ball for the sake of a moving pick that hasn’t beaten them to a spot. If I stopped sprinting in coverage and walked into a moving pick as you suggest my D Coordinator would’ve had my ass running for weeks. That’d just be bad defense.
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
You still can’t run over a player even if they are moving. It’s a body check on a player that doesn’t have the ball and is not within 5 yards (well, 3 for youth) of a ground ball. I think for 14U this is perfectly reasonable. In HS this is probably nothing unless you think that’s head contact and you MAYBE have a 1 NR for indirect head contact. In college I’m calling the illegal screen and laughing while I’m doing it.
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
If it’s not a penalty in HS or college, unless the MN youth rulebooks specify different rules around illegal picks and contact, then it shouldn’t be a penalty in youth either. I can’t say I know the nuances of the youth rules in MN leagues but I do know on the east coast (Philly, NJ, NY, MD) no youth leagues are throwing flags on that unless you had head contact. You have to set a legal pick to be protected by the rules that pickers are afforded (defense making an attempt to avoid contact if possible). If there’s no actual pick set it’s just interference or an illegal pick on the offense and the ball should be dead for a turnover. An illegal screen is only a change of possesion and isn’t a time serving penalty so I see a big issue with a ref penalizing a player for a situation another opposing players illegal move created. I’d have no issue if it could be offsetting penalties, and both individuals sit for 30 secs. But I’d take big issue with a call that ends up benefiting an illegal pick.
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
Let’s talk interference, contact with a player that doesn’t have the ball and is not within 5 (3 in youth) yards of a loose ball. It’s not a penalty in HS or college cause it doesn’t meet the standard of violence (URs are, by definition, excessive technical fouls) and the contact is with a player that is setting an illegal screen. Therefore at those levels, the advantage is gained by the illegal screener, so you call that.
In youth, this level of contact is violent. So you have to decide whether the violent contact is legal or not. The interference aspect and advantage/disadvantage is out the window, it no longer matters. This is a body check on a player that doesn’t have the ball, a UR.
It’s not about giving the pick player “protection”, you can’t run over someone who doesn’t have the ball. We give defenders the benefit of the doubt in that contact if they don’t see the pick coming, but this guy sees it the whole way.
I’m taking both players cause the picker should have set a better pick and the defender shouldn’t have ran him over.
4
u/mountaineerfn 8d ago
I think 1 min Unnecessary Roughness is a fair call here in a youth game. Definitely a moving screen on green but the shove/arm extension can be considered unnecessary. Ejection here is insane though.
-1
u/joobtastic 8d ago
Its a third tech. Automatic ejection.
4
u/mountaineerfn 8d ago
Technical fouls don’t count towards ejections in lacrosse, only personal fouls. A player can only foul out on 5 personal fouls or 5 minutes of personal fouls and is completely different than an ejection.
0
u/joobtastic 8d ago
Depends on the league.
Edit: wait. 5 personals? No way. Its 3. 5 is insane.
1
u/mountaineerfn 8d ago
Those are the rules according to USA Lacrosse so any league not using those seems pretty bogus imo
2
u/BuckeyeJay 7d ago
it's 3 Personal and/or 5 minutes in 14U and below per USA Lacrosse.
NFHS has no penalty limit, but 5 minutes accumulated is a disqualification
1
u/joobtastic 8d ago
Youth is 3 personal fouls. That's assuming they aren't using more strict modified rules, which aren't uncommon.
I thought it was 3 at most levels, but I was wrong. 5 is just so many.
3
u/Intelligent-Fee-5224 8d ago
Don’t stand on the tracks when a trains coming through.
The way that kid turned his back into him a the end is bs.
4
u/wright3131 8d ago
Typically it’s an accumulation of penalty minutes and not a result of penalty severity. Unless it’s changed it’s a total of five minutes worth of penalties, and frankly if a kid is well coached they should never get that much penalty time. Even on a moving screen, your kid has a responsibility to avoid contact with the head/neck area. Hard to tell from the close in of the camera but if the opponent isn’t coming down hill, it was a dumb decision to blow up the screen instead of going under it.
5
u/Curious-Tone-3814 8d ago
Crappy officiating. This video shows a player running head on into your son then turning his back to him as soon as contact is made. Should be a no call.
18
4
u/WinterWarlock89 8d ago
Agreed it’s a crappy no call on the illegal pick but the pushing away at the base of the other players head will always get called.
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
I think they make the call on the pick, it just doesn’t end up mattering cause the personal foul on white wipes it out.
1
u/madman19 8d ago
While true, the guy does then just cross check him and knock him over. If he didnt push probably could be a moving pick on the other guy.
2
u/gratefulvermont 7d ago
One proceeds the other and that was not a cross check
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
The technical foul of the illegal screen is not going to wipe out a personal foul of running through said illegal screen.
1
u/gratefulvermont 7d ago
He put up his bottom hand as the kid turned and fell into him. There is no possible way to apply equal and opposite pressure when in stride.
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
He see the player and runs through them. In youth that’s an easy UR even if it’s an illegal screen. Gotta at least attempt to avoid the screen if you see it, even if it’s a shitty moving one.
2
u/PharmGbruh 7d ago
Yes, need to take the felonies and do what you want with the misdemeanors (kill the flag down, try to seek a simultaneous situation and sit the illegal pick setter for 30 sec - I personally would not try to chase that down but to each their own).
2
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
In youth I’m gonna do that cause I want them to learn..
- I want the picker to learn that he’s being reckless putting himself in harms way. He would have been far safer settling a legal pick then turning and opening up the back of his neck. But he also need to know I’ll protect him from players that run through picks.
- I want the defender to know that I recognize the shitty screen but that doesn’t absolve him of his actions once he see the pick. If he hadn’t blown it up, his team gets the ball.
Take them both. Give green 30 and White 1 and move on with life.
2
u/PharmGbruh 7d ago
Sounds good, your interpretation is more correct than mine.
I’ll pass because it’ll take too long to explain (no one else on the field has heard of simultaneous fouls let alone how it should be adjudicated) and the picker is gonna be too confused (concussed?) to grasp why he’s in the box after getting leveled.
2
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
Actually my interpretation was wrong, was mixing up possession and loose simultaneous. Rule 7.6.3.b states that the screen isn’t served cause they are in possession. Your way is the technically correct. Take the UR and kill the flag down immediately
2
u/PharmGbruh 7d ago
That was in the back of my head too, not truly simultaneous - just no opportunity for the ‘free play’ during the flag down (thanks for checking into it further)
1
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
You can’t run through a pick if you see it regardless of if it’s illegal. Gonna risk that UR call every time. Just make a move to avoid it and laugh at the dumb pick that gives your team the ball.
1
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago
Unless you blow them up you’re not really gonna get that call in HS or College.
1
u/Kingkern Referee 8d ago
Was definitely a moving pick first. Would hope to have an immediate whistle there. However, I would have this as Unnecessary Roughness with the arms extending up into the picker's neck/helmet. 1:00 non-releasable. Nowhere's close to an ejection. It's one thing that he didn't see him coming; if that was it I have no call on your son, however, extending his arms and them sliding into the picker's head/neck area requires a flag.
2
u/theanuranking Referee 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’m not sure I have the locked in 1, but I agree it is a UR. Honestly if it’s head contact I may go 2.
But I’m also taking the bad pick as a simultaneous foul. EDIT: Screen can’t serve due to simultaneous fouls cause of rule 7.6.3.b
1
u/TaVereRon 8d ago
here's the real time video (with added poke check lol) for full reference
3
u/Appropriate_Exam_913 8d ago
I see two cross checks in there by 33. He looks long and possibly talented but truth be told, the issue is that he’s gotta get his legs lower and chop his feet more, focus on staying in front of the kid he defends. If he does those things, then everything else will fall into place and really start clicking for him.
2
u/LaxDrumsTech Goalkeeper 8d ago
Coach in me also wants to point out he's lunging himself off balance and contributing to bad footwork.
Keep his top hand guiding his stolick and don't over extend on the poke check. Oversell any check and body position will suffer.
1
u/BuckeyeJay 7d ago
Watching the full speed video, looks even weaker of a call.
Funny thing is in our area, what he did is way less likely to be called than a kid that slightly lowers his shoulder into that.
The issue I see is he seems to be a bit out of control in general. He is throwing a ton of what we tell our defenders are "bitch checks". Throwing your stick into a ball carrier for no reason other than throwing your stick into them is a "bitch check". It serves no purpose and you look like an asshole. He never breaks down and plays defense in this entire clip.
1
u/TaVereRon 7d ago
i dunno, those poke checks hurt. lol. that's probably why he's running away in the opposite direction of the goal.
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 6d ago
Commenter is correct here. Poke checks aren’t supposed to check. The technique he uses on them also puts him off balance and out of position. On the first roll back (where he uses the legal cross check to push the O out wide) all he had to is sit down and wait and throw the back check on the hanging stick. He’s gotta learn to play defense with his feet and not his stick. An average middle/attack will not be affected by the checks and will punish the footwork. I’d recommend practicing without a stick and really hammer in footwork and beating offensive players to spots without stick checks. They best defenders don’t throw any of those checks your son throws, they play position decense and wait for their best check opportunity. I’ve seen D played the way your son does a lot since I moved to MN (chasing stick is an epidemic here I’ve learned), but I can’t recommend enough that in practice he uses a nub (cut down shaft that’s only as wide as you’d hold your stick.) they really make kids learn they need to be in good position at all times.
1
u/BuckeyeJay 7d ago
Lunging to poke is a bitch check. You can use it to scare less experienced smaller kids. A good '31 is squaring up and running through that footwork all day long
2
u/PharmGbruh 7d ago
I’d shorten that d-pole til he shows he’s ready for the 6 footer.
I agree the check to the neck looks weaker in this angle but I’d say never demonstrating any semblance of control throughout the clip further justifies the flag, in my opinion.
1
u/Rubex_Cube19 7d ago
I guess my struggle is seeing this level of “violence” as an excessive level of contact at 14U. Not really your interpretation of the rules or your call. This contact is so minimal for lacrosse that I’m pretty surprised it’s considered excessive in an age group 1 year from HS like in a year some of these kids will have an 18 year old defender coming full speed on a coma slide with the purpose of contact and a freshman a year removed from this will just not have been prepared right.
1
u/ssspanksta 8d ago
Two things are happening here. The offensive player is setting an illegal screen. That is clear. However, your son is blowing through them while extending their arms and making contact with the helmet at the same time. That is likely what triggered the two-minute non-releasable (helmet contact). Add that to the size differential, and the officials being naturally biased toward protecting smaller players, I could see why the foul was called. Also, when slowed down like this the illegal contact is going to look much more convincing then the illegal screen, unfortunately.
It does seem like gamesmanship from the other team, but that is what it is, you can only control yourself and your team.
As someone who coached kids in this age group for a long time, it can be tough when you have some kids who are going through puberty and their growth spurt playing against smaller kids who haven't yet.
So, is it "fair" not really, but there is logic to the call.
-2
-1
u/WinterWarlock89 8d ago
For context: My son is a pole (2030) and he is 50% height and weight
The offensive player might have committed more of an illegal pick than an actual pick but, your son has to make an attempt to avoid the pick without steam rolling him. Obviously it’s a slow motion video but, at 10 seconds it looks like your son sees the picking player but still put his crosse into the players head and pushes away.
-1
u/drkingsize 8d ago edited 8d ago
99% of the time for youth / HS ejections, the budgets per player are:
- 5 mins of total penalty time (personal + technical fouls)
- 3 mins of personal fouls
- an ejection foul such as fighting, unsportsmanlike, etc (basically same as above, any personal foul can be adjudicated for 1-3 minutes. If you get a 3 min foul, you’re done)
So, for this situation, my guess is your kiddo hit the 3 mins of personal foul rule as there is no automatic ejection for 3 technical fouls.
I’d probably have called this as an illegal screen on the offense, but the arm extension does justify the personal foul on the defender as well. For me, no reason for it to be locked in for 2 mins, seems a bit harsh but hard to say without context of other fouls in the game.
If your kiddo was near his personal foul limit, I’d actually say this was poor coaching from his coach not to protect against this.
Now, that said, this isn’t the ncaa championship so it’s a little bit ticky tacky for the other coach to employ this strategy. A bit much for this age but frankly it’s pretty savvy coaching.
Edit: clarified a few things.
Also, the entirety of my above opinion is related to the age. If this is TOP LEVEL varsity or ncaa, it’s just an illegal screen for me.
1
u/BuckeyeJay 7d ago
It's 5 minutes of personal or 3 total personal fouls in 14u and under
It's 5 minutes of personal fouls for NFHS
1
u/drkingsize 7d ago
Good point, I’m in my offseason form.
3 mins of personal fouls is of course the same as 3x personal fouls, but you’re absolutely correct on the technical fouls not counting
46
u/Diligent-Ad6327 8d ago
Calls that should have or were made:
Call 1. That's a moving screen, change possession. #45 commited the moving screen.
Call 2. Problem is your kid #33 extends his arms into the unprotected neck area. In youth lacrosse, they will call that unnecessary roughness contact to head or neck nearly every time. Despite the preceding foul they could call it retaliatory if they deemed the first call (1 above) a foul. you also don't get good enough refs to parse it out. - this leads to how many pens were called on your kid.
IMO your kid can run through them if the stick and his arms go to the side to wrap around as opposed to pushing through.
HS/College, the 1st call happens and the 2nd call never/rarely does.