Hypothetical situation

[stevenstat]

This has, to the best of my knowledge, never occurred, but I would like to get some other opinions on an interpretation question.

Player A1 is all alone in front of B's net, trying to deke the goaltender. Defenseman B1 comes from behind and checks him. A1 keeps his balance and stays out of his crease, but it is a rainy day and the crosse, with the ball in it, flies over the goaltender's head into the goal (with the ball still in it, at least until it hits the ground inside the goal). What is the call?

In case some people would like to put in their 2 cents before I give my opinion (I have already had time to think about it) I will withhold my reasoning. I will say that unless someone persuades me otherwise, I would rule it a goal and a man-down faceoff.

[Snake~eyes]

No goal, call it an illegal procedure. Then I assume the check is a body check, which would be an illegal bodycheck, 1 minute PF. A1's ball outside the box.

Rule 6.5.2
Art.2 Illegal actions with crosse - A player shall not:
a. Throw his crosse under any circumstances.
b. Take part in the play of the game in any manner without his crosse.
...1.Should a player lose his crosse in any legal way, so that repossession of the crosse would cause him to violate a rule, the slow wihistle shall be employed by an official.
...2. Should the crosse be in the crease so as to possibly interfere with the goalkeeper's play of an attempted shot at the goal, play shall be suspeneded immediately.

That should do it.

[RILAX]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
That should do it.

If it does not also see 4.8 sit E of the case book (A.R. 46 of Rule 4 of NCAA).

A1 throws his crosse with the ball in it, deliberately of accidentally, into the goal. Ruling: No goal.

[stevenstat]

The "accidental throw", I believe, is to cover a situation where a player goes to pass or shoot and the stick flies out of his hands - he provided the momentum, even though accidentally. This player did NOT "throw" his crosse. He was clearly trying to deke and got hit and it flew out of his hands.

He did not participate without his crosse. He just stood there after he lost his crosse, and a second later the crosse and ball were in the goal, which ends the play whether or not you award the goal.

The slow-whistle technique is employed, but there is clearly no flag down, and in any case, the play does not end (whistle blow) until the ball hits the ground inside the crease.

The crosse made no contact with the goaltender and is now in the goal, not in the crease, so it did not interfere with the goaltender.

So I don't think any of these precisely applies, but I will agree it requires a tortuous parsing of the rulebook.

[RILAX]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

...2. Should the crosse be in the crease so as to possibly interfere with the goalkeeper's play of an attempted shot at the goal, play shall be suspeneded immediately.

Was the crosse in the crease? Yes.

You said that it flew over the goalkeeper’s head.

All that the crosse has to is possible interfere with the goalkeeper.

The crosse flying at the goalkeeper does meet this provision.

Also the basic definition of a goal is a loose ball that crosses the plane of the goal. A ball in the crosse is not a loose ball. No goal.

This is just a SOL situation for the attackman, kind of like a situation where an attackman gets pushed into the crease before the ball crosses the goal line.

[ChuckElias]

Also, the definition of a "goal" used to include the phrase "loose ball". As in, a goal is scored when a loose ball completely crosses over the goal line. (I don't know if that definition has changed recently. I haven't reffed lax in about 4 years.)

If the ball is still in the crosse, then it's not loose, so it can't be a goal. This ensures that a goalie can't score on his own goal by accidentally putting the ball across the goal line when he brings the ball back to pass it out of the crease.