Face off sticks

Forum Questions

Question File

DuBan's Answer:

Kratz's Answer:

McCarrick's Answer:

Riti's Answer:

Tyma's Answer:

Relevant statutes:
<ul>
 	<li>4.3.3 .k (p. 33):  "It is illegal to kick, step on, or place any other body part to his crosse or the crosse of the opponent.  It is illegal for a faceoff player to use his crosse to hold or pin down a player's crosse."</li>
 	<li>4.3.3.l (loc. cit.):  "It is illegal for a player to use his hand or fingers to play the ball.  This shall be enforced immediately as an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  Inadvertent touching of the ball when the hand is grasping the stick should not be called as an unsportsmanlike conduct foul."</li>
 	<li>4.3.3.m (loc. cit.):  "It is illegal for a player to grab an opponent's crosse with the open hand or fingers.  This shall be enforced immediately as an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty."</li>
 	<li>6.5.2.b.2 (p. 69):  "The following are examples of illegal procedure...Illegal actions with crosse -- A player shall not: ...</li>
</ul>
2.  Take part in the play of the game in any manner without his crosse.
(a)  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 whistle shall be employed by the official."
This rare gem of a circumstance will live forever in global visibility, thanks to a photograph of it in the April 28, 2018, edition of the Asbury Park Press.

I have been unable to find a rule that directly covers this circumstance, so I suggest the rules listed above for consideration.  Last first:  the player who lost his crosse did so in a legal way, and he was right to step away from play.  Had he grabbed for his crosse, he would have had a problem:  reaching for the crosse is participation in the play, and that cannot be done legally.  Therefore, a slow whistle would technically be called for, per 6.5.b.2.2(2).  The officials let play continue, and the faceoff player who gained possession shook his opponent's crosse out, without touching it with his hand (which would have been illegal), thus obviating the need for a slow whistle.

The question is whether play should have been stopped sooner.  Once the faceoff player has control of his opponent's crosse, he is technically in violation of 4.3.3.k:  he is holding his opponent's crosse, whether he meant to do so or not.  Normally, officials use this statute when the holding involves pinning the faceoff opponent's crosse to the ground; but holding is holding.

What we learn from 4.3.3.l and 4.3.3.m is that USC comes from using the hand (not a crosse) to grab an opponent's crosse and that inadvertent touching of the ball is not a foul.  Since the crosse was not grabbed by a hand, the foul is not USC.  And since inadavertence results in dispensation from a foul when it involves touching the ball, one could argue that the statutes' intent is that inadvertence also forgives a crosse grabbing another crosse, as in the case at hand.

Finally, the winning faceoff player was given an advantage he hadn't earned when the player who lost his crosse stepped away, as required by the rules.  (This is unlike the case when a player's crosse is legally checked out of his hands; his removal from play is an advantage that was earned.)  Particularly since this was a close game (as reported by the Press), it might be prudent not to allow the unearned advantage.  Nobody fouled, so no possession should be awarded due to an infraction, either.

I can clearly see the case for the officials on the field going the slow-whistle route, as they did.  But I might be inclined to cite "what-the-heck" and reface.

&nbsp;

Answer File

Question Answered