Colorado Mammoth Message Board

Mr. Govett,

I was wondering if you could shed more detail on crease violations for us? I have searched the rule book and the rule seems to lack detail.

#1 Does the line itself count as part of the crease? Meaning you touch the line and it is a violation.

#2 When diving through the crease and shooting does the ball need to break the plane of the goal prior to "touchdown" or simply leave the players stick prior to "touchdown"?

Any detail you can provide would be fantastic.

_________________
No one's taller than
the last man standing.

Good question and yes the rulebook is somewhat unclear about crease violations. Believe it or not when the competition committee writes the rules and then the referees read the rules, there are some things that we assume in the process. However, that lends for some confusion when fans read the rule book and are left scatching their heads because it is not specifically spelled out.

1. The line is in fact part of the crease. The outer edge of the line determines a crease violation, similar to the white out of bounds line in the NFL, once you see a shoe cross that line and touch down on the white or inside the white line of the crease it is a violation.

2. Yes, the ball must completely cross the entire goal line prior to the player "touching" any part of the crease, including the goalie. If a player lands in the crease prior to the ball entering the net it should be disallowed. If a player's stick touches the goalie in the act of shooting priot to the ball going across the line, the goal should be disallowed.

Also, if another offensive player is inside the crease when the ball enters the goal it is also dissallowed.

This is one of the hardest calls in sports because you must watch the feet, the stick and the ball all at the same time. Referees must be in the proper position and watch every aspect, its definately not easy in the split second that is required to get it right.

Hope that helps.

SG

In womanÂ’s rules if your stick breaks the plain of the crease than that is considered a crease violation. Is this true for menÂ’s as well?

I saw that the stick can not touch the goalie, but I am not sure what is called if the players stick crosses the plain.

Perfect! Thanks Steve. Sheds a little light on the Sims goal that was not counted.It looked as though the ball left his stick then his elbow touched then the ball broke the plane. Maybe it was a good call afterall.

_________________
No one's taller than
the last man standing.

It's definitely not because there is usually at least one time in each game where the ball is on the ground in the crease and the offensive player is trying to poke it in under the goalie. But the player is making sure to keep his feet outside the crease.

That and the diving shots.

_________________
No one's taller than
the last man standing.

Oh yeah. Can't forget Langtry.

In woman's your stick is considered an extension of your body. I was not sure if that was the case in men's

In the indoor game as in the professional outdoor game you can break the plane of the goal crease or the "cylinder" (the extension of the crease from the ground straight up) with any part of your body as long as you leave the floor prior to entering the crease. Thus, the dive is legal as long as you leave from outside the crease and don't land before the ball enters the net.

You are also allowed to fake into the crease and bring you stick out and shoot as long as you stay outside the crease.

With Sims' goal I think it might have been a missed call, I don't think he hit the ground before the ball went in. Debatable, I guess, but I think the referee thought he saw his foot in the crease, tough call to make as I said in my last post.

In the off season, we did clean up the "poke" shot and the "air gait" shot. The poke is now disallowed, you must gain possession and throw it in the net, you are allowed to pick up a loose ball in the crease but you can no longer poke it in. Too many potential "situations" were occuring and we decided these "ugly" goals should be cleaned up.

We cleaned up the air gait because it was too difficult at times to determine whether the ball actually struck the goalie on its way into the net. The ball can now go off the goalie into the net on a dive initiated behind the goal HOWEVER, the head of the stick must now come above the plane of the goal line extended in order to count as a dive shot.

A player can't stand behind the net and deliberately "bank it" off the goalie with a shot initiated from behind the net. The ball must be able to go in the net without the goalie in the net, this is a legal dive shot provided all other crease violations are not committed.

Hope this helps, sorry if it just creates more confusion!!!!!!

SG

Haha, I'd actually LOVE to see that one sometime. It's like playing wall ball for goals!

Another great answer, Steve.

As I mentioned in another thread, I think the changes to the rule surrounding the "Air Gait" make it damn near perfect now.

I hadn't realized you couldn't poke it in anymore. I bet the players were trying to rake the ball now.

Thanks for the answer, Mr. Govett!

Mr. Govett,
Was this variation of the rule the reason for the officials waving off Gill’s second consecutive “no-goal” last night?
If memory serves, both the ball and Gill were in the air when his shot came, not a poke while the ball was laying in the crease.

_________________
Go Hawks.

Looking back on the replays of the 2 consectutive no goal calls both goals looked to be good, both shots hit the back of the net before the players touched the goalie or the ground, and the players took off from behind the line.

On top of Ronin's question, what signal is given by the refs if the call falls under the "poke rule" for goal disallowed? It it just the No Goal signal?

All good questions...

In the Thursday night Rochester game, Chris Gill had two goals called back and another he felt was across the line but not counted.

On the first, Chris picked the ball up and shot it in the net, it looked good from where I was but after reviewing the play his stick made contact with the goaltenders stick in this instance so the goal should have been waved off.

In the second instance, he appears to bat the ball with the mesh of his stick into the goal. This is a tough call, I would argue that he gained possession and directed the ball into the goal with his stick. This appeared to me to be a good goal but apparently the official saw it differently as it was called a no goal. I will assume that the official thought that he batted it in with the head of his stick and didn't actually gain possession. This is a tough judgement call and it could have gone either way. These are the breaks of the game. I wouldn't "blame" anyone for this one, it happened very quickly and I have had the luxury of multiple replays from multiple angles to make my determination.

The signal is a simple washout signal, there is no specific signal for a tap in, the referee will simple cross his arms and then extend them in the traditional washout call.

I have seen some question elsewhere as to whether or not a player in the crease has bearing on a goal. The technical approach to the crease violation is that any player in the crease or on the crease line, whether he is pushed in or there on his own volition regardless of his proximity to the play at the time the ball crosses the goal line will result in a "no goal" call.

Hope that helps clear some things up.

SG

In the Jax/Stealth game last night, Zywicki had one of the most incredible goals you'll ever see, but imo it was the *exact* same thing as what Gill did the other night against Rochester, only this one was a few feet further back from the crease and nobody was in between.

He kind of went back across his body, lunged for the ball swinging his stick, and in one motion "caught" the ball while it was on the ground and shot it for a goal. A real sick move that you have to respect.

But as I said, it was basically the same thing that Gill did. Yet, Zywicki's goal stood.

So, I'm not sure I like the "poke rule" for this very reason, because it really hasn't cleared anything up, but apparently has made things even more open to interpretation by the officials based on what they can or cannot see, who's around the crease, etc.