"Keeping it in" is too easy!

[speach]

I've wondered for a while now whether the Stalling Rule in the ILF rules, that we basically play to in England, works as it should?

We introduced the Stalling Rule a while ago, giving the Referee quite a bit of discretion as to when it can be imposed. However, on a full-size pitch like Spencer's, for example, it is too easy to keep the ball in the opposing team's goal area (the last quarter of the pitch that you are attacking). I feel that the time has come to adopt the NCAA approach and have a "box" and thus a smaller area in which to keep the ball in.

As I say, I've thought this for a while but, having refereed Spencer v Hampstead yesterday, it felt as if the Stalling Rule is inadequate as Hampstead were easily able to hold the ball in the goal area in the last two or so minutes. It goes without saying that there is no criticism implied by what I say, as Hampstead simply played to the rules.

It would be interesting to know what other players and officials think about this?

[Raptor_attack]

Surely this only affects certain grounds, the majority of pitches don't have this problem. I see no need to change for the exception rather than the rule.

[Tom_Southampton]

I think the box is inherrently more sensible, its relatively easy to keep the ball infront of the restrainer without threatening goal (which i gather is the idea) by taking it to the corner that said, its yet annother line to get marked up that groundsmen may not want/be allowed to add to a borrowed pitch.

[DommoBath]

I remember a few years ago at the Uni West tournament at Bath, on a pitch which could not be described as massive, we were 3-1 up with a minute to go, the ref called keep it in, I jogged to the corner with the ball, and held the ball for about 45 seconds of it before I drew 2 men and passed off to the free man nnear me - did seem a bit easy. I wouldn't even say what I was doing was in the spirit. It would certainly put more pressure on teams in a similar situation to above.

[Ash]

Whilst i can see the point of "keep it in", to keep the game flowing (and keep it interesting to spectators) as possession is easier to retain than in most sports. I think its a bit of a strange rule, can't think of another sport which penalises you for playing well and getting ahead for the rest of the game. I'm not really sure why if you are 9-7 down with 3 minutes to go, you deserve to get an advantage to help you get possession back, should have played better earlier and got ahead yourself.

But to the point in hand, the box probably is a little on the big side for higher standard lacrosse, ie prem and equivalent. In the lower leagues its probably less of an issue, as there are more unforced errors and handling skills generally aren't as good which generally means some decent pressure can lead to a turnover or someone leaving the box.

[kiddo]

Whilst i can see the point of "keep it in", to keep the game flowing (and keep it interesting to spectators) as possession is easier to retain than in most sports. I think its a bit of a strange rule, can't think of another sport which penalises you for playing well and getting ahead for the rest of the game. I'm not really sure why if you are 9-7 down with 3 minutes to go, you deserve to get an advantage to help you get possession back, should have played better earlier and got ahead yourself.

But to the point in hand, the box probably is a little on the big side for higher standard lacrosse, ie prem and equivalent. In the lower leagues its probably less of an issue, as there are more unforced errors and handling skills generally aren't as good which generally means some decent pressure can lead to a turnover or someone leaving the box.

I aggree with the point that the winning team shouldnt be penalised for being ahead and therefore think that the rule should stay the same. There are obviously slight differences in pitch sizes but in general it does make it harder for the attacking side and if the losing team wanted the ball bad enough it should be up to them to get it back rather than relying on rules and restrictions.

[mishy]

just to play devils advocate .... isnt this a problem with the intensity of the game here than with the rules??

imagine it the other way - if spencer had the ball in their attack and it was the hampsters defending (or a northern team) would there have been the same issue? They are well drilled and know how to attack the ball in that situation ...

ok, so maybe a bad example, spencers attack is pretty good, but you get my point ....

[Mr.Stanford]

why not adjust the rule, rather than the pitch?

Put in something along the lines of 'making an attempt towards goal' or the like?

I think the current rule is fine. Forces the D to throw out some interesting moves like bringing the goalie out!

[Mr. Chainsaw]

Just for fun and sorry I gotta keep brining up US rules but the restraining box is even bigger here. The sides aren't even brought in at all so really it should be no problem keeping it in the box. There is also no clearing penalty for stalling which in the US is 10 secs to get it out of the defending restraining box and you can't go back into it once you get out of it then once you cross the mid line you have 10secs to get it into the offensive box. The game is different here and that is a good thing. I feel that this diffence in the rules is more condusive to the UK playing style, don't change your rules or how you guys play over here its awesome! If you want faster play there should be more box leagues.

[mandy]

But how often do you see teams killing the ball here compared to US leagues? I'd hazard a guess at a lot less often despite the smaller box - that might be fewer close games admittedly but ...

why not adjust the rule, rather than the pitch?

Put in something along the lines of 'making an attempt towards goal' or the like?

The main problem with that is it introduces ref's interpretation into it as well - which can be different to players!

I think the current rule is fine. Forces the D to throw out some interesting moves like bringing the goalie out!

With that I agree

[KagedAnimal]

I don't know, I see the value of both sides of the debate here and I'm not really sure where I stand on it truthfully. As an American player I do find it incredibly easy to stall the game here in the UK. The no time penalty for clears is just another way for stalling the game.

For example, at yesterday's Blues/Hitchin flags match, with about 6 or 7 minutes to go in the match I took nearly 30 seconds walking the ball from the end line to the goal line, when a slide eventually came I dumped the ball off to a defender who took another 10 seconds before hitting a pass over the mid line. In the rules, yes. Should Hitchin have pressured me more? Doesnt matter. I just dont like rules that allow teams to sit on the ball and allow the clock to run down.

Wont stop me from slowing the game down if it is within the laws, but I do think the game is better served with legitimate clearing time rules (20s to get to the mid line, 10s to get into the box - ask Cornell or Syracuse their opinion on the matter) and offensive stalling rules.

[mandy]

I don't know, I see the value of both sides of the debate here and I'm not really sure where I stand on it truthfully. As an American player I do find it incredibly easy to stall the game here in the UK. The no time penalty for clears is just another way for stalling the game.

For example, at yesterday's Blues/Hitchin flags match, with about 6 or 7 minutes to go in the match I took nearly 30 seconds walking the ball from the end line to the goal line, when a slide eventually came I dumped the ball off to a defender who took another 10 seconds before hitting a pass over the mid line. In the rules, yes. Should Hitchin have pressured me more? Doesnt matter. I just dont like rules that allow teams to sit on the ball and allow the clock to run down.

Wont stop me from slowing the game down if it is within the laws, but I do think the game is better served with legitimate clearing time rules (20s to get to the mid line, 10s to get into the box - ask Cornell or Syracuse their opinion on the matter) and offensive stalling rules.

but with one (two if you're lucky) ref per game how is he going to manage timing all that that plus offsides plus looking at all the off-ball infringements on a clear? If a single ref can manage all those at the same time and get them all right every time then a debate may be started, until then ....

[clclaxman]

can't think of another sport which penalises you for playing well and getting ahead for the rest of the game.

Any game with a shot clock - basketball to name one easily.

[Wezalmighty]

why not adjust the rule, rather than the pitch?

Put in something along the lines of 'making an attempt towards goal' or the like?

I think the current rule is fine. Forces the D to throw out some interesting moves like bringing the goalie out!

I always thought that once the stalling warning is in effect, if the attacking team still does not attempt progress towards goal then its a change of possession.

At least that's how I've had it called before.

[speach]

Once you've got the ball into the goal area, you've satisfied the rule, and just have to keep it in. I've read all of the postings the last couple of days with great interest, but I keep coming back to the fact that the goal area is too big an area.

As to time clocks where you have to adavnce the ball in a set period of time, I think that is too complicated for our game and, in many ways, too American (no offence intended). The Referee's discretion works well and a good Referee can work out when a team is stalling, and when they are playing a clever move to get the defence out of position as they advance the ball.

I remember an FA Cup Final a while ago where the team (Arsenal I think) held onto the ball by the corner flag for the last four or five minutes and I thought it was an awful advert for the game.

[stemcdlax23]

I agree with Simon on this one. There is nothing worse than watching a team who are 7 or 8 goals up, holding the ball with no attempt to keep pressing forward. It's so dull to watch teams effectively stop playing when they think they have the game won.

I personally would like to see an introduction of both a clearing clock (20 seconds over halfway) and a halfway to restrainer 'box' clock (10 seconds to get in the 'box') as in NCAA games, it makes turn overs much more likely and also allows the game to be played with a lot more attacking potential. Sure people are going to still stall the ball, but why not make it a little more challenging?

I have only ever played in one tournament with these rules (British Nationals about 5 or 6 years ago maybe) and it really added a different dimension to the game and I personally really enjoyed it.

[Sour37]

Ste, that's all very good and well when you've got a long bench...but with 13 on a heavy muddy pitch?

I'd rather not!

[conrad]

The area seemed pretty big when I spent the last two minutes chasing the ball around trying to get a double team

[dmiddie]

I agree with Simon on this one. There is nothing worse than watching a team who are 7 or 8 goals up, holding the ball with no attempt to keep pressing forward. It's so dull to watch teams effectively stop playing when they think they have the game won.

I personally would like to see an introduction of both a clearing clock (20 seconds over halfway) and a halfway to restrainer 'box' clock (10 seconds to get in the 'box') as in NCAA games, it makes turn overs much more likely and also allows the game to be played with a lot more attacking potential. Sure people are going to still stall the ball, but why not make it a little more challenging?

I have only ever played in one tournament with these rules (British Nationals about 5 or 6 years ago maybe) and it really added a different dimension to the game and I personally really enjoyed it.

The only really effective way of using a clock is if its visible to the players..... as in the NCAA. In this country, at every game, no chance! If its down to the ref on the pitch then all you're doing is heaping even more on the ref, and it won't work!! That ideal world exists at international level, and in the NCAA.

[Ketts19]

What about a scenario similar to a flag-down call where the team with teh abll doesn't just have to stay within the box but also make progress to the goal? In this situation the ball can also only go round the back of goal twice ( i think ).

This would negate the need for the ref to count something extra, noly requiring obersvation of the attacking team's intent to go to goal ratehr than stall. However this does take the stalling aspect out of the game entirely and in many ways it can be a skilled aspect of a good offense to keep the ball for 2+ minutes to close out a game, especially on a postage stamp pitch