is there such a thing as unnecessary roughness?

[Guy_O]

Hi All,

Last week one of our guys came up with an argument about the unnecessary roughness rule. Is there such a thing?

If you slash someone then its a slash
push in the back.. well pretty obvious

so as I sit here in my hungover state I thought I would ask 2 questions.

what exactly constitutes unnecessary roughness

and

isn't it all covered by the other rules? slash, push in the back, interference, illegal body check etc?

for example I was called on it once. I dropped the ball. turned and went straight for the player running to pick it up rather then try and get the ball. As I connected I then took a step back and went for him again. In my mind that is a man ball. another of my team picked the ball up. job done. however the ref called it as he said I needed to cool off as i didn't seem interested in the ball but just wanted to take out aggression on another player.. I was frustrated and for me to keep my head it probably was the right call.... but then again i was playing within the rules...

another one is one of our players ran at a player and as he turned our player nailed him. it was completely legal and he hit him square in the chest but was called....

your thoughts people?

[webby]

It is there to allow the referees to deem whether you have used an unnecessary amount of force, violence or aggression in whatever act you do. It is down to their discretion. I'm sure someone will post the exact wording of the rule but I can't be bothered looking for it at the moment. In terms of your examples, the referee clearly deemed that you were playing the man off the ball with an unnecessary amount of force/aggression, when you could have a) picked up the ball yourself or b) blocked him from the ball without the same amount of force you used. With your team mate, he may have taken too big a run up when he hit the other player, or may have "blind-sided" him, making what would have been a legal hit unnecessarily violent or dangerous.

I agree there is a lot of leeway with the rule and it can be annoying but it is there to protect the players on the field.

True, you could argue that everything is covered by other rules. If you wanted to, or you forgot the names of the different calls, you could call an entire game using just the illegal procedure and unnecessary roughness penalties.

[Tree13]

mens_rules.php#74

The rule is there, clear as mud. I personally don't like it precisely because it is open to such enormous subjectivity (note the absence of AR's in comparison to other rules) and therefore consistency in the manner it is applied by different refs is..... sporadic.

The wording is interesting though, in that it was clearly drafted with good intentions in mind.

74.1 appears to offer a means by which a ref can upgrade a technical (in the instances of holding or pushing) to a personal by citing the level of force as being "over the top". Given that five personals = spectator, someone repeatedly committing excessively forceful pushes in the back in loose ball situations will find themselves being punished appropriately, whereas otherwise they would simply surrender possession.

74.2 interpreted literally would unfairly favour the attacker over the defender, in that an attacker doing the same thing to a defender would not be penalised (like they don't have enough advantages already!). Before anyone bleats it would never happen, think about a slow clear from keeper to defenders, using picks to block off an attacker.

74.3 Is so vague it's pointless, but it's obviously a nod towards player safety and discipline. Maybe it's the difference between a slash within the play of the game and someone just whacking a player repeatedly while he's on the floor? With clarification and better wording, it could be a useful rule.

As for Webby's examples, I simply disagree. Taking more than a certain number of steps as you run in to hit someone is an absurd reason to call a foul. Nick Blackwell can cover half the field in four strides because he's 6'5; it takes me twice as many steps, but he hits WAY harder than me. Blindsiding is a misnomer: you've either hit the guy legally (below shoulder & above waist, in the front) or you haven't - the fact he didn't see you coming is irrelevant. Head on a swivel, and all that.

And regarding the OP: if the ball is on the floor and you and an opponent are within nine feet, I see no reason why you shouldn't play the man. If the ref wants to penalise you for winning the physical battle, just shrug and smile. I wouldn't have flagged you but that doesn't make my interpretation right and your ref's call wrong. Some of the rules are silly and sometimes the ref is wrong, but without BOTH we would have no game. If you aren't the zebra, you don't get to make the call. What would help would be the rugby approach, whereby the ref explains WHY he considers it a foul - that way players can avoid repetition of the same offence. Some refs are brilliant at this, others less so.

[S_24_LAX]

Mr Balmer - I'd love to quote some if that last paragraph to you when reffing you - in the heat if battle and all of that.

On the whole though fairly put - evening I disagree on some elements.

"Unneccessaary Roughness" is fundamentally a judgement call by the stripey. As one myself a call I think intact only made once, maybe twice. I cannot talk about the situations quoted because i was not there.

If you look from the outside in and some one us going over the top. It may be prudent to call as U R to calm the situation.

Play to the ref - right or wrong - it ain't gonna change

[UKLaxfan]

Good question

My interpretation is that you know it when you see it

Example:
Scenario 1 - Loose ball and defender is standing over ball trying to pick ball up by his feet with a pole unsuccessfully, attacker rushes in to Groundball battle and doesn't stop in time and contacts defender in the back while trying to slow down stop.
Result = loose ball push possession goes to defensive team.

Scenario 2: as above but attacker accelerates into the hit and uses full force to hit defender in the back with a body check and knock him over.
The outcome is the same as defender ends up on the floor but the attacker used more force/aggression than was necessary and took advantage of a situation where defender was vulnerable to inflict a big hit (revenge?) on him.
Result = Unnecessary Roughness - one minute personal foul Free Clear at halfway line and a man in the penalty box.

At what point you decide whether it was incidental contact or unnecessary roughness is a subjective call for the referee but that's why they get the big bucks

The wording is ambiguous and very subjective but in some ways that is a good thing as it can be used as a catch all, where is it clear that an overtly violent act has happened but doesn't directly fit into other areas.

In the college game in the states UR is usually called where a body check was legal in all the specific criteria but was above and beyond the level of force necessary to get the job done.

The Big Hits where you see a player get blown up or decleated that make the highlight reels are usually UR calls, and they are called to stop the game getting out of hand because the alternative is if you don't call it is that the next hit will be bigger and more violent and both teams end up in a free-for-all .

Sometimes when a defence is trying to impose themselves on an opponent, it is not such a bad call for a defender to pay the price of a one minute personal foul if the attacker then thinks twice before going to goal or starts to "hear footsteps". As penalties go it is less worrying for a coach to have a player hit too hard then to get the same penalty for mouthing off to the ref or CBO which drive Coaches bonkers and are just selfish stupid penalties that cost the whole team.

It is a hard enough physically intense sport anyway when you play within the rules without getting into situations where players are deliberately trying to injure an opponent.

10p

[Tree13]

Mr Balmer - I'd love to quote some if that last paragraph to you when reffing you - in the heat if battle and all of that.

Always happy to discuss a fine point of the law with a zebra. Of the five games I've played in this season I've only been penalised in one. I'd consider myself to be a player who observes the rules keenly..... trash-talking aside, of course

"Unneccessaary Roughness" is fundamentally a judgement call by the stripey.

And therein lies the inherent flaw in the rule. If it is subjective by nature, consistency is impossible. For instance, when and where would you call unnecessary roughness in relation to a hold? Where is it defined in the rule so that other refs may apply the same call in similar situations? It isn't.

If you look from the outside in and some one us going over the top. It may be prudent to call as U R to calm the situation.

Actually I'd disagree both as a player AND a ref here. Call the foul if it's a foul. Don't call a legal play illegal just because someone's playing hard. Calling an inherently subjective pejorative infraction just because you can simply inflames the situation. Rugby refs will speak to the captain, or the player in question accompanied by his captain and this calms the situation by A: stopping play and B: not subjecting any player to a perceived unfair call.

Play to the ref - right or wrong - it ain't gonna change

On this we agree

[Muz]

I set a behind goal pick a couple of weeks ago and the the on ball D man saw me and accelerated whist putting his head down from about 5 feet away. Unnecessary roughness? My left shoulder thinks so

[jivingjohn]

I set a behind goal pick a couple of weeks ago and the the on ball D man saw me and accelerated whist putting his head down from about 5 feet away. Unnecessary roughness? My left shoulder thinks so

But I guess therein lies the subjective-ness of the rule.

The defender is marking his man, and he must do all he can to keep marking his man.

I was taught 4 options in your situation from a defensive perspective:

1. Go over you
2. Go under you
3. Go through you
4. Switch

If he's going to go through you, which may be his teammates decision (i.e. the guy marking you while you set the pick) he's not going to slow down as he runs at you. He also might need to speed up because the attacker has also recognised the pick and is accelerating towards it. Furthermore, if you're a sturdy chap (as we all know you are ;P ) he is going to need to speed up to get through the pick.

Of course I don't know the specifics of your situation, and am certainly not a ref, but was asked about this on the weekend.

I think the rule has to be the ref's judgement, but the examples that were being explained to me at the time all involved the person potentially infringing the rule needing to play less hard or run less hard to avoid drawing the foul.

[steveg]

I set a behind goal pick a couple of weeks ago and the the on ball D man saw me and accelerated whist putting his head down from about 5 feet away. Unnecessary roughness? My left shoulder thinks so

Not sure about unnessary roughness for this but if he put his head down and speared you that is one of the points of emphasis for refs this season and perhaps should have been called.

[Moaning Git]

If 22 stone of flesh and bone lumbers at speed 20 yards to hit 10 stone nothing of 16 year old with both hands together on the stick in the middle of the chest sending the youngster over backwards so their helmet contacts the floor with a crack that can be heard across the field, that is Unnecessary Roughness, clear and simple. And such hits do appear on the field, so the rule is needed and in my mind can be clearly defined under a refs primary responsibility which is the safety of players.

[S_24_LAX]

Been thinking about this and can only remember making this call once in all the games I have reffed.

I assume Mr Balmer I was the stripey the day you picked up your one foul in the five games.

[Tree13]

I set a behind goal pick a couple of weeks ago and the the on ball D man saw me and accelerated whist putting his head down from about 5 feet away. Unnecessary roughness? My left shoulder thinks so

Not sure about unnessary roughness for this but if he put his head down and speared you that is one of the points of emphasis for refs this season and perhaps should have been called.

Agree. The call I would consider appropriate here is illegal takeout: mens_rules.php#70 - the situation Muz describes would be a contravention of both 70.1 and 70.5. Less ambiguity about it, so for my mind the better call.

If 22 stone of flesh and bone lumbers at speed 20 yards to hit 10 stone nothing of 16 year old with both hands together on the stick in the middle of the chest sending the youngster over backwards so their helmet contacts the floor with a crack that can be heard across the field, that is Unnecessary Roughness, clear and simple.

Except it's NOT clear and simple, because the rule is not written that way. It's ambiguous enough that we're all here discussing it and finding that we have differing opinions.

And such hits do appear on the field, so the rule is needed and in my mind can be clearly defined under a refs primary responsibility which is the safety of players.

Out of interest what is your take on sports such as rugby and American Football? Both feature collisions between players who can and often do differ considerably in size, speed, weight and age. Simon Shaw, Bakkies Botha or Sebastian Chabal tackling Peter Stringer or Ronan O'Gara would be similar to the scenario you describe, should the laws of rugby be re-written to call that a foul?

Been thinking about this and can only remember making this call once in all the games I have reffed.

I assume Mr Balmer I was the stripey the day you picked up your one foul in the five games.

To clarify, I didn't say I'd only been penalised once, I said I'd only been penalised in one game.... got a season's worth in one afternoon. And upon reflection that's actually not true as I did get a loose-ball push against me this weekend. But yes, your assumption is correct. For the record, I disagree with all your calls, purely as a reflex .... apart from the unsportsmanlike conduct one, I was out of order there.

[UKLacrosse]

I set a behind goal pick a couple of weeks ago and the the on ball D man saw me and accelerated whist putting his head down from about 5 feet away. Unnecessary roughness? My left shoulder thinks so

Not sure about unnessary roughness for this but if he put his head down and speared you that is one of the points of emphasis for refs this season and perhaps should have been called.

An opposing player cannot purposely collide with the pick. Sure it can happen because the intention of setting the pick is to block the opponent, but if it's with force, or with intent, then it's a penalty! Call it whatever you want, but it's a penalty.
What's this rubbish about running through the pick?

[Chilli]

RULE 74 UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS

74.1 An excessively violent infraction of the rules against holding or pushing is a personal foul, designated unnecessary roughness.

74.2 A deliberate and excessively violent contact made by a defensive player against an offensive player who has legally or illegally established a pick shall be designated unnecessary roughness.

74.3 Any avoidable act by a player which is deliberate and excessively violent shall be designated unnecessary roughness, whether it be with the body or the stick.

The rules are pretty clear, the issue is about the referee interpreting what is 'necessary' and what is 'unnecessary' and that has to remain subjective as there are too many variables to ever write into a rule.
As has been said, the ref's first responsibility is for player safety.

[jivingjohn]

74.2 A deliberate and excessively violent contact made by a defensive player against an offensive player who has legally or illegally established a pick shall be designated unnecessary roughness.

Right, well that's our LDO from 2 years ago proven wrong then

I did not know that was the rule, there's certainly a few defenders around that flatten me when I set a pick, mainly because I weigh about 5 stone.

[UKLacrosse]

74.2 A deliberate and excessively violent contact made by a defensive player against an offensive player who has legally or illegally established a pick shall be designated unnecessary roughness.

Right, well that's our LDO from 2 years ago proven wrong then

I did not know that was the rule, there's certainly a few defenders around that flatten me when I set a pick, mainly because I weigh about 5 stone.

Would have thought it was pretty obvious to be honest.
With one team is in possession, was he really suggesting that you can knock over another member of that team who is not the ball carrier? We are talking about possession, not a loose ball situation.

[Tree13]

74.2 A deliberate and excessively violent contact made by a defensive player against an offensive player who has legally or illegally established a pick shall be designated unnecessary roughness.

Right, well that's our LDO from 2 years ago proven wrong then

I did not know that was the rule, there's certainly a few defenders around that flatten me when I set a pick, mainly because I weigh about 5 stone.

Would have thought it was pretty obvious to be honest.
With one team is in possession, was he really suggesting that you can knock over another member of that team who is not the ball carrier? We are talking about possession, not a loose ball situation.

And for good measure, it's also a foul under rule 70, presuming the player hitting the pick drops a shoulder to do so (If he goes in head first, see rule 70.5 - Spearing):

70 Illegal Bodycheck and Illegal Take-out
70.1 A bodycheck is the placing of the body in the way of and facing an opponent so that the latter is simply impeded.
A take-out is the hitting of an opponent with the shoulder.
A bodycheck or a take-out of an opponent who is not in possession of the ball, or within 9 feet (2.74 metres) of a loose ball or within 9 feet (2.74 metres) of a ball in flight, is illegal.

So regardless of the unnecessary roughness rule, in any situation where a player is in possession no-one can clatter ANYONE other than the ball-carrier - that seems to comprehensively cover the situation where a defender barrels his way through an attacker setting a pick.

Furthermore, the rule on Pushing - mens_rules.php#53 - (as a technical) covers the situation whereby the contact between the defender and the picking attacker is the gloved hand on the stick at 53.2: defender would serve 30 secs minimum for a technical whilst opponent in possession, subject to a flag down/slow whistle play.

[dblacklock]

Moaning Git and UK LaxFan have it in one. using force then necessary for the situtation Vague for a reason. It needs to be. teh rule book could never cover all the eventualities. Ecessive holding - headlock thats a hold -but unnecessary.

For those that are interested, here is the UR rule from the NFL

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

[P.Pexton]

But surely any Unnecessary Roughness can be resolved after the game by a simple handshake?!?