Should the goal have counted?

I know this might sound like a fan who just can't let it go but....

Some folks have said the Cuse goal with 4 seconds left should not have counted. I don't personally know the official rule but I was told that if a player lands in the crease after taking a shot the goal is automatically disallowed.

When the Cuse attackman (I think it was Nims) dove around Myers to put it in part of his body clearly landed in the crease. Either the officials missed the call or a player can indeed land in the crease.

Can anybody shed any light on this?

My guess is that he was not called in the crease because he got tangled up with Myers outside of the crease and that's why he landed there.

Rule 4, section 9 (Goal Not Allowed):

m. If an attacking player deliberately leaves his feet by jumping or diving and his momentum carries him into the crease area, regardless of whether he
lands in the crease before or after the ball enters the goal.

From the replay, it looked like Nims' right foot stayed down the whole way.

kingpin248
Rule 4, section 9 (Goal Not Allowed):

m. If an attacking player deliberately leaves his feet by jumping or diving and his momentum carries him into the crease area, regardless of whether he
lands in the crease before or after the ball enters the goal.

From the replay, it looked like Nims' right foot stayed down the whole way.

Really? I was led to believe the Gait brothers routinely scored that way... although I never actually saw footage of such a goal, I presumed it was legal.

Anyone know if this is a newer rule?

It looked like he dove to me but that's probably because I was so delirious from watching our 3-goal lead melt away.

...nice work on the research Kingpin....

Greenberg '97

kingpin248
Rule 4, section 9 (Goal Not Allowed):

m. If an attacking player deliberately leaves his feet by jumping or diving and his momentum carries him into the crease area, regardless of whether he
lands in the crease before or after the ball enters the goal.

From the replay, it looked like Nims' right foot stayed down the whole way.

Really? I was led to believe the Gait brothers routinely scored that way... although I never actually saw footage of such a goal, I presumed it was legal.

Anyone know if this is a newer rule?

The rule was instituted in response to the Gait style goal.

The same question was brought up for Max's GWG at the Dome, because he did land with a hand or forearm in the crease.

The rule says deliberately, and is intended to prevent Gait-style goals.

It counted.

DeltaOne81
The same question was brought up for Max's GWG at the Dome, because he did land with a hand or forearm in the crease.

The rule says deliberately, and is intended to prevent Gait-style goals.

It counted.

Also, if the attackman is hit while in the air and the force of the hit is what causes him to land in the crease, then technically it was not "his momentum" that carried him into the crease. Therefore, you can't just hit him in the air and push him into the crease to get the goal disallowed. You have to look at where he would have landed based on his own momentum.

I haven't looked at the replay, so I don't know the technicalities, but SU deserved that goal. Or rather, Cornell deserved to be scored upon if they can't clear with 27 seconds left in the national title game.

Robb

DeltaOne81

I haven't looked at the replay, so I don't know the technicalities, but SU deserved that goal. Or rather, Cornell deserved to be scored upon if they can't clear with 27 seconds left in the national title game.

I think the second part of your statement is unfortunately very true. I know I'm being a Monday morning QB but I'm convinced that if Tambroni had called a time-out at that point there would be a victory parade going on right now on College Ave.

here's the way we understood the rule when i played ... you must have released the ball (aka shoot) from outside the cylinder that is the crease extended infinitely upward without diving into or through that cylinder. your momentum may not carry you into the crease until the whistle is blown (aka scoring a goal) ... this is how i saw the Nims goal happening. the ball was already in the net when he stepped into the crease and therefore it was a good goal. fyi, you can score a goal a good goal and dive, as long as you are tangential to the crease and land outside.


btw ... this rule was instituted not b/c of the Gait bros but after a series of UVa players Doug Kinght and Michael Watson et al. used to charge the goalie and dive into the crease making them play both the ball and the flying body. this became known as "the drive." afterward these guys made an art of it, less skilled players began to copy this play and started blowing the knees out of goalies all over the place. "the dive" is legal in MLL and is a hot topic of discussion for reinstatement in the NCAA game ... time will tell if the powers that be allow it back. personally i like the rule as it is applied now, but that's just my opinion.

hope that helps.

One quibble: you CAN pass through the cylinder in the air as long as lift-off and landing are outside the cylinder AND you do not make contact with the goaltender, his stick, or the goal.

TimV
One quibble: you CAN pass through the cylinder in the air as long as lift-off and landing are outside the cylinder AND you do not make contact with the goaltender, his stick, or the goal.

tim,

my most recent understanding of this rule, unless things changed for 2009, did not allow this to happen ... although it is entirely possible i may have missed this update in the application of this rule. living in california has taken me slightly out of the loop

ben03

TimV
One quibble: you CAN pass through the cylinder in the air as long as lift-off and landing are outside the cylinder AND you do not make contact with the goaltender, his stick, or the goal.

tim,

my most recent understanding of this rule, unless things changed for 2009, did not allow this to happen ... although it is entirely possible i may have missed this update in the application of this rule. living in california has taken me slightly out of the loop

Dunno, but I'm pretty sure Seibald passed through the cylinder scoring the winning goal against Syracuse in 2007.

Ben: This also from the 2009 NCAA Lacrosse rulebook:

Rule 4 Section 9c Goal not counted:
When the ball passes through the plane of the goal and when any part of
the body of a player of the attacking team is in the goal-crease area at the time.

or

Rule 4 Section 9m Goal not counted:
If an attacking player deliberately leaves his feet by jumping or diving and his momentum carries him into the crease area, regardless of whether he lands in the crease before or after the ball enters the goal.

These sound like what you're saying, but the definition of the crease area is not the infinite cylinder described above:

Rule 1 Section 4:
The goalcrease area is the circular surface about each goal within and including the goal-crease line itself.

gotcha. thanks for looking up the specific rule Tim. as i understood, 4-9m was intended to stop "the dive" as performed by the UVa attacker and the "cylinder" was more of an interpreted application of this rule and not the letter.