Overview:
Evan Schemenauer is a Saskatoon based NLL writer. Random thoughts is a weekly column which outlines a wide variety of thoughts that Evan has on the NLL and lacrosse world!
The opinions in this column are Evan's personal thoughts. They do not reflect the opinions of other members of the LC Daily Staff.
My random thoughts…
Controversy in San Diego
The matchup between San Diego and Panther City was an intriguing one in which you had a Panther City squad who were going into the game without Jonathan Donville facing a San Diego squad with a history of losing playoff games.
Where the controversy comes in this game was in the opening half when Austin Staats comes around the back of the net to his off hand, collides with Matt Hossack and loses his helmet. He then takes another two steps without his helmet on and buried a shot past Nick Damude.Â
This incident had many scrambling for their rule books and Tracey Kelusky challenging the call on the basis that the goal shouldn’t have counted as Staats didn’t have his helmet on. The ruling on the field was a good goal, and it was then explained that losing your helmet isn’t a permitted challenge.
Before we get into this too deep, there are two rules I want to lay out as they are stated in the NLL rule book:
Rule 91 – Helmet Lost During Play
When a player loses his helmet, the player must immediately either re-assemble his helmet while in the game or leave the floor. When a player in possession of the ball loses his helmet, he must immediately release the ball by passing or shooting.
Rule 33.3 – Helmet Chin Cup
The helmet chin cup must be worn in a firmly attached position at all times during play such that there is continuous contact with the chin cup while the jaw is in its normal non-extended position. Any player or goalie not complying with this rule will be assessed a delay of game penalty immediately.
Also, before we get into this too far, because the play is not reviewable, the referees have no ability to watch the video replay and see the finite details as to what happened. If they had that ability, they may have changed the call on the floor and assessed a minor penalty to Staats.
I have three issues with this entire situation. First is how Rule 91 itself is written. To me, allowing a player to still have possession of the ball for a second or two and pass or shoot it is a problem. It creates a continued situation where the player can be hit, this time without a helmet to help protect him.Â
In hockey, the rule is simple. If you lose your helmet, you are required to immediately stop and refasten the helmet on the spot or you must immediately head to your bench without getting involved in the play. The rule here should be simple, if you lose your helmet, you should be required to drop the ball immediately the same way you would on any other loss of possession, and if necessary, the whistle should go to stop the play and any potential dangerous contact.
The second issue I have here is the reason Staats loses his helmet is that he’s not compliant with Rule 33.3. Granted, the referees haven’t been enforcing this rule (they should be), but the issue of Staats’ helmet becomes a non-issue if its fastened properly. Staats shouldn’t be able to benefit from the fact that he enters play by not complying with Rule 33.3. If he had his helmet properly fastened and he lost it because of contact with another player, perhaps I think differently about the play.
Thirdly, and most importantly, is that Staats does not comply with Rule 91 either. He doesn’t immediately shoot the ball. He takes another two strides before he shoots the ball. Had the play been able to be reviewed, the referees likely would have seen this and overturned the call on the field.
Unfortunately, the call on the field ultimately cost Panther City in a game that went to overtime. Like I said, I don’t blame the officials because they didn’t have the benefit of replay like we did at home. I do blame a rule that needs a rewrite this offseason and a rule that needs to be enforced next season.