FAIR OR FOUL? The Maryland Lacrosse Glove Check Controversy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 апр 2023
- Let us know where you stand on the glove check during this game between the Maryland Terrapins and Ohio State Buckeyes on April 7, 2023.
🥍 Press SUBSCRIBE for more lacrosse content like this
bit.ly/SubscribeTLN
📲 Follow us on social for ALL THINGS LACROSSE
/ lacrossenetwork
/ lacrossenetwork
/ lacrossenetwork
/ lacrossenetwork
🔥 TLN MERCH
shop.thelacrossenetwork.com
📬 Sign up for 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐑𝐎𝐒𝐒𝐄 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑! The best news + highlights from around the lacrosse world, sent directly to your inbox
tln.beehiiv.com/subscribe
👇 What is The Lacrosse Network?
TLN is the premier online destination for the sport of lacrosse! Our mission is to grow the game through the power of media. 
Спорт
So let me get this straight. Ohio St up by 3 in the 4th, doesn't score for the last 3 minutes, let's it go to OT, and some how it's the gloves fault? What was the excuse for the other 9 guys on the field?
Ohio St lost that game fair and square. That call had no bearing on the outcome of the game, just a ticky tacky thing to call. Great game though!
yup
Rules are rules. As a coach you should make sure all your players know the rules and are properly outfitted. That being said, that was a nice play and shot by the freshman to give Maryland the win.
I love MD but come on Tillman that was soft
when is he not soft?? Tilman uses this 4 years ago
Or it could be Myers trying to gain a slight advantage somehow?
It didn't affect the outcome and Tillman is not the one who broke the rule. Ohio State was up 5 early and often and couldn't stop Maryland when it counted. Tillman could have waited till Ohio State had the ball with time running out, and then request a rule check that would have given Maryland the ball for the last shot. I hate excuses and crybabies.
I get we need to have order but that’s pretty foul.
if you all don't like that this happened then write the national lacrosse association and ask them to change the rule. otherwise suck it up.
Your Terrapin flag is showing
Love how everyone is giving Maryland crap, but not calling out OSU for the retaliation stick check. That got Maryland more fired up because they knew it was petty and they came up clean.
You could see their sideline get fired up from that.
He had them on the whole game! His interview is so bad like you did not ask the ref
Right. So the refs - whose job it is to notice such things - should have noticed it much earlier. Rather than letting it go so long that a coach notices it and asks if he understands the rule properly. You may want there to be more to it than that, but wanting it doesn't make it so.
Now, what do you think of the slash?
@@jeffjo8732 he asked knowing exactly what was going to happen- the refs were going to have to look into it to give him an answer, and have to call the gloves foul
It didn’t effect the outcome. Maryland would most likely won the face off anyways.
How about learning the rule book. Maryland gloves match. They read the book. Might be a dumb rule, but at least take the time to know the full rulebook. OSU staff is too lazy to learn the rules?
1. Yes, going by the trends, Maryland almost certainly would have won the face-off. In fact, they did win the next face-off.
2. Still, each team got one possession after the incident. OSU can't claim it cost them the chance. It even gave them an emotional edge they wouldn't have had,
3. Because of the crowd's displeasure, the refs ignored an obvious penalty against OSU that had a good chance to end the game in regulation.
This was petty 😂
What do we know?
1) Tillman claims to have made an off-hand inquiry about the uniform glove color rule. Do we know when?
2) With just over two minutes left in regulation, instead of a face-off the refs made Fritz change his gloves and awarded possession to Maryland. The reason given was "wrong color gloves."
3) Ohio State players used three different glove colors throughout the game. It apparently is not uncommon.
4) No other player was made to change gloves. All three colors continued to be used. So the uniform glove color rule was apparently not considered a significant issue, even though it was against the rules for OSU to continue with red, white, and gray gloves on the field.
5) The announcers made a big deal about finding the uniform glove color rule in the rule book.
6) But the statements after the game mentioned two issues related to "wrong color gloves": different glove colors, and that Fritz's gloves were not of a contrasting color. And that is based on this:
Rule 4 (Play of the Game), Section 3 (Face-off Procedure), b (Mechanic) 15.
"Paint or a single wrap of thin tape shall be applied to the handle of the crosse for any player taking a faceoff. The tape or paint is to begin (but not touch) the plastic at the throat of the crosse and continue 6 inches down the handle. The *_tape_* or paint shall be of *_contrasting_* *_color_* to the head, *_gloves_* and shaft. Thick or sticky material is prohibited."
So it seems everybody is barking up the wrong tree. I don't know how significant this rule is, but it is not just some petty make-us-look-the-same rule. Your face-off opponent needs to be able to distinguish the handle of the crosse from other components. Why the refs didn't notice it throughout the game, I can't say. But it isn't what Tillman asked about. They shrugged that off.
I suspect that Fritz and Myers were informed of the actual reason why Fritz's gloves, and his alone, had to be changed. And they haven't explained that to us, or mentioned these facts.
From the way the rule is worded, it seems that the only element that has to be contrasting is the tape. The tape is red and the rest of the equipment is white or gray (except for the minuscule amount of red colored branding on the gloves). Is there another rule saying all 4 elements have to be contrasting colors? I have no idea. I've only ever played men's league so these are not rules I have no be familiar with lol.
I understand the uniform rule (better now), but really. When was the last time the glove rule ever enforced. This foul could be called on at least half of the collegiate teams. Next week J.T. will bring up nonmatching elbow pads or shoe strings. 🙄 O.K. OSU not scoring in the last three minutes of the game, giving up a four goal lead at half or Maryland dominating the faceoffs has more to do with it, but you never like to lose on a B.S. call. I have ties to both colleges and enjoyed a good game by both team, but this left a bad taste the way the game basically ended.
If I recall correctly this was after MD scored and it was waived off because of the goal mouth violation. It was really a very bad push in the back with No call. They showed Tillman getting after them for that. Let's show that video. Tillman has his style and he is correct when he says that he is always talking and asking questions of the officials.
Tilman #1 job as head coach is TO WIN. Soft or not he was playing chess not checkers. Y’all not gonna tell me that decided the outcome of the entire game cmon now.
Very petty of Tillman
Ticky tack calls are prevalent in the NCAA, but it seems as though this was at least in the rule book. Watch the OT goal in the UC Davis/Oregon women’s game from this weekend - Davis scored in OT to win, only to have the goal called back seconds later because of what was described as celebrating on the field? It seemed the officials didn’t know what stick to check, so they disqualified the goal? No real explanation given. Confusion doesn’t make for good officiating..
Well timed, random question….
as a fogo having older gloves that are broken in is the best, so this is bs
Its important that we respect the rule book. However, I think there is a lot more to this incident than just a rule violation. Since around 2010 the Face Off has become the game within the game. Winning more Face Offs than your opponent is is more valuable than any other stat (assist, ground balls, clears, saves, takeaways). There are things going on in the Face Off that only a Face Off Middie would know about and understand. Those white gloves were not worn by accident on Saturday.
coach nicky is lucky that the maryland players didn't give him a good old fashioned beat down.
Crappy way to try and win. But rules are rules, and he gets paid to win games.
That’s 10 ply bud
Ridiculous really.
I think it’s 50/50
I believe it was the refs who enforced the rule, not Tillman.
Foul that is BS their gloves cost them the game
no it didnt stop coping, the gloves had no impact on the game.
@@stevenjackson7956 dumb dumb it was OT face off they could’ve won the face off and rushed down the field and changed ever thing even Paul Rabil tweeted it’s BS and can you use some grammar
That embellished story.. He is a terrible liar. 😂
Just asked the question, but knowing exactly what was going to happen. Who believes any of those soft excuses?
such a petty move
It's not a matter of fair or foul. USA Lacrosse has a rulebook that is to be followed. It is the most honorable thing to do in sports and that is to win with fairness. When you hear "play with honor", it means to play within the rules and respect your opponent. The foul thing here is to play outside of the rules. So when coach Tillman ask's that question, it goes beyond that moment in the game. It is for the betterment of lacrosse as a whole, this moment will help solidify the future rules of the game. So if a player is caught cheating they should be held accountable for it, it builds character.
Nope, it’s a bad lesson to teach kids that when things aren’t going your way, you look for an excuse. If they cared about “honorability”, report the gloves in the 1st quarter. Don’t report them after you blew your lead and have 0 momemntum
@@nateromo1234 how do we know if Maryland knew about the gloves in the first quarter?
Honor would be Tillman stepping to that microphone and saying, he saw the "infraction" and requested the call. His wishy washy answer clearly shows he lacks the integrity and honor to own what he did. Was it game changing, no, but don't throw around "honor" and not hold the coach to the same standard.
@@nateromo1234 Um, Maryland had a lead at exactly one point in the game? It was OSU that had lost its lead, had 0 momentum, and this call actually riled them up?
The bad lessons to teach kids are that (1) you can ignore the rules that you think are silly because you hope the refs won't notice, (2) complain when the "silly" rule is actually enforced, (3) take cheap shots at an opposing player because you think it won't get called due to a partisan crowd, and then (4) complain about the silly rule call when it did not affect then game (well, except to let you get away with that cheap shot) but you still lose.
If what you claim were the motivations, UMD should have reported it after the very first OSU goal, when there we at least three colors of gloves on the field. It could have been disallowed.
@@sjci1986 well said. That's my only issue here.
Is there anything technically wrong with making that call? No - it’s in the rule book.
Did it effect the outcome of the game? That’s arguable. My opinion is yes.
Do I respect doing anything possible to win? Yes. That’s what coaches are supposed to do.
My issue is, if you’re going to be that cut throat. Own it. Don’t lie to the public saying “oh I just noticed they had different color gloves. I have conversations with the refs all the time.”
That was a calculated move and everyone knows it. In my opinion, that’s the biggest issue here. We are all accountable for our actions. Not taking accountability for it here makes it seem like he knew it was wrong, did it anyway, but won’t take responsibility for it.
Your logic doesn't add up. Wierman had won 17 of 20 face-offs since late in the first period, and did win the next one after the call. The "calculated" move would have been to weigh the probability of Wierman both losing the face-off AND his defense giving up their third goal of the second half in the last two minutes, against motivating an Ohio State team that had already lost all of its momentum. Not to mention the crowd, which influenced the refs. If you doubt that, tell me why the retaliatory slash was not called a penalty. If the glove call had any effect on the game - remember, each team got one possession after it - it was an advantage to Ohio State.
Yes, coaches do indeed discuss why a rule applies, or does not apply, to situations during the game. Continually, during the game. But only when they have an opportunity. You have no idea who "noticed" the violation first, when Tillman was made aware of it, or when he had opportunity to mention it.
He probably wasn't the one who first noticed it, it was likely a player who wondered why he had to go through the bother of making sure that everybody used the same gloves, when OSU is allowed to have at least *_three_* different gloves in use at the same time. I don't know what the enforcement is, but could Tillman have had any one of the OSU goals nullified for this infraction? Wouldn't that have been a better "calculated, cut-throat" move?
And if you want accountability, ask for it from the OSU coaching staff. The rule exists, and they should know it. Yet they blatantly ignored it. Saying "yep, we knew it and blew it" is being accountable.
@@jeffjo8732 while Ohio State DID have an opportunity to close the door in OT, they also DIDN'T have the opportunity to win the first face off and run with the momentum. And you're right, that slash by OSU was a blatant penalty and was not called because of the argument that broke loose on the sidelines. So it's pretty tough to say that this call did not affect the game. I think we both agree here.
But no one here can definitively say who noticed the glove issue. But we can definitively say it was Tillman, who notified the refs, at a critical moment in the game, because he thought it would give his team an advantage. That is the definition of a calculated move.
And while I've never played for him, you can tell he's someone who will do anything to find an advantage for his team. That's what great coaches do, and that's probably a big reason why he has nearly an 80% win rate. I respect that quite a bit.
But I've been close to the sport my entire life, and I've never seen someone enforce this rule on another team. Not a ref nor a coach. And believe me, there's been plenty of opportunities to do so. So that begs the question, "Why haven't they?"
Because from an ethical perspective, it's pretty square in the fringe space. While it is a rule, it provides no advantage to the other team.
So IF you're going to go that far, own it. That's all I'm saying. You gotta respect the "will to win", but you also gotta be able to stand behind your own actions.
@@CWeids9 "Ohio State DID have an opportunity to close the door in OT, they also DIDN'T have the opportunity to win the first face off and run with the momentum." ????? No idea what you mean.
OSU DIDN'T have game momentum from before the incident, but gained emotional momentum from the call. Neither team was able to "win the CONTESTED face-off and run with momentum" because possession was awarded. OSU did have twice as much time-of-possession after the awarded possession. They did have an unsettled opportunity, but called a timeout. OSU never had possession in OT, because Wierman continued his dominance (as he likely would have without the award).
So I agree that the event changed the course of the game, but I reject the suggestion that it changed it in Maryland's favor. Many other calls changed things as as well - I didn't like the officiating at all. There were blatant misses both ways. Such things happen. But based on the entire second half, it was far more likely that Maryland would score a goal off of the face-off than OSU. The award also removed that chance. Then, they should have had a man-up (well, the slash might not have happened), but didn't. OSU gained enough desire from the call to win a ground ball after only 25 seconds, which might not have happened that way.
Who knows? But all of the changes attributable to the call, except the possession itself, went against Maryland.
"But no one here can definitively say who noticed the glove issue. But we can definitively say it was Tillman, who notified the refs, at a critical moment in the game, because ..."
We can definitively say it was Tillman who notified the refs. We can't say why or that he thought it would give his team an advantage. All we know is that he was asking about the rule, not that he was calling for an adjustment of any kind. That is pure speculation, and it contradicts Tillman's statements. And like I tried to describe, if he had "calculated" the impact at that moment, he probably would not have mentioned it. He had little to gain and a lot to lose.
And yes, I agree that one should "stand behind your own actions." If you are going to violate a rule when doing so, as you claim, gains no advantage? Then stand behind the consequences of doing so as well.
But one thing I'm unclear on. There were at least *_three_* kinds of gloves used by various players through the game. One player generally had red gloves. Never having played the game, I don't know if this would aid players in finding him ion a crowded field. Which begs the question, whether whatever remark Tillman made was about Fritz specifically, or the team in general. Or whether he could anticipate what, if any, adjustment would be made.
@@jeffjo8732 not debating on whether or not the call changed the game in anyones advantage. I never said that. I'm just calling out that it changed to course of the game. It's debatable to say if it was in either team's favor.
However, it's quite naive to say "he was just asking about the rule". He was tipping the refs off to gain an advantage for his team. Full stop.
I respect your opinion and POV, but if you can't see the motive behind asking that question, at that time, then let's just agree to disagree.
@@CWeids9 I'm not debating it either, just pointing out (and supporting with subsequent events) why a calculating coach would not do what you claim. But it is not naive to say the\at he did exactly what he said he did, especially when the impact of doing what you claim could be predicted.
But everybody has misinterpreted the incident. The violation was not about players using different gloves - if that were the case, Fritz would not have been the only player required to change gloves. It was that the face-off player has to have a crosse handle with tape or paint that contrasts with his gloves (and the crosse head and shaft). Fritz didn't, so it was a face-off violation and he, alone, had to change gloves.
This was not what Tillman asked about. And what he did ask about was allowed to continue. What is "naive" now? Were Fritz and Myers told the actual violation? It was in post-game official statements. Or are they the ones trying to "game" the incident?
Petty, ticky tack
People want to hate Maryland so badly that they are just pretending that this is somehow why Maryland won when in reality it had no impact on the game. After this call both teams each got 1 possession to win it and then the game went into overtime. Stop crying because ur team gets shit on by Maryland every year.
agreed. I'm tired of these announcers too making it to be more than it was.
This is extremely petty, I just lost all respect for coach Tillman !
Mans job is literally to win games…
you mustn't have even had any respect for him. sorry didn't impact the game. GO TERPS!
Very Petty
Haha OSU lost, bunch of bums
Not what your legacy should be about…but it is now…for eternity…🤡
I guarantee that every D1 lacrosse team in the country will now abide the rule book and wear the correct gloves. The gloves had no effect on the outcome, but Ohio State needs something to cry about! Excuses, excuses! Waaaah......mommy!
For faceoff guys glove color is an issue. If the glove and stick head are the same color FOGOs try to slide their hand over the throat of the stick head to gain an advantage....so can affect the outcome of a faceoff if the hand/glove allows for more leverage.
Tillman knew what he was doing, then tried to play dumb in the postgame interview. Yet another reason to dislike the Terps in my book.
I bet the main reason u don’t like them is cause they always smoke ur favorite team and always go deep in the tourney😂😂