Is this about stick checks?  Or is it about sour grapes? 

Q: "Why is it that the lacrosse world doesn’t have any idea how many d-pole pockets are out of legal near the end of close games?"

A: The NCAA and NFHS provide rules to keep illegal sticks out of the game.  1) Random checks by officials 2) 1 free request by coach unless the stick is found to be illegal and then they have another free request 3) request by coach with loss of timeout as consequence. These rules are there to ensure no player (regardless of position) are gaining and unfair advantage. All players, coaches, and officials should be aware if an opposing player is illegally equipped to gain an advantage. Any coach who believes an opposing player is gaining an unfair advantage using illegal equipment would be within the rules (and wise) to request a check.  WHAT IS IMMORAL ABOUT THAT?

Q: Why is it that lacrosse coaches have, across the country, throughout the history of the sport, ignored this critical part of the game?

A: Coaches haven't ignored this part of the game at all.  In fact, illegal sticks and trying to police them have become such a huge issue that it has had a huge effect on the game.  Prior to 2007, stick check requests were so commonplace in the NCAA that there are loads of examples where they played an impact in NCAA Playoff Games. The NCAA and coaches found this disturbing because despite their efforts to remove illegal sticks from the game, coaches were still able to identify players using illegal sticks. Coaches were also unhappy with the way it was prior to 2007 because they felt they had to make these requests to officials to identify players gaining an unfair advantage when they felt it is the job of the official to regulate the game.  In 2007, the NCAA officials stepped up their diligence at randomly checking sticks after every goal, during every timeout, and in between quarters.  This has greatly reduced the number of illegal sticks being used at the NCAA level.  It also reduced the need for coaches to make sure their opponents are playing fair.  However, even with all that stepped up enforcement, NCAA coaches still notice when a player is seemingly using an illegal stick and exercise their right to request a check.  And as long as NCAA players are using illegal sticks (despite the overwhelming odds they will be caught), coaches will continue to request checks. 

Q: We know that the few isolated incidents of coaches requesting stick checks have all involved goal scorers immediately after a goal. We also know that NCAA refs now always check a goal scorer’s stick, but not defender’s sticks, after every goal, in addition to the random quarterly checks that are done at all levels of the sport. So why is it only the Bellevue coach who checks a d-pole’s stick instead of a goal scorer’s stick, and only does so at the end of the biggest game of the year?

A: Not sure where you got your information but it is not accurate.  At the NCAA level, refs will always randomly check an equal amount of sticks on both teams.  That is why after a goal is scored, an offensive player and defensive player's sticks are checked.  See above for the reason stick checks are becoming more rare at the NCAA Div 1 level.  Coaches don't limit stick checks only to a player that has scored a goal, they will check any player that they perceive to be gaining an unfair advantage illegally. However, if a coach believes an offensive player is using an illegal stick it is often better to wait till that player scores a goal before requesting the check because if the player has an illegal stick the goal will come off the board. As to why the Bellevue coach decided to check the D-Pole's stick at the beginning of OT, I can only surmise: 1) because the kid was lined up on the wing of the faceoff and was in a position to have an impact on the game and 2) the bellevue coach believed his stick was in fact... illlegal.

Q:Why do all other coaches restrain themselves from using this devastating competitive technique, whose use could simultaneously win a game and answer the critical question posed by “Seattle Lax?”

A: Provided below is a list of Hall of Fame Coaches that have all requested stick checks. In addition to those notable coaches, you can add Issaquah's Brandon Fortier and Bainbridge's Visco & Hush to the list.  Fortier at one time even requested a mothgaurd check.  Baumann has requested checks previously against Issy & Bainbridge (something an MI scouting report should have had in it). So, I'm not sure that coaches who know opposing players are using illegal sticks actually refrain from making a request for a check.  There certainly is no documentation of a coach saying "we know the kid with 10 ground balls today was using an altered stick but we chose not do anything. Next time we hope that kid finds it within himself to use a legal stick". If there are coaches that have known an opposing player is using an illegal stick and have allowed that player to have an impact on the game resulting in a loss.... I can't understand that.  The playing field should be equal and illegal sticks should not be used.  It tilts the playing field.

Q: Isn’t it obvious to everyone that the old fashioned code of honor has to go?

A: Is there even an old fashion code of honor?  What does it say... spell it out for me? If the codes says, let the players on the field decide the outcome... I am 100% with you on that one.  Though if it says let the players on the field decide the outcome by any means necessary... I can't agree.  Using an illegal stick provides an unfair advantage, no different than setting an illegal screen, or any other unfair maneuver that could go unnoticed and have an impact.  While I agree it is sad for the MI coaches, players, and fans that a penalty ultimately had an impact on the game, I cannot agree that the penalty wasn't earned or deserved. Had the player been using a legal stick, no one would have said a single word about the request. You don't see articles about the requests where the stick turned out to be legal.

FYI - 2010 Bucknell vs. Colgate in a game that would be decided in OT Colgate Coach Jim Nagle requested a check on Bison Defensemen Jim Collett.  Who was nailed for 3 minute penalty. Coincidently, like Beckwith, the ball did not come out of his stick when turned over.  If you know local boys Andrew Parietti and Peter Baum, who play for Colgate, you should ask them about the game.  I'm sure they can tell you that stick check request still happen at the NCAA level even with the intense amount of checking that goes on by officialls.

MAybe your next post will responded to the fact that Bellevue didn't win while manup as a result of the penalty... they scored on MI when MI was at full strength.  The illegal stick didn't award Bellevue a goal, it was Deal beating Raffety one on one and putting it past Hap that cost MI the game.

“Seattle Lax” raises an important question – Why is it that the lacrosse world doesn’t have any idea how many d-pole pockets are out of legal near the end of close games? Why is it that lacrosse coaches have, across the country, throughout the history of the sport, ignored this critical part of the game? We know that the few isolated incidents of coaches requesting stick checks have all involved goal scorers immediately after a goal. We also know that NCAA refs now always check a goal scorer’s stick, but not defender’s sticks, after every goal, in addition to the random quarterly checks that are done at all levels of the sport. So why is it only the Bellevue coach who checks a d-pole’s stick instead of a goal scorer’s stick, and only does so at the end of the biggest game of the year? Why do all other coaches restrain themselves from using this devastating competitive technique, whose use could simultaneously win a game and answer the critical question posed by “Seattle Lax?” The only theory advanced so far is that all other coaches are hampered by an outdated code of honor and respect for the traditions of the sport. Isn’t it obvious to everyone that the old fashioned code of honor has to go? Let the Bellevue coach lead the way to the new era. Let all close games be decided by dueling stick checks. Honor be damned!

I think from your posts that you believe that everyone is using an illegal stick and illegal sticks are so common that any coach could request a check and put a kid in the box at any time.  Is that what you believe?  If that is the case, I gaurantee you will see more requests and more penalties until the officials, or the consequences of being caught, force players to take more care in making sure they are playing legally. That certainly isn't the case at college where after every goal the officials check the scorer's stick and the defender's stick.  They can check upwards of 20 sticks per half.  By doing this, the officials have taken away the need for coaches to request a check even though the rule is still there if a coach feels an illegal stick has gone unnoticed. In high school, we do not have the same dilligence among officials.  So, in a championship game, only about 8 of the 40 sticks being used are checked randomly by officials. With an inadequate effort to curtail the use of illegal sticks at high school, it is the responsibility of the coaches to use their allowable stick checks and force their competitors to play fair. If a coach knows an opposing player has gained an unfair advantage willingly or not, why would that coach do nothing about it if it were in his means to correct it??  Please explain.

“Seattle Lax” has hit on the breakthrough concept that will change lacrosse. Washington coaches should be the first in the country to start calling stick checks on d-poles in the last minutes because it’s their “duty” to do so. For decades, coaches have shirked their competitive obligations, but all that is going to change now. Instead of seeing close game after close game decided by the players on the field, the lacrosse world will now witness routine dueling stick checks as the deciding factor because coaches have a duty to use this tactic and just never realized it in the past. How ironic that the long tradition of coaches acting honorably was actually a cowardly failure to perform one’s manly duty. And don’t forget the concept of pride here. Just think how the Bellevue coach must swell with pride when pondering how he invented a winning maneuver, changed the culture of lacrosse, captured a victory in fearless disregard of the cost to honor and dignity, and, best of all, performed a duty that every other coach hides from. All hail victory without honor.

You take lots of sarcastic jabs and tounge in cheek suggestions. But you don't make a solid point.  Being Sincere, what are you saying?  Are you honestly saying sticks that are illegal should be overlooked? Are you saying Petro was wrong for apologizing to Cottle for calling his stick check bush? Are you saying Carl Runk and Dave Cottle are wrong to expect that their own players and opposing players who are on the field have legal sticks.  From what I can gather through your passive agressive posts, you clearly feel (for some reason) that the MI player was a victim of circumstance and was targeted to gain a tactical advantage. Even if all that were true. Nothing would have come of it if the player had a legal stick.

There are litterally thousands of examples of stick check requests.  The ones I've cared to highlight were selected because they occured at the highest level regularly before college officialls started checking everyone randomly. The coaches who have requested checks before officials removed the need to spent their entire careers builing reputations that can't be tarnished by someone calling their coaching decisions "classless".  All these coaches I have mentioned believe that it is the right and duty of a coach to point out a player who is illegally equipped to gain an unfair advantage. 

I think from your posts that you believe that everyone is using an illegal stick and illegal sticks are so common that there are that any coach could request a check and put a kid in the box at any time.  Is that what you believe?  If that is the case, I gaurantee you will see more requests and more penalties until the officials, or the consequences of being caught, force players to take more care in making sure they are playing legally. That certainly isn't the case at college where after every goal the officials check the scorer's stick and the defender's stick.  They can check upwards of 20 sticks per half.  By doing this, the officials have taken away the need for coaches to request a check even though the rule is still there if a coach feels an illegal stick has gone unnoticed. In high school, we do not have the same dilligence among officials.  So, in a championship game, only about 8 of the 40 sticks being used are checked randomly by officials. With an inadequate effort to curtail the use of illegal sticks at high school, it is the responsibility of the coaches to use their allowable stick checks and force their competitors to play fair. If a coach knows an opposing player has gained an unfair advantage willingly or not, why would that coach do nothing about it if it were in his means to correct it??  Please explain.

“Seattle Lax” makes another excellent point, but doesn’t go nearly far enough in making it. Washington lacrosse doesn’t need to see stick checks on d-poles just at the end of Bellevue/Mercer games, we need to see them in every single close game, all year long, and we need to spread that gospel to the rest of the country. To accomplish this noble goal, we clearly need more research. There are literally thousands and thousands of games that come down to the wire every year. Checking the stick of a d-pole or other non-scorer in the last 3 minutes is an exquisitely effective winner’s tactic -- you get a one-to-three minute non-releasable and possession, and there’s absolutely no risk. Unless coaches all over the country are a bunch of idealistic, snooty, tradition-bound gentlemen, it should be easy to find hundreds of games every year where this tactic was employed. In our ruthlessly competitive society this must happen all the time. If we’re going to bring about this sea change, we need to convince the coaches of Washington that the Bellevue coach isn’t the only coach anywhere, much less high school, who has requested a stick check on a non-scoring d-pole in order to win a close game. Bring forth the research and lots of it -- isolated examples aren't enough to start a revolution. Don’t let the Bellevue coach stand alone as the only win-at-all costs coach in U.S. high school lacrosse.

I hope Merecer Island calls for a stick check for the next 20 years when they play Bellevue.  If Bellevue is ever caught with an Illegal stick, shame on them.   To assume players on every team are using illegal sticks is unfair.  There were 10 sticks checked that game (8 randomly) and only one came up illegal.  It is the job of the head coach to make sure his kids are playing legal and it is the job of the opposing coach to make sure that the opposing team is not gaining an unfair advantage outside the rules.  To say that the defensemen had no impact on the game is crazy.  He was involved in clears and ground balls and it was his responsibility to make sure his stick and equipment is legal. If his stick is close enough to the line that it could alter during a game... again that is his fault.  Whether he meant to cheat or not, his illegal stick provided MI an unfair advantage and while you may see it different (you are entitled) many coaches at every level believe it is there responsibility to make the request and remove any unfair advantage an opponent has.  By evidence of the quotes from these hall of fame coaches:

Carl Runk  "I have to bring the stick violation to the attention of the officials"

Dave Cottle "It wasn't gamesmanship at all, It's a rule and it's our responsibility as coaches [to enforce it]. I think coaches realize that there's an awful lot of illegal sticks out there and you do it because you feel the other team has an unfair advantage."

Peter Lasagna (Then head Coach of Brown) "One of my faceoff men pointed it out to me early in the game, I figured I'd wait for an opportune time to bring it up. This was an opportune time, so I mentioned it to an official." (regarding his decision to allow a player to get away with an illegal stick and then employ a stick check with 29 seconds to go on Loyola faceoff man Jamie Hanford).

While you are pushing for Washington to start taking some contemporary direction with regards to ethics and morality, why not emulate some world class coaches and take the loss on the chin with dignity.  Admit you don't like the call Baumann made, admit that it is completely legal and within his rights, admit that unfortunatley an MI player was using an illegal stick, and finally admit that when the playing field was even Bellevue scored against a full stregnth MI team.  Admit that the boys ultimately decided the outcome of the game.  An advantage was had by an MI player using an illegal stick and as a result of being caught, Bellevue was given an advantage of possession and man up. Ultimately, those advantantages would not have an impact on the final play. As Bellevue scored on a full strength MI team.  It is a tough loss no doubt. I'm sure it stings. And It is clear you have opinions on the rules and the coaching strategies. But, take solice in knowing many other coaches in all levels and all regions have been on both sides of this same situation and have handled it in a dignified manner. As you can see fromt the quotes below, Cottle has been on both the winning side and losing side of a stick check request and he handled it with class. Even though Petro, who reacted poorly, like O'Hearn, he later apologized, as we all hope Ian will. 

Dave Cottle said "Don't blame the kid, blame me, It had something to do with a piece of plastic on the stick. But it's my fault for not checking it, and it's a very difficult way to lose."

"Hopkins coach Dave Pietramala was so furious after Potucek's goal was wiped out that he called Cottle's stick check "bush league' in an interview with Channel 2's Keith Mills after halftime of the live broadcast. Pietramala later admitted that he made a mistake and has since apologized to Cottle and the Terps' coaching staff."

“Seattle Lax” makes an excellent point. Washington needs to lead the way in expanding the tactical use of stick checks. Coaches have previously been very reluctant to call for one, and the few isolated incidents that have turned up have all involved checks of a goal scorer’s stick immediately after a goal. This gentlemanly self-restraint has got to go. Checking the stick of a defensive player with no goals or assists is a brilliant competitive move that should be kept in reserve until the last minutes of a closely fought game. Obviously, the Mercer coach just doesn’t understand the brave new world of high school lacrosse. Once the regulation game ended and the stick-check contest began, he foolishly limited his retaliatory stick check to a request for a check on an attackman who had actually scored in the contest. Imagine, he passed up a chance to check a d-pole -- what a pantywaist! Washington lacrosse needs to be known for setting a new standard for win-at-all-costs coaching. Just think back on all the close games we’ve seen over the years where the coaches foolishly let the players decide the outcome. How much more instructive it could have been if every close game ended with dueling stick checks of non-goal scorers. Think of all the lost opportunities where a high school kid could be labeled a “cheater” because his pocket had become distorted during the course of a game. Let’s all resolve to start next year and count the number of close games decided by a stick check on a d-pole. Coaches who fail to employ this crafty move in the last 3 minutes should be made into pariahs and coaches who use it should be celebrated. Let no one forget that the point of lacrosse is to teach kids that winning is all that matters.

Maybe Ian should apologize for his comments... bigger men than he have apologized for similar insults...

"Hopkins coach Dave Pietramala was so furious after Potucek's goal was wiped out that he called Cottle's stick check "bush league' in an interview with Channel 2's Keith Mills after halftime of the live broadcast. Pietramala later admitted that he made a mistake and has since apologized to Cottle and the Terps' coaching staff."

Partial List of Respected Coaches that Have Requested Stick Checks:

- Dave Cottle (Maryland)

- Dave Urick (Georgetown)

- Dom Starsia (UVA)

- Bill Tierney (Denver) *Special shout out to Bill who while with Princeton, got a Syracuse goal nullified in the 1993 final four because of an illegal stick... Baltimore Sun owes Coach T an apology.

- Don Zimmerman (UMBC)

- Brian Voelker (Deleware)

- Jack Emmer (USA)

- Frank Neilsen (Canada)

- John Tucker (Washington Bayhawks)

- Buggs Combs (Chicago Machine)

The Baltimore Sun credits Dave Cottle (Most recently the Head Coach of Maryland, former Head Coach of Loyola,  19 NCAA tourney appearances, Assistant Coach of Team USA 1994, Member of Baltimore Chapter Hall of Fame, Three time All-American at Salisbury State University, Nations leading scorer in 1975) with starting the trend of coaches willing to request a check despite any percieved "code". Keep in mind that despite all your comments of hotbeds and tradition, there is not a more honored and respected guy in college lacrosse than Dave Cottle.  He is Baltimore lacrosse. Grew up there, played there, made a carreer there.  In fact, many say that he is no longer at UMD because he wouldn't win at all costs... and with that reputation, he is among the list of histoty's best lacrosse coaches that have requested a stick check in critical game... and caught a cheater. 

Article from Baltimore Sun:

May 13, 2004|By Jeff Zrebiec , BALTIMORE SUN STAFF

At the time, Maryland men's coach Dave Cottle probably had no idea that he might be initiating what has become the new trend in college lacrosse. On April 17 at Homewood Field against Johns Hopkins, Cottle watched Blue Jays midfielder Frank Potucek fight through two checks and score to seemingly give the hosts a 10-2 lead. Thinking Potucek couldn't have shrugged off the checks and possessed the ball with a legal stick, Cottle asked the referees for a stick check and his intuition proved right. Potucek's stick was illegal, the goal was wiped off the board and the Blue Jays were assessed a penalty.

Two Hall of Fame Coaches Linked up in a battle between Towson & Loyola in 1996 where Loyola lost 12-11 in overtime. Both coaches had comments about Runk's requested stick check before the overtime period started...

Background: Loyola faceoff specialist Jamie Hanford was called for having an illegal stick before the start of overtime (at the request of Runk), giving Towson State three minutes with an extra man.

Runk said "I have to bring the stick violation to the attention of the officials, but I was actually just trying to buy some time for my players. They needed a little breather."

Loyola coach Dave Cottle said "Don't blame the kid, blame me, It had something to do with a piece of plastic on the stick. But it's my fault for not checking it, and it's a very difficult way to lose."

My opinion: That's a big statement from a classy coach willing to shoulder the burden of losing a game because his player was playing with an illegal stick and got caught.

The following is from the Parents’ Guide of a Lexington KY club: http://www.lexkylacrosse.com/pdf/lylalacrosseparentguide.pdf “With a history that spans centuries, lacrosse is the oldest continuously played sport in North America. The sport is rooted in Native American religion and was often played to resolve disputes, heal the sick, and develop strong men. To Native Americans, lacrosse is still referred to as “The Creator’s Game”. Initially, lacrosse served as a substitute for war. Stories tell of as many as a thousand players per side, from the same of different tribes, who took turns engaging in a violent contest called baaga’adowe. Tribe members played on a field as much as 15 miles long and games sometimes lasted for days. Some tribes used a single pole, tree, or rock for a goal, while others used two goal posts through which the ball had to pass. The balls were made out of wood, deerskin, baked clay, or stone….Lacrosse has a long tradition as a ‘gentleman’s sport’, taught and played with dignity for its heritage and respect for anyone who accepts the game’s complex and rewarding challenges. Moreover, lacrosse stresses good sportsmanship by emphasizing conduct that “honors the game”.”

   This quote illuminates the choice facing Washington lacrosse. Kentucky isn't a long-time lacrosse hotbed, but it appears the Lexington club is trying to continue with the traditions of the sport's east coast origins. This emphasis on tradition might be fine for Kentucky, with it's semi-southern heritage, but Washington lacrosse should choose a more contemporary path. Concerns about honor and gentlemanly play just distract from the primary objective of sport, which is victory. The fact is, there were never any Iroquois in Washington, and the Muckleshoots and Puyallups never played the game, so Washington is free to create its own traditions. Washington clubs should agree that coaches will henceforth always request stick checks on d-poles late in close games. Tradition and honor are for sissy gentlemen. Play to win at all costs.

In 2009, one lacrosse commentator wrote: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Lacrosse-2009/2009/4/REF-CHECKED-ILLEGAL-LACROSSE-1.htm “The purpose of a stick check by a coach after a goal is to specifically remove that goal (hopefully)…Even the head of a stick can get pinched in the course of the game which can start the game legal, and then can be illegal after a few face offs.”

Okay, if a d-pole’s pocket can become distorted during the course of a game by digging for a ground ball, poke checking or slamming the head on the ground in frustration, the rules have created a situation where that player, just by playing hard, can be labeled a “cheater” if the opposing coach calls for a stick check on him in the 4th quarter. So what’s the big deal? Isn’t that a risk you take by being a high school athlete? Players have to grow up and accept their role as celebrities in our competitive society. They don’t get paid much, but these guys usually acquire a few tee shirts and stickers during the season, and they get to keep their gloves and helmets. Plus the fans that call them “cheaters” pay good money to attend the games and make comments online. Why shouldn’t a high school coach be allowed to stigmatize an opposing player by requesting a late-game stick check? The rules allow it and it’s the coach’s job to win at all costs.

 The question for Washington lacrosse is: Why doesn’t the sport see more of this? There must be over 100,000 games every year nationwide, but research has only turned up a few where coaches have resorted to stick check calls at the end of a game. We should be seeing this in every close game everywhere! There are obviously way too many coaches who are hampered by old fashioned concepts of honor and dignity. Wake up guys, John Wooden is dead. Shouldn’t Washington should lead the way in changing this tradition-bound culture? I challenge anyone to explain what is wrong with having a hard-fought game be decided on the basis of which coach can successfully identify an opposing d-pole whose pocket has become distorted during the game – it’s legal and it can get you a win, and that’s all that counts.

One lacrosse commentator wrote in 2007: http://www.e-lacrosse.com/ely6.html "Although there seems to be a gentlemen's unwritten code discouraging the practice, coaches may, during "dead ball" situations, request equipment checks of their opponents. When a coach asks for an equipment check- all equipment is inspected for legality." Another wrote earlier this year: http://www.norcallaxforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2851 " Coaches usually ask for the check after a goal. If the stick is illegal then the goal is waived off and a penalty is also assessed. If a coach suspects that one of the opposing players is playing with an illegal stick, it's usually a good time to ask for the stick check after that player scores. It's not something that you do often, but I have requested one stick check this season after an opponent dodged through numerous checks without losing the ball in route to a goal. Sometimes it's just great offensive skils, but in this case the stick turned out to be illegal. The ball did not come out of the stick after the refs turned it upside down. The goal was waived off. I would never ask for a stick check except when an offensive player is dodging everyone without losing the ball. I consider it bad form otherwise and a delay of game. I also only request a stick check if it makes a material difference in the outcome of the game. If I were winning or losing by a wide margin I would never call a stick check. That's just etiquette though. A coach can legally ask for a stick check any dead ball." Query: Why should anyone in Washington care about an east coast Gentlemen's Code? People have historically moved west to get away from the stifling conventions of the east, including rich-kid lacrosse traditions. Lacrosse is just a game, and you should be able to exploit the rules to get an advantage. Why is it a stick check any different from spying on the other team's catcher-to-pitcher signals, or watering down the basepaths to slow down a fast team? Victory goes to the team with the most goals, and honor lies in the win, not how you achieve it.

Excerpt Below from 2002 Team USA Assistant Coach Ray Rostan

"The championship game was a very different affair. The Canadians, as we expected, were quite tough when they stopped playing roller ball and started playing lacrosse. We were down 9-7 at half time and were struggling to stop 6´5˝ 250-lb. John Grant, who opened the half with three goals, and 6´4˝ 250-lb. Paul Gait, who kept running over the double team. At halftime we moved in Ryan McClay (Cornell University) to shut off Grant and continued with Todd Rassas (Notre Dame) on Gait. This allowed Ryan Mollot (Princeton) and John Glatzel (Syracuse), possibly our top defensive talents, to complement the defense “off ball.” The USA led 16-13 with 2:50 on the clock when the Canadians called for a stick-check on Mike Powell. The stick came up a millimeter short. With a 3-minute unreleasable penalty with no face-off, we struggled to stop the potent Canadian man-up team. Gait and Tavares scored two quick goals in 26 seconds. We then called a stick check on Tavares and won the appeal, taking a Canadian goal off the scoreboard and evening the field for the remainder of the game. The final score was 18-15 USA."

You can buy and watch the 2005 games here http://www.ncaaondemand.com/clips/30699002_0804

Random stick checks after goals in NCAA didn't become a rule till 2007.  Which led to where we are now with NCAA games checking 20 or more sticks randomly per game.  In High School, still only a handful of sticks are randlomly checked by officials so more coaches request checks on players that appear to be using illegal sticks and haven't been randomly selected.. much like it was in the NCAA prior to 2007.

The 2005 NCAA Quarter Finals - Maryland vs Georgetown:

With only a minute and a half in the game Terp midfielder Bill McGlone's stick was checked after the Georgetown coaching staff noticed that the ball seemed not to move when McGlone threaded his way through several Georgetown players on his way to scoring a goal at 1:33 to put Maryland up 2 goals. Referee Hans Wittlelsberger held the stick upside down and the ball was still firmly lodged in it.  McGlone's goal was erased, according to the rule, and he was penalized for three minutes--a non-releaseable penalty that would carry into overtime, if necessary. Pete Cannon (Georgetown) scored again on the extra man play and the horn sounded the end of regulation with the score tied, 8-8.  Georgetown could not score before the penalty had elapsed. And with less than a minute left in the first overtime period, Terp midfielder Andrew Schwartzman ended the agony with the game's final goal.

The 2005 NCAA Semi Finals - Virginia vs Hopkins:

With the game tied in the waining minutes UVA ran the clock down to 12.9 seconds when Midfielder Matt Ward scored the go ahead goal. Before going to the X for a final faceoff and less than 13 seconds for a hopkins attempt to equalize... it was not Pietramala of JHU who would call for a stick check (To MI's fan's point, he has stated that he doesn't believe in requesting checks) it was Dom Starsia who requested a stick check on JHU midfielder Jake Byrne, hoping to control the ball and ice the game's remaining 12.9 seconds. However the stick was legal and in the end the strategy backfired as it motivated JHU for the ensuing face off.  Fittingly, Jake Byrne scored to tie the game with 1.4 seconds left.  In Overtime unsund Hopkins hero Erwin scored the game winner.

So, there have been comments on two national sites laxallstars.com and laxforums.com and all the commenters have clearly sided with the opinion that a stck check is not a sin, immoral, or bush league.  They have all shared an opinion that an attempt to stop a player from cheating can never be considered cheating or in bad form.  If you care to read the comments on laxforums.com go here http://forums.insidelacrosse.com/showthread.php?t=186769

Also, I think we can share opinions on this without calling anyone trashy or taking shots at people personally.  Many of the coaches and players at Bellevue and MI respect each other an the great games these two teams play. While this may highten the rivalry and has obviously chaffed O'Hearn (as evident by his quote), I would hope these teams can continue to have great battles in the future without the viciousness of a Hatfield vs McCoy feud.

.

Coming from a program that has also had bad interactions with Bellevue (Overlake), I can honestly say that the Bellevue parents are so unbelievably classless, that they can't even see how trashy they are.

No Bellevue parent on here is going to admit that they've spoken to anyone outside of their own program who thought it was a bush league call, so stop pretending that you're being subjective in asking around.

It was a horrible way to win a state championship, everyone outside of Bellevue knows it!

Here is more proof that both locally and nationally, requesting a stick checks is not a 1) sin 2) bush league 3) immoral. Check out this article that appeared on laxallstars.com about the game and the comments from people using their real identities and have no ties to Bellevue or MI.  Doesn't appear that one single commenter sides with those who would think Baumann's request was improper. 

http://lacrosseallstars.com/washington-state-championship-conundrum/#disqus_thread

JBisWT, you said to ask around locally and nationally... I think this qualifies.  Appears you were wrong... again.

There is such a thing as losing with grace.  And no one should be playing with an illegal stick. Period.  Move on Mercer Island! 

Being a parent not affiliated with either program, it did seem like a classless move by the Bellevue coach. This was also the general sentiment that I heard in the stands. Did he not believe that his team could win the game straight up?

It's really unfortunate for the Bellevue players that they will never know if they could have won the game head to head, and that their coach took that chance away from them.

A terrific game was played by both teams, no matter what the coaches, parents or press say. Both teams put their hearts into it. They played the highest level of lacrosse we've seen all year.  The players on both teams respect their opponents and many are friends off the field.  Thankfully, it doesn't sound like any of them are commenting here.  If the coaches disagree about a ref call then OK, but they should have that discussion in private not on the internet.  Rules are rules, so I don't understand who decides when it's cool or not cool to invoke them.

You Say:

1) Calling for a stick check is bush league and you speak for all respected coaches

2) You never see it happen at NCAA level

3) Bellevue had multiple illegal sticks but the MI coaches would never call for a stick check

Addressing Your Comments:

1) That is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.  If you become a coach some day you can even live by your opinion.  However, that won't change the fact that coaches are asked by officials at the begining of every game to confirm that ALL their players are legally equipped.  The refs can't check everyone so the means of checking is random stick checks at intervals and allowing the coaches to request a check on an opposing player. Much like the "challenge" flag in NFL football, coaches are given this tool to use it or not.  They would be fools to allow players on opposing teams to use illegal equipment to gain an advantage and do nothing about it. 

2) That is an ignorant statement.  In fact in 1999 Dom Starsia of UVA was down by a goal with 26 seconds remaining and requested a stick check on a Hopkins player. The check resulted in the Hopkins player being penalized for an illegal stick which gave UVA an opportunity to tie the game. They failed to tie it an lost 16-15.. article here if you don't believe http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-lacros/recaps/032999aab.html.  The reason you don't see many coaches at the NCAA Division I level requesting stick checks is because the officials are more dilligent now than they were in 1999.  Now instead of regular intervals like 1st quarter and 3rd quarter, they check after every goal, every quarter, and every timeout.  They check upwards of 20 sticks per game in an NCAA DI game. You just don't see that on TV but it is happening.  A player would be very lucky to make it through a DI game using an illegal stick.

3) Another opinion on your part with no factual truth.  First off, saying MI would never request a stick check is wrong.  You don't have to go any further back in time than the very same game. After Bellevue requested the check, MI requested a check of #7's on Bellevue. If MI wanted to take a moral stand, why request a stick check and "stoop to Bellevue's level" as you say? As for your statement about Bellevue having multiple illegal sticks out there, MI had one opportunity to check for an illegal stick (which they took) and they came up empty.  #7's stick was legal. So, if there were illegal sticks out there, MI at best can claim that they weren't aware enough to be able to identify them.  Not a claim one should be proud of.

Isn't the final statement on this the real story... the kid had an illegal stick!  Whether the coaches on MI knew or not, it is  100% their fault for being in that situation.  Even middle school coaches know to check every stick on their team before any big game.  I am schocked the MI coach allowed a kid on the field without being 100% confident his stick is legal. I imagine it is tough for the MI coach to swallow but something that was in his control was the cause of his loss.  That speaks more to coaching acumen than any opinions on moral high ground.

All the Bellevue parents can rationalize it anyway they like, but the bottom line is that calling for a stick check during a play-off game, much less the state championship, is bush league and poor coaching. That's why you never see it happen. Bellevue had multiple illegal sticks on the field, but you would never know it because the MI coaching staff would never stoop to that level.

Could you imagine if Coach Corrigan or Coach Danowski had called for a stick check before the OT of the NCAA National Championship yesterday? I doubt you can, because it would NEVER happen.

"Wingman", if you truly are educated on this sport, you would know that Coach Baumann's decision is considered the ultimate sin in the coaching world. Go and ask any established coach in the community that is not affiliited with either program, they would all tell you that this call is the epitome of classlessness.

The Bellevue players played a phenomenal 48 minutes of lacrosse. It's unfortunate that Coach Baumann did not have enough faith in his team, or his own coaching skills, to win the game straight up.

In response to your comments about the Mercer Island coach, perhaps Bellevue needs to look at the attitudes and behavior of their own varsity players and coaches.

On Friday night, I watched a great game of lacrosse between the 7/8 Mercer Island and Bellevue teams, the coaches and players of both these teams showed respect and good sportsmanship toward each other.

The Bellevue varsity players were there as spectators, I was suprised and disgusted at some of the things that I heard coming from the Bellevue 'varsity' players directed at Middle school lacrosse players, who are 13 & 14yo. I was more suprised to see that sitting with these varsity players were some of the Bellevue coaching staff, who were laughing at such comments!!!

Great game for a deserving group of boys.

Thinking about what Mr. O'Hearn said in his post-game interview...

If a coach can't accept defeat graciously by refusing to shake hands with the opposing coach, or to make a snide remark about playing with class, I think he really does a disservice to the young athletes who he is charged with training.  Sportmanship is a pretty clear concept- play right and fair, win graciously, and if necessary, lose with dignity.  That is not the message he sent to the fine young men that make up the MI lacrosse squad, or to the opposing team, and it is a shame to see.  Let's try to set a better example for our boys Coach!

This was a beautifully played game by both teams. From the first faceoff to the last shot, it was a nail-biter for everyone at Memorial Stadium.  MI's defense was the toughest I've seen in any game this season, so Bellevue's scoring through that is all the more impressive.  This was a great way to end the high school lacrosse career for Bellevue's seniors and taught them and their teammates lessons about tenacity, integrity and teamwork that they'll carry with them the rest of their lives. Congrats to the might Wolverines, and also to the Islanders for the game of the decade!