Minor Misconduct (HS) Rules Question

General
1

Rules question about a game that just ended. I consider myself not-unknowledgeable about water polo rules, but with the differences between college, high school and club, I’m genuinely at at loss for the right answer in this particular situation.

Game scenario: 2OT, 15 seconds left, offense is down 1 and shoots, defending goalie makes a good save and profoundly celebrates, and the official immediately calls defending goalie for minor misconduct. (Ignore whether the official’s call was justified given the game scenario; assume that it was.)

My understanding of college is that a minor gets the player out but with substitution, so that in college, it’d be offense’s ball, 7 on 7 (6 on 6 in the field), with the reserve goalie for the defense with all goalie rights. (Yes?) By contrast, in club, I’ve heard it said that there are “no minors in USA Water Polo” (even though I’ve repeatedly seen them called), so it’d be a regular exclusion. As I said, I don’t know NHFS rules, and don’t have a Green Book handy.

But here, the official (1) excluded the defending goalie, (2) allowed a substitute goalie (with goalie rights), but (3) made the defense play a man down (7 on 6). Offense shoots and fails to score.

Is that really the right call? I would think that it’s either (a) a “true” minor, so it’s 7 on 7 with goalie rights (like college), or (b) an actual exclusion (like club), so it’s 7 on 6 with no defending goalie.

For those in the know: What’s the right result. Did the officials really get it right, or if wrong, what do the rules actually dictate?

2

A MAM (Minor Act of Misconduct) is equivalent to an exclusion foul in the scoresheet and is the same in the NCAA and NFHS. The ball turns over, the goalie is excluded, and the defense plays down 6/5 with no goalie. Field players can defend the goal, but without goalie privileges. If the offense was to call a timeout, or the defense wanted to risk a live-time substitution, a substitute goalie may enter the game, as it’s the player that is excluded and not the position. I’ve never seen a live-time substitution attempted during play because it’s so risky, but if the defensive coach knows the rule and the offense calls a timeout once the MAM is called, I’ve seen the position substituted numerous times.

The referee must have considered the “profound” celebration as a minor taunt to the other team and worthy of the MAM in his/her judgment. If the MAM is committed during “interval time” (between quarters, after a goal, during a timeout, etc.), the player is excluded and may not return to play until 20 seconds have elapsed or the opponent scores a goal (whichever comes first but no sooner than 20 seconds of elapsed game time); however, the teams will play seven on seven or “even up.” I hope it was a legitimate “minor taunt,” as that’s a pretty significant call in the scenario you describe. Either way, it’s a judgment call.

The excluded goalkeeper rule is found on page 61 of the NFHS rulebook in Rule 7-3-Article 6. It states: “If a goalkeeper is excluded, a substitute wearing a goalkeeper’s cap may be substituted for an exiting field player during that exclusion. (as, for example, during a timeout or as a live time direct substitute.

The MAM is found on page 68 of the NFHS rulebook in Rule 7-12-Article 1 and states: An exclusion foul with a 20-second period of exclusion will be awarded for minor acts of misconduct (MAM) that are not sufficient to warrant exclusion for the remainder of the game. Examples of this type of exclusion foul include: A player directing minor comments to the referee, a player making minor gestures to the referee, a player making comments (minor taunting) or gestures or minor shoving. A minor act of misconduct may be called during play or during interval time. The referee signals for a minor act of misconduct in each case and excludes the player for 20 seconds for the first offense. A player receiving a second minor act of misconduct in the game will be excluded for the remainder of the game.

Hope this helps……Sounds like an interesting game to say the least.

1 Like
3

Incredibly helpful indeed. Thank you.

Here, the (now-) offensive team did call a timeout after the MAM. Perhaps that was a mistake, in retrospect, since it let a substitute goalie come in. (This was a rivalry game between two top 20 teams, so it was definitely one where the result mattered.)

The now-defending team’s coach did not, in fact, know the rule, and thought that he no longer had a goalie, but near the end of the timeout the ref told him that he could indeed substitute a new goalie, so he did.

2 Likes
4

You’re welcome. :+1:

5

I know you’re asking about the rule more so than the call itself, but I think it warrants discussion.

Officials, the best thing you can do is leave a game and have not one person talk about you. Like you didn’t exist or weren’t there. The game isn’t about the officials. Too many want to make a show of themselves and make calls like this that involve their own ego.

They must have an understanding of the moment especially for emotional HS kids. LET THIS GO even if it feels like too much celebrating. An official could even talk to player or coach after the game if they wanted to talk about celebrations being appropriate.

3 Likes
6

This. Based on the scenario described this call changed what was a nearly certain victory for one team to a coin flip for sudden death OT. That’s an incredibly impactful judgment call regardless of which team ended up winning. Was there something more to the story? Hard to imagine a celebration in that scenario being so egregious that a call is justified.

7

Yeah, maybe the goalie had been warned earlier in the game. I saw quite a few calls for extra celebrating at the college level last year. At the HS level I have seen many warnings and usually the kids clean up their act, but I could see a ref warning an athlete and then giving them the call later in the game for not heeding the warning.

8

This was in the LJ vs Bishops game. No there were no prior warnings and as far as the celly went, it wasn’t super egregious. The Goalie (Gayner) had a great block and was justifiably pumped. As far as the TO is concerned that was a mistake made by Davidson. No question about that. The bigger issue was that Bishops got to that point in the first place, up 4 at the end of the 3rd. Epic mismatches against Black (5’2” vs 6’6” don’t usually work), Bishops freshman, subbing and a integral player (Moss) in foul trouble early 2nd quarter…LJ dropped on Bell consistently leaving the perimeter free to shoot but nobody wanted to. It was Deja Vu of last years semi final… LJ vs Bishops again on Oct 15.

9

That’s a good time for a yellow card. Message sent, doesn’t effect the outcome.

2 Likes
10

That interpretation does not sound right to me. The foul occurred during play. Whether or not a timeout was called AFTER THE FOUL, the goalie should have been excluded for 20 sec, and the team played 5-6 with no player with goalkeeper privileges. At least in the NCAA rules. Not a common situation. Or perhaps the goalies celebration came after the timeout had been called? In that case an immediate sub would be allowed. (Note to self–watch for teams using their MAM’s strategically after goals or timeouts to avoid the 20 second exclusion . . . .:wink: ) Either way, not a common situation.

11

Further musing on this one. Worst case scenario for chaos. Goalie makes save, celebrates, and front court referee awards a MAM for taunting. Simultaneously (?as ball has been tipped out of bounds?) offensive team coach calls timeout, which is noticed and awarded by backcourt referee. With simultaneous calls, is this a live time MAM with exclusion or a dead time MAM with sub allowed? Gibson has it right, I think.

12

Substituting in an extra goalie during a timeout if one is excluded is a newer rule. It came with the extended goalie privileges.

NCAA Rule 7.3.6 allows a substitute wearing a goalie cap to enter for an existing field player if the goalkeeper is excluded. the rational is that the position of goalkeeper is not excluded but a specific player is excluded.

So never call a timeout if the goalie is excluded! know the rules. Also the Goalie cannot touch the ball with two hands outside of 6 meters! Lots of goalies like to come up to shoot at the end of a quarter or play up to pass. Make sure they know they lose privilege outside of 6! It should be a turnover if the ref notices.

13

I just have to say that this kind of parsing–that the consequences for the same foul are different for players at different positions–is one of the reasons why Loren Bertocci used to complain and complain about the NCAA rule book. Way back in the early WPP days, he had a running riff on the length of the NCAA rule book vs FINA’s.

2 Likes
14

I just appreciate this thread for a smart, well thought out question and the educational answers that have followed. Good stuff.

2 Likes