What is cross-checking in lacrosse. How does it differ from body checking. What are the consequences of a cross-checking penalty. How do referees identify and signal cross-checking fouls.
The Definition and Mechanics of Cross-Checking in Lacrosse
Cross-checking is a significant personal foul in lacrosse that occurs when a player improperly uses their stick against an opponent. The specifics of this penalty can vary slightly depending on the league and level of play, but the core concept remains consistent across different rulebooks.
In NCAA Men’s Lacrosse, cross-checking is defined as hitting an opposing player with the middle portion of the stick shaft while the player’s hands are positioned far apart on the stick. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) and Youth Lacrosse rules describe it as using the area between the hands to thrust or extend the stick away from the body, making contact with an opponent.
Regardless of the specific league definition, the key element that referees look for is the extension of the cross-section of the shaft into an opponent. This action is considered dangerous and unsportsmanlike, potentially putting players at risk of injury.
How to Identify a Cross-Check
- The defender extends their stick with hands spread apart
- Initial contact is made with the middle portion of the stick shaft
- The motion is a thrusting or pushing action towards the opponent
- The check is not a legal poke check or slap check
Is cross-checking ever allowed in lacrosse? In most forms of field lacrosse, cross-checking is strictly prohibited. However, box lacrosse, an indoor variant of the sport, does allow some forms of cross-checking within its ruleset. This exception highlights the importance of players and coaches being familiar with the specific rules of their league and game format.
Consequences and Penalties for Cross-Checking
When a cross-checking foul is called, the offending player faces several potential consequences. The severity of the penalty often depends on the force used, the point of contact, and the referee’s judgment of the player’s intent.
Typical Penalties for Cross-Checking
- Personal foul assessed to the offending player
- Time penalty, usually ranging from 1 to 3 minutes
- Possible ejection from the game for severe infractions
- Potential suspension for multiple games in extreme cases
How long is the penalty for cross-checking in high school lacrosse? In men’s high school lacrosse, a cross-checking foul typically results in a 1 to 3-minute penalty, during which the offending player must remain in the penalty box. The exact duration is at the discretion of the referee based on the severity of the foul.
Are the penalties different in college lacrosse? The NCAA tends to enforce cross-checking penalties more strictly. In college lacrosse, severe cross-checks can lead to immediate ejection from the game and even suspension from future matches, emphasizing the seriousness with which the sport views this infraction.
Referee Signals and Game Management for Cross-Checking Fouls
Referees play a crucial role in identifying and penalizing cross-checking infractions. Their ability to spot these fouls and manage the game accordingly is essential for maintaining player safety and the integrity of the sport.
The Process of Calling a Cross-Check
- Referee observes the illegal cross-check
- A penalty flag is thrown to indicate the foul
- Play continues until a loose ball or change of possession occurs
- Referee stops play and signals the penalty
- The foul and penalty time are announced
How do referees signal a cross-checking penalty? To signal a cross-checking foul, the referee pushes both arms straight out and in with closed fists, mimicking the motion of a cross-check. This distinct gesture ensures that players, coaches, and spectators clearly understand the nature of the called penalty.
Distinguishing Cross-Checking from Other Lacrosse Penalties
While cross-checking is a specific infraction in lacrosse, it’s important to understand how it differs from other similar penalties. This knowledge helps players avoid committing fouls and assists coaches and spectators in understanding referee decisions.
Cross-Checking vs. Body Checking
Body checking and cross-checking may seem similar, but they are distinct actions with different rules governing them. Body checking involves a player using their body to dispossess an opponent of the ball. It’s generally allowed in men’s lacrosse when performed correctly, focusing on shoulder-to-shoulder contact.
Cross-checking, on the other hand, specifically involves the improper use of the stick. The key difference lies in the point of contact and the implement used to make that contact. While body checking uses the player’s body, cross-checking uses the stick shaft in a way that’s considered dangerous and illegal.
Other Related Penalties
- Illegal Body Check: When a legal body check is performed incorrectly or dangerously
- Unnecessary Roughness: Excessively violent play beyond the scope of normal game action
- Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Behavior that goes against the spirit of fair play
- Spearing: Using the end of the stick to jab an opponent
Can a player be penalized for both cross-checking and another foul simultaneously? Yes, it’s possible for a player to commit multiple infractions on a single play. For instance, a particularly violent cross-check might also be deemed unnecessary roughness, potentially resulting in a more severe penalty.
Strategies for Players to Avoid Cross-Checking Penalties
Given the serious nature of cross-checking penalties, it’s crucial for players to develop techniques and awareness to avoid committing this foul. Proper stick handling and defensive positioning can significantly reduce the risk of cross-checking infractions.
Tips for Clean Defensive Play
- Focus on footwork and body positioning to maintain defensive advantage
- Use legal stick checks like poke checks and slap checks
- Keep hands close together on the stick when engaging opponents
- Practice controlled stick movements to avoid excessive force
- Develop awareness of stick placement during defensive actions
How can coaches help players avoid cross-checking penalties? Coaches play a vital role in preventing cross-checking fouls by emphasizing proper technique in practice, teaching the rules thoroughly, and promoting a culture of clean, fair play. Regular drills focusing on legal defensive maneuvers can help players develop muscle memory for safe and effective play.
The Impact of Cross-Checking Penalties on Game Strategy
Cross-checking penalties can significantly affect the flow and outcome of a lacrosse game. Understanding these impacts is crucial for players, coaches, and teams to adapt their strategies accordingly.
Strategic Considerations
- Man-down situations: The penalized team must play with fewer players, creating offensive opportunities for the opposing team
- Momentum shifts: A cross-checking penalty can disrupt a team’s rhythm and potentially swing momentum to the other side
- Player rotation: Coaches must adjust their substitution patterns to account for penalized players
- Risk management: Teams may need to play more conservatively to avoid further penalties
- Special teams importance: The effectiveness of man-up and man-down units becomes crucial
How do teams adapt their play when they’re a man down due to a cross-checking penalty? When playing man-down, teams often adopt a more defensive posture, focusing on protecting the goal and limiting scoring opportunities. They may employ zone defenses or specific man-down formations to maximize their defensive coverage with fewer players on the field.
The Evolution of Cross-Checking Rules in Lacrosse
The rules surrounding cross-checking in lacrosse have evolved over time, reflecting changing attitudes towards player safety and the desire to maintain the sport’s integrity. Understanding this evolution provides insight into the current state of the game and potential future changes.
Historical Perspective
In the early days of organized lacrosse, physical play was less regulated, and actions that might be considered cross-checking today were more commonplace. As the sport grew and concerns about player safety increased, rules were gradually implemented and refined to address dangerous play.
Recent Rule Changes
- Stricter enforcement of cross-checking penalties at all levels of play
- Increased emphasis on player safety in rule interpretations
- Introduction of video review in some leagues to ensure accurate calls
- Ongoing discussions about further refining the definition of cross-checking
Will cross-checking rules continue to evolve in lacrosse? It’s likely that rules regarding cross-checking will continue to be refined as the sport evolves. Governing bodies regularly review and update rules to address emerging concerns, improve player safety, and enhance the quality of play. Future changes might include more precise definitions of what constitutes a cross-check or adjustments to penalty severities.
Cross-Checking in Different Lacrosse Variants
While the core concept of cross-checking remains consistent across different forms of lacrosse, the specific rules and their enforcement can vary depending on the variant being played. Understanding these differences is crucial for players who may participate in multiple forms of the sport.
Cross-Checking in Major Lacrosse Variants
- Field Lacrosse (Men’s): Strict prohibition on cross-checking with significant penalties
- Women’s Lacrosse: Generally does not allow any form of body checking, including cross-checking
- Box Lacrosse: Allows limited forms of cross-checking, particularly in defensive situations
- Intercrosse: Non-contact variant where cross-checking is strictly forbidden
Why is cross-checking treated differently in box lacrosse? Box lacrosse, being an indoor variant played in smaller spaces, has traditionally allowed more physical contact. The limited playing area and the sport’s historical development in Canada, where it often competed with ice hockey for players and fans, led to rules that permit certain forms of cross-checking. However, even in box lacrosse, excessive or dangerous cross-checks are still penalized.
This variation in rules across different forms of lacrosse highlights the importance of players being adaptable and knowledgeable about the specific regulations of the variant they are playing. It also underscores the ongoing discussions within the lacrosse community about balancing traditional physicality with modern safety concerns.
As lacrosse continues to grow globally and new variants emerge, it’s likely that the treatment of cross-checking will remain a topic of debate and potential rule refinement. Players, coaches, and officials must stay informed about these evolving standards to ensure fair and safe play across all forms of the sport.
Lacrosse Cross-Checking Penalty
Home>Sports>Lacrosse>Lacrosse Penalties
PreviousNext
The cross-checking penalty in lacrosse is a personal foul enforced when a referee judges a player’s safety is at risk. A cross-checking foul occurs when an opposing player extends the shaft of their stick into a player running towards them. The call is dependent on the location of impact and the referee’s discretion to be called.
Table of Contents
- Definition
- Result
- Referee Signal
- Examples
- Helpful Links
- Similar Penalties to Cross-Checking
- FAQ
Definition
The official definition of cross-checking varies from league and level of play; according to the official NCAA Men’s Lacrosse rules, the foul occurs when a player hits an opposing player with the middle of their shaft and the player’s hands are placed wide apart on the stick. Conversely, the NFHS and Youth Lacrosse rules define the penalty as a player performing a check by using the middle of their shaft to thrust or extend away from their body, using the area between their hands to hit their opponent.
Regardless of league, the act of extending the cross-section of the shaft into the opponent is a typical dead giveaway to referees to make the call. The penalty is dependent on the referee witnessing the rule being broken firsthand. If the foul is observed, the referee will throw a flag and assess a personal foul to the offending player. This call can result in a one to three-minute penalty for the player who performed the illegal cross-check and even ejection from the remainder of the game, depending on the severity of the offense.
Result
The result for a cross-checking penalty varies by league, but it is typically counted as a personal foul on the offending player. In men’s high school lacrosse, the foul generally comes with a one to three-minute period in the penalty box. The NCAA is stricter with its enforcement and can even lead to ejection and suspension from games. The only formally recognized lacrosse league to allow any form of cross-checking is box lacrosse.
When the referee witnesses a cross-check being performed by a player, they throw a penalty flag and wait for a loose ball or change of possession to stop play. They then signal the penalty by pushing both of their arms straight in and out in a pushing manner with closed fists to imitate the cross-checking motion. The referee will assess the personal foul on the player being penalized and announce the penalty time they must serve, based on the level of the transgression.
Examples
- A defender thrusts their stick illegally into an opposing attacker and hits their head.
- A player uses the shaft of their stick as the initial point of contact while playing defense on another player.
- A player uses the cross-section of their stick to level an opponent in an aggressive or dangerous manner.
- How It Works: Cross-Checking
- Beginner Lacrosse: Lacrosse Penalties
- USA Lacrosse Rules
- NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Rules
- Video: Cross-Checking
Similar Penalties to Cross-Checking
- Illegal Body Check
- Unnecessary Roughness
- Unsportsmanlike Conduct
- Spearing
FAQ
What is cross-checking in lacrosse?
Cross-checking is the act of extending the cross-section of the shaft into an opponent to impede their movement, making contact with your hands spread apart.
This penalty is called when the stick is not being used properly by a player and could potentially lead to danger or injury for other opposing players. What does and does not constitute cross-checking is ultimately up to the referee’s discretion and will be called differently at various levels of play.
What are the consequences of being called for cross-checking in lacrosse?
The consequence for a cross-checking penalty varies by league and level of play. In most recognized leagues, the action is classified as a personal foul and comes with a time penalty between one and three minutes for the player who performed the cross-check. Some leagues may even eject the player if the action is violent and dangerous enough; this is dictated by the referee’s judgment.
How are body checking and cross checking different in lacrosse?
Body checking may be similar to cross checking, but it is not the same. Body checking is defined as a player using their body to try and take the ball away from an opponent during play.
Like cross checking, it can be considered a foul if performed in a dangerous manner; this is left to the referee’s judgment can be slightly ambiguous. Both rules focus on the point of contact, but body checking is concentrated on shoulder-to-shoulder contact instead of the location of contact the stick makes with the opponent, as seen in cross checking.
PreviousNext
Pages Related to Lacrosse Cross-Checking Penalty
- Lacrosse Illegal Body Check Penalty
- Types Of Lacrosse Sticks
- Lacrosse Penalties
- Lacrosse Holding Penalty
- Lacrosse Face-Off Violation
- Top 10 Lacrosse Brands
PreviousNext
Lloydminster Brutes Lacrosse : Website by RAMP InterActive
The cross-check in the game of box lacrosse is a legal play. Rule 40 of the CLA Rulebook states:
“A legal cross-check shall be defined as a check applied with the portion of the stick held between the hands, on an opponent:
- From the front or side
- Below the shoulders
- Above the waist
- The extension of the arms while the check is being delivered is permissible.
”
”The game of Box Lacrosse allows the cross-checking of players with the ball and without the ball. In Pee Wee and younger, the non-ball carrier can only be cross-checked inside the dotted line. In Bantam and older, the non-ball carrier can be cross-checked in the defensive zone.
The purpose of Rule 40 is to provide the guidelines of what is a legal and an illegal cross-check. The game of lacrosse is a physical game and the rules are in place to ensure fairness and player safety.
The cross-check is a skill that is part of playing defense. From a coaching perspective, it is critical that we teach players to play defense first. To know where the ball is, where the opposing player is, and how to prepare to help a teammate. A defender uses the cross-check on the ball carrier to stop the opposing player from getting into the prime scoring areas. A defender uses the cross-check on the non-ball carrier to stop the opposing player from advancing into the prime scoring areas to receive a pass.
For example, if a non-ball carrier cuts through the middle of the floor, the defender can cross-check that player to deter their path towards the net.
The “Clear the House” mentality of playing defense needs to stop! Excessive force on the non-ball carrier is illegal and is a penalty. The referee has the discretion on whether a player is defending their zone or using excessive force against an opponent. Players need to use the cross-check as part of their defensive strategy, not in an attempt to hurt or intimidate opposing players.
Coaches can make a significant difference in the game by understanding the purpose of cross-checking, in its function and its implementation in the sport. The game of Box Lacrosse is inherently physical, it is why many people love the sport. The speed and contact make it a great game to play and watch. However, it is important to play the game within the rules, in order for the game to be safe for all participants.
/cloud/ablax/files/Blog%20Posts/Cross-Checking%20in%20the%20Game%20of%20Box%20Lacrosse.
pdf
RAMP Registration
Join thousands of association partners using RAMP Registration Solutions.
More Information
RAMP Official Assigning
#1 with Officials…for very good reasons.
More Information
RAMP Websites
Manage your identity from the palm of your hand to the top of your desk.
More Information
RAMP Team App
Keep your coaches, parents, athletes, and fans connected, seamlessly.
More Information
What is cross-validation | Data Science
Cross-validation ( Cross-validation ) is a method for evaluating an analytical model and its behavior on independent data. When evaluating the model, the available data is divided into k parts. Then, the model is trained on k−1 parts of the data, and the rest of the data is used for testing. The procedure is repeated k times; in the end, each of the k pieces of data is used for testing. The result is an estimate of the effectiveness of the chosen model with the most uniform use of the available data.
Typically cross-validation is used in situations where the goal is prediction and one would like to evaluate how the predictive model is able to perform in practice. One round of cross-validation involves splitting the dataset into parts, then building the model on one part (called the training set), and validating the model on the other part (called the test set). To reduce the scatter of results, different cross-validation rounds are run on different partitions, and the validation results are averaged over all rounds.
Cross-validation is important to guard against data-driven hypotheses (“Type III errors”), especially when obtaining additional data is difficult or impossible.
Suppose we have a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a dataset on which this model can be optimized (training set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters and makes the model as fit to the training set as possible. If we now take an independent sample of data to validate the model from the same source as we took the training set from, we usually find that the model describes the test data worse than the training set.
This is called overfitting, and is especially common in situations where the size of the training set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to evaluate the ability of a model to work on a hypothetical test set when such a set cannot be obtained explicitly.
Common types of cross-validation
K-fold cross-validation
In this case, the original data set is split into K blocks of the same size. Of the K blocks, one is left to test the model, and the remaining K-1 blocks are used as a training set. The process is repeated K times, and each of the blocks is used once as a test set. K results are obtained, one for each block, and they are averaged or combined in some other way to give one score. The advantage of this method over random subsampling is that all observations are used for both training and testing of the model, and each observation is used for testing exactly once. Cross-validation on 10 blocks is often used, but there are no specific recommendations for choosing the number of blocks.
In layered cross-validation, blocks are selected so that the average of the model response is approximately equal across all blocks.
Random subsampling validation
This method randomly splits the dataset into training and test sets. For each such split, the model is fitted to the training data and the prediction accuracy is evaluated on the test set. The results are then averaged over all partitions. The advantage of this method over cross-validation on K blocks is that the proportions of the training and test sets do not depend on the number of repetitions (blocks). The disadvantage of the method is that some observations may never be included in the test set, while others may be included in it more than once. In other words, test cases may overlap. Also, since the splits are random, the results will be different if the analysis is repeated.
In the layered version of this method, random samples are generated in such a way that the average response of the model is equal across the training and test sets.
This is especially useful when the model response is binary, with unequal proportions of responses across the data.
Element-wise cross-validation (Leave-one-out, LOO)
Here, a single observation is used as a test dataset, and the remaining observations from the original dataset are used as a training one. The cycle is repeated until each observation is used once as a test. This is the same as K-box cross-validation, where K is equal to the number of observations in the original dataset.
Model fit assessment
The purpose of cross-validation is to assess the expected level of fit of the model to data independent of the data on which the model was trained. It can be used to evaluate any quantitative measure of fit that is appropriate for the data and model. For example, for a binary classification problem, each case in the test set will be predicted correctly or incorrectly. In this situation, the error rate can be used as a fit score, although other scores can be used.
If the predictor is continuously distributed, the standard error, the root of the standard error, or the median absolute deviation can be used to evaluate the fit.
Cross-validation applications
Cross-validation can be used to compare the results of different predictive modeling procedures. For example, suppose that we are interested in optical character recognition, and we are considering using either support vectors (Support Vector Machines, SVM), or k nearest neighbors (k nearest neighbors, KNN). With cross-validation, we could objectively compare the two methods in terms of their relative misclassification rates. If we simply compare these methods by their training set errors, KNN is likely to perform better because it is more flexible and therefore more prone to overfitting than SVM.
Cross-validation can also be used for parameter selection. Suppose we have 20 parameters that we could use in the model. The task is to choose the parameters, the use of which will give a model with the best predictive abilities.
If we compare subsets of parameters by their errors on the test set, the best results will be obtained when using all parameters. However, with cross-validation, the model with the best generalizability usually includes only some subset of the parameters that are sufficiently informative.
Computational performance issues
Most forms of cross-validation are fairly easy to implement if there is a ready-made implementation of the prediction method. In particular, the prediction method is needed only in the form of a “black box”, there is no need to get into the details of its implementation. If the prediction method is resource-intensive enough in training, cross-validation can be slow because training is performed many times sequentially. In some cases, such as least squares or kernel regression, cross-validation can be greatly accelerated by precomputing some values that are reused in training, or by using “update rules” such as the Sherman-Morrison formula. However, care must be taken to ensure that the validation dataset is completely separated from the training dataset, otherwise bias may occur.
An extreme example of speeding up cross-validation occurs in the case of linear regression, where the results of cross-validation have an explicit analytical form known as PRESS (prediction residual error sum of squares).
Limitations and misuse of cross-validation
Cross-validation only gives meaningful results when the training set and the test data set come from the same source, from the same population. In many applications of predictive models, the structure of the system under study changes over time. This can induce systematic deviations of the training and validation datasets. For example, if a stock price prediction model is trained on data from a particular five-year period, it is unrealistic to consider the subsequent five-year period as a sample from the same population.
If performed correctly and the datasets are from the same population, cross-validation results with little or no bias. However, there are many ways to misuse cross-validation. In this case, the prediction error on the actual validation data set is likely to be much worse than expected from the cross-validation results.
Ways to misuse cross-validation:
1. Use cross-validation on multiple models, and take only the results of the best model.
2. Conduct an initial analysis to determine the most informative set of parameters using the full set of data. If parameter selection is required in a prediction model, it must be performed sequentially on each training set. If cross-validation is used to determine the set of parameters used by the model, internal cross-validation must be performed on each training set to determine the set of parameters.
3. Allowing some training data to also fall into the test set – this can happen due to the existence of duplicate observations in the original set.
Source
personal fouls – Termwiki, millions of terms defined by people like you
personal fouls
Personal fouls may include cross-checking, cutting or any rough play that the referee considers excessively rough or extreme. Offending by sending the field for 1 to 3 minutes and the ball is given to the opposing team player may result in a personal foul.
(Sign in to edit the definition.)
This information has been generated automatically. You can help us improve it.
Add Image
- Part of speech: noun
- Synonym(s):
- Vocabulary:
- Industry/Operation: Sports
- Category: Lacrosse
- Company:
- Item:
- Acronym:
More
Add to My Glossary
Select another language:
- personal fouls
- Add term
- Add term
- Faltas personales
- Add term
- Add term
- 個人ファウル
- pribadi pelanggaran
- Add term
- Add term
- Add term
Extras
News terms
Billy Morgan
Sports; Snowboarding
British snowboarder Billy Morgan landed the first ever 1800 Quadruple Sport Cork.
The rider, who represented Great Britain at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, was in Livigno, Italy when he reached the manoeuvre. It includes flipping four times while the body also spins five full turns on the axle, side or front side …
Marzia Afkham
Television and radio broadcasting and reception; News
Afkham Marziya, who is the country’s first foreign ministry spokesman, will lead missions in East Asia, the State News Agency reported. It’s not clear which country she will be posted to as her destination has yet to be officially announced.
Afkham will be only the second female ambassador Iran has. Under the last rule …
Per package
Language; Services online; Slang; Internet
Weekly Packet or “Paquete Participation” as it is known in Cuba is a term used to describe information collected from the Internet by Cubans outside of Cuba and stored on hard drives for transportation within Cuba itself. The packages are then sold to Cubans without access to the Internet, allowing them to receive information days – and sometimes hours – after it ./cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/60855529/Tomsik4513rotator.0.jpg)
..
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)
Banking; Investment Banking
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is an international financial institution for infrastructure development in Asia. By 2020, Asia will need $800 billion annually to build new roads, ports, power plants and other infrastructure projects, according to the Asian Development Bank.
Originally initiated by China in …
Spartan
Online services; Internet
Spartan is the codename for the new Microsoft Windows 10 browser that will replace Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer.
The new browser will be built from the ground up and ignoring any code from the IE platform. It has a new rendering engine that is built to be compatible with the way the web is written today.
Name … 9Terms
Followers
Industry/Domain: Festivals Category: New Year
New Year resolution represents a commitment that a person makes for one or more personal goals, projects, or to reform a habit.
