In last Saturday night’s Georgia/Buffalo game, Swarm goaltender Brett Dobson took a major penalty for high-sticking. It’s a bit unusual for a goalie to take a major penalty but that was less unusual than what happened next: Dobson was sent to the penalty box to serve his own penalty. Social media went bananas with people wondering if a rule had changed or if this was par for the course in the NLL. The answers are no and no.
Category Archives: Rules
2026 NLL Rule changes
Every year, some tweaks are made to the NLL Rule book. There aren’t that many this year but Rule 67.16, the so-called “Bandits rule”, could significantly affect the defensive strategies of not only the Bandits but other teams as well – the Knighthawks come to mind.
NLL Tiebreakers
One of the more confusing parts of watching the standings during the March to May is dealing with tiebreakers. If two or more teams are tied, how do we break that tie and decide on the position of each team in the standings? During the season, it doesn’t really matter much, but if teams are tied at the end of the season, it matters very much. The tiebreakers can decide everything from who a team plays to where a team plays to if a team plays.
Here’s a summary of the NLL’s tiebreakers and how they are applied.
2025 NLL Rule changes
Every year, the NLL makes small modifications to the rule book. Most of the time, these changes are clarifying existing rules or adding slight variations, and every now and again there are fairly major changes or new rules. For the 2025 season, there are no major rule changes. The only one that is likely to affect actual game play is 17.81, which is a change to coaches’ challenges. Here’s a summary of the changes for 2025.
2024 rule changes
Every year, the NLL makes some changes to the rules. Some of them are significant while others are fairly minor, and a few changes are more clarifications than changes. For the 2024 season, there are a couple of brand new rules, some changes to existing rules (one quite significant), and a couple of clarifications. Here they are:
17.95 – MAJOR, GAME MISCONDUCT, MATCH PENALTY AUTOMATIC OFFICIAL REVIEW
This is a new rule. All major, game misconduct, or match penalties (except fighting and roughing) will be reviewed by the crew chief immediately. The crew chief can confirm the call, modify it to a less severe penalty, or rescind it.
32.6 – STICK CHECK MEASUREMENT REQUEST PROCEDURE
The only change here is that the Gait D and Gait D2 stick heads are explicitly listed as being illegal.
33.1 – REQUIRED EQUIPMENT LIST
In addition to the gloves, shoulder pads, and rib pads previously required, players must now also wear a chest/heart protection pad. Sounds like a good idea to me.
35.2 – APPROVED EQUIPMENT
A sentence was added indicating that goalies are allowed to wear 2022-2023 shin pads.
37.6 – COINCIDENTAL PENALTIES
This is the significant one I mentioned. When coincident minor penalties are given, the teams will now play 4 on 4, and the players can leave the box as soon as their penalties are over. Previously, the teams would play 5 on 5 and the players had to stay in the box until the next non-technical stoppage after the penalties expired. That’s still the case for coincident major penalties.
67.5 – NON-SHOOTER IN CREASE WHEN TEAMMATE SHOOTS
No change to this rule, just a clarification saying that no part of the player’s body may be touching the crease prior to the ball crossing the plane of the goal in order for the goal to count.
69.8 – CONTACT INITIATED BY DEFENDER ON ATTACKER INTO THE CREASE
This rule now explicitly applies to the non-shooter. If a non-shooter is illegally checked into the crease and doesn’t “use his best efforts to immediately vacate the crease”, any goal scored will not count. Also, if a non-shooter is legally checked into the crease but the defender impedes him from leaving the crease, the defender gets a holding penalty and any goal scored will count. The change to this rule is to use the term “non-shooter” rather than “attacking player” to make sure the goal-scorer is not included.
80.18 – FIGHTING FIVE MINUTES OR LESS IN THE FOURTH QUARTER
This badly-named rule is also new this season. Any player given a fighting major with five minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter will get an additional game misconduct, unless the player is considered an “unwilling combatant”. The rule says nothing about fights in overtime.
95.13 – UNSPORTSMANLIKE ACTIONS BY A PLAYER ON AN OPPONENT
The rule said that actions by players not on the playing surface who become involved with players on the playing surface are “deemed as more severe and shall be dealt with accordingly”. This rule now also applies to players on the playing surface who become involved with players on the opposing bench.
2019-2020 NLL Rule Changes
Every season, the NLL tweaks their rule book. Some changes are significant (eg. when they changed the 10-second clock to 8 seconds a few years ago), while others are less so. This year, the rule changes have gone under the radar – I have seen precisely no mention of them anywhere. That’s probably because most of these changes are not all that impactful, quite honestly, but there are a couple that may affect play here and there. There is one, however, that might be a very big deal.
Here are the rule changes for 2019-2020 and what they mean.
The Crawford suspension: dangerous
You probably haven’t heard much about this issue – it’s kind of flown under the radar. Well, other than being talked about by just about every lacrosse writer and fan (and many players) on social media. Of course I’m talking about Callum Crawford’s suspension.
In case you missed it, Black Wolves forward and potential MVP candidate Crawford was given a major penalty for a high hit on Toronto’s Brad Kri back on February 24. The week after the game, the penalty was upgraded to a match penalty by the league, which gives Crawford an automatic one-game suspension. He appealed, allowing him to play in New England’s next game against Colorado (in which he scored four goals and added seven assists), but the match penalty was upheld the week after that, and he sat out last weekend’s game.
Rule 41.4 in the NLL rule book is called “Repeat Offender” and states: “Any player who is assessed a second match penalty, a second Dangerous Contact to the Head penalty (Rule 77), or a combination thereof within a two year period shall be assessed an additional five (5) game suspension.“
Very clear and unambiguous. This matters because in January of 2018, Crawford was given a match penalty for a similar hit on a Roughnecks player. That’s two match penalties within two years, so Crawford gets an automatic five games, right? Not this time. The same arbitrator who was brought in to decide on the match penalty announced that he was not ruling on the extra five games until later, though nobody could figure out why. Then on Friday, the answer came down: Crawford will sit out one game rather than five.
The PLPA released a statement from the arbitrator on why, but the statement is puzzling. The arbitrator, Andrew Brandt, mentions a similar situation two years ago when Calgary’s Greg Harnett received his second match penalty in two years, and was given a five game suspension by that arbitrator, a Mr. McGuire. Brandt says “Mr. McGuire correctly concluded that the league had no other choice than to impose an additional five game penalty. However as the rule was unilaterally adopted by the league and not a part of the CBA, it was not binding on an arbitration officer.“
Why would rules in the rule book not be binding on an arbitration officer? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that by agreeing to play games (more than half the season so far) with this rule book, the PLPA has implicitly agreed to all of the rules in the rule book. This is not a rule that was added mid-season without the PLPA’s knowledge or consent. If there are rules in there that they don’t agree with, that should have been ironed out long before the season started. And yes, I do remember that they were busy trying to make sure there was a CBA so that the season could happen, but I have not heard any complaints from the PLPA since then (before this incident) that this rule was unfair and should be changed.
Mr. Brandt also states “And in his testimony for the league, Mr. Lemon [Brian Lemon, NLL VP] explained how he did not believe the foul should result in a two-game penalty, one reserved for more severe infractions.” I agree, that one hit by itself does not deserve a multiple-game suspension. But the five game suspension is not for that one hit, it’s for the fact that there were two such hits within two years. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
He continues: “The decision to lessen Mr. Crawford’s additional five-game suspension in no way diminishes the league mission to eliminate reckless and endangering play, nor does it undermine the league’s authority.” In my humble opinion, wrong and wrong. The rule says that receiving two match penalties within two years will get you a suspension. It was written that way intentionally, even clarified this past off-season, to say that this behaviour will not be tolerated regardless of who the player is. The arbitrator’s decision says that this behaviour may or may not get you a suspension and thus it may or may not be tolerated, depending on… what? It’s not clear what. How long you’ve been in the league? How many points you have?
It also says that some of the rules in the rule book don’t hold if someone else decides they shouldn’t. I wonder what other rules are not in the CBA and are thus of questionable value?
The PLPA did everything they could to stand up for Callum Crawford. That’s their job, to represent the players, and I get that they did not explicitly make this decision. But who stood up for Brad Kri? Who’s out there trying to make sure that these kinds of hits don’t happen again?
I love watching Callum Crawford play lacrosse. He’s fast, skilled, dynamic, and exciting. I don’t think he’s a dirty player. But he made two bad decisions resulting in two dangerous hits. Those hits were close enough together in time to trigger rule 41.4, so he should be sitting out for five games. Yes he’s a veteran and yes he’s having an MVP-type season, but suspending him anyway would have sent the message that the NLL will not accept these types of hits regardless of who you are. Now, the message they are sending is that if you are a veteran or a great player, you can get away with stuff that other players can’t.
Not only does this make the league look unprofessional, it’s a very dangerous precedent to set.
NLL Rule changes 2018
As always, the league has made a number of rule changes for the upcoming season. One affects the playoff format, and that’s kind of a big deal. The rest of the changes to the rule book are either not rule changes at all (just clarifications) or are very minor changes that nobody is ever likely to notice.
Last season, when the league released their list of changes, they released a document that contained just the changes, and they also released the entire rule book with the changes in bold text. This year, they just released the new rule book. All 134 pages of it. There was no guidance on how to find the changes (some changes were in bold, but not all), so I went through the 2018 and 2017 rule books and compared them page by page and paragraph by paragraph. This is the kind of dedication you’ll find here at NLL Chatter; I do the hard work because of my passion for giving you, dear reader, the information and analysis you demand and expect. Plus, Criminal Minds was a repeat this week. Continue reading
Illegal substitution or too many men?
A week ago, I wrote about the Crease Violation rule and a number of people told me that it clarified that rule a little. So today I’ll cover another rule that’s frequently misunderstood, Illegal Substitution.
I’ve been asked this question many times in the past: what’s the difference between “illegal substitution” and “too many men”? It came up again last weekend, and my answer was the same as it’s always been: “I dunno”. So I looked over the rule book.
Here’s the thing – according to the rule book, there is no “Too many men” penalty. There is rule 55.3 Too Many Men, but that’s not the description of the penalty, it’s one of the reasons why a goal would be disallowed. The actual rule referring to the case where a team gets this penalty is under Rule 56: Substitution.
There are three relevant sections: Rule 56.6 says that if the defensive team has too many men on the floor, a delayed penalty is called. Rule 56.7 says that if the offensive team has too many men on the floor ‘for the purpose of a “fast break”‘ then play is stopped and a penalty is given. Rule 56.8 is a little complicated but says that a penalty shot is awarded against the offending team if:
- insufficient playing time remains in the game to serve the penalty in its entirety (i.e. <2 minutes left in the 4th), OR
- at any time in overtime, OR
- the penalty can’t be served in its entirety due to penalties already imposed. I believe this means that if the offending team is already two men down, that’s a penalty shot. But if a team takes any minor penalty when they’re already two men down, that’s a penalty shot.
A violation of the substitution rule, which is Rule 56.4, says that a player entering play must wait for the person he’s replacing to have both feet in the substitution area in front of the bench. Usually if the player is pretty close and the actual play isn’t anywhere near the benches, they’ll let it go. A violation of that rule where the player coming off only has one foot in the box or is a yard away from the box would likely be called “illegal substitution”. If a player leaves the box when the player he’s replacing is twenty feet away, the ref is more likely to call it “too many men”. Anywhere in between, who knows.
So the long and the short of it is: the actual rule is called “illegal substitution”. Sometimes the refs announce the penalty as “illegal substitution” and sometimes it’s “too many men”. They’re the same thing.
Clarifying the crease violation rule
It’s a rule we all know. It’s tested in every single game and although breaking it will disappoint your teammates and fans, nobody will head to the penalty box or dressing room. In a nutshell, the rule is “If you’re in the crease, any goal scored by your team doesn’t count”. If a player shoots while standing in the crease, even if his toes are just touching the crease line, no goal. If it’s his teammate who’s in or touching the crease, no goal. If he shoots while jumping and lands before the ball goes in, no goal. Easy, right? Actually there’s a little more to Rule #67.
The NLL rule book is available online (the 2017 version is here, at time of writing) so if you want to see the actual wording of the rule, go have a look. I’ll summarize some of the parts of the rule here and then we’ll look at what it all means.
Rule 67: Goal-crease violation
67.1 Attacking player in crease
If the guy with the ball touches the crease or crease line, his team loses possession. It doesn’t say “touching the ground” but that’s the implication; jumping over the crease is fine.
67.2 Attacking player first touch / interfere after shot on goal
If you shoot and your momentum takes you into the crease but you immediately step out, everything is copacetic as long as you’re not the first person to touch the ball or interfere with a defender afterwards. However, it refers to touching the ball after you get out of the crease; it’s not clear what happens if the ball goes in the net. Rule 55.2 says “A Crease Violation will result in a no goal. See Crease Violation Rule 67.” Rule 67.2 says that if you immediately step out of the crease (and don’t touch the ball first, which won’t happen if you score), you are not in violation of the rule which implies that any goal scored in such a situation would count. We’ll come back to this.
67.3 Attacking player in crease to gain advantage
If you (as an attacker but without the ball) go into the crease and then leave it, and doing this gives you an advantage (as decided by the ref), and then you grab the ball or interfere with a defender, your team loses possession. I believe an example would be if you go through the crease to get around a pick.
67.4 Attacking player in crease to gain advantage on defender
Same as the previous rule but if you initiate contact with an opposing player who has the ball, that’s a delay of game penalty rather than just a change of possession. We saw this called on Dhane Smith at last week’s game in Toronto – it was called as “Delay of Game – checking through the crease” and nobody had any idea what it meant.
67.5 Non shooter in crease when teammate shoots
The title is a little misleading. If any member of the attacking team is in the crease when the ball crosses the goal line, the goal does not count. It has nothing to do with when the shooter shoots. In a recent Toronto Rock game, a Rock player shot while another Rock player was in the crease but the ball hit the goalie and slowly trickled over the line. After a review, the refs determined that the non-shooter had left the crease by the time the ball went in so the goal counted.
67.6 Shooter in crease prior to ball crossing goal line
This is the one we’re all familiar with. If you shoot and any part of you is in contact with the crease before the ball goes in, the goal does not count. This one is slightly more explicit than 67.1; it does say you need to be touching the ground. Shooting while in the air over the crease is fine as long as it goes in before you land – just ask Mark Matthews, Curtis Dickson, or any of the dozens of other players who like to score while diving through the crease.
There’s an addendum which is oddly specific: if you shoot and the ball hits the goalie and then hits a defender and then goes in, it counts as long as the shooter is out of the crease by the time the ball crosses the line. We’ll get back to this one as well.
What does it all mean?
There are actually nine more sections of this rule, all the way up to 67.15, but I’m just looking at the ones above. For the most part, the rule says what we expect: if you or anyone else on your team is touching the ground in the crease (including the crease line) at the moment the ball crosses the goal line, the goal does not count. If you intentionally step into the opponent’s crease with or without the ball, it’s either a loss of possession or a penalty. If you accidentally step in and immediately get out (and you don’t have the ball), that’s OK.
The confusing part for me is the apparent contradiction between rules 67.2 and 67.6. We have:
- Rule 67.2 implies (but doesn’t say explicitly) that if you shoot, step in, get out, and then the ball crosses the line in that order, the goal counts.
- The first part of 67.6 says that if you step in the crease before the ball crosses the goal line, the goes does not count.
- The second part of 67.6 says that if you shoot, step in and then out, the ball hits the goalie and a defender and then goes in after you’ve stepped out, then it does count.
#1 and #2 together seem to contradict each other, but it could be that #1 covers the case where the shooter has time to get out of the crease before the ball goes in, while #2 covers the case where he does not.
But if #1 is true, why is #3 listed at all, since it’s just a special case of #1? It’s like having rules saying (a) “If you’re driving over 50 km/h in a school zone, you get a fine” and (b) “If you’re driving over 50 km/h in a school zone and your car is red, you get a fine”. But doesn’t (b) imply that you do not get a fine if you’re speeding in a green car? No, because (b) is covered by (a). (b) is not necessary at all and doesn’t clarify anything; it only serves to add confusion.
Update: In at least two and possibly three games in the week since this article was published, a shooter has stepped into and out of the crease after shooting but before the ball crossed the line. In every case, the goal was waved off. Perhaps it’s just me who thinks the rule is not explicit, but It seems clear how the refs are interpreting this rule.
Also, why does a defender need to be involved? Why that specific order? What if it hits the goalie but not a defender? What if it hits the defender first and then the goalie? As long as the shooter is out of the crease by the time the ball crosses the line, it seems that rule 67.2 should mean the goal counts in any of these cases, but we don’t know for sure. It’s a rare situation but it would be nice if this rule was clarified.
So there you have it, the crease violation rule. Clear as mud, right?
Now, here’s a question not answered by the rule book: if I score while my teammate is just barely touching the crease line behind the net, the goal doesn’t count. Clearly my teammate’s toes in no way affected the goalie’s ability to stop the ball and didn’t give me any sort of unfair advantage. So why is the goal disallowed? And don’t say “because of rule 67.5” – I mean why does the rule exist? Why can’t the ref wave it off and say that the player’s “presence” in the crease had no effect on the play so the goal counts? That’s an exercise left for the reader.
NLL Chatter 