Women’s Lacrosse Hosts No. 7 Maryland Wednesday Night

[Tango Two]

Women’s Lacrosse Hosts No. 7 Maryland Wednesday Night - Rutgers University Athletics

PISCATAWAY, N.J. – Rutgers women's lacrosse (8-7, 2-4) hosts No. 7 Maryland (10-4, 5-1) on Wednesday night at SHI Stadium. First draw is set for a 6 p.m. primetime

scarletknights.com

 

[Tango Two]

No. 7 Maryland women’s lacrosse at Rutgers preview

The Terps look to secure second place in the Big Ten.

www.testudotimes.com

 

[Tango Two]

No. 7 Terps Travel To Rutgers For Wednesday Matchup - University of Maryland Athletics

Maryland will travel to Piscataway, New Jersey for a Wednesday matchup against the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. The Terps and Scarlet Knights will square off at 6 p.m.,

umterps.com

 

[Wagram97]

For anyone that knows the women's game, can you explain how that RU 8th goal was waived off? An illegal follow through that looked like it didn't even touch the Maryland player.

 

[leftoright]

Then the Turds get two penalty shots? For what?

 

[richthedentist]

For anyone that knows the women's game, can you explain how that RU 8th goal was waived off? An illegal follow through that looked like it didn't even touch the Maryland player.

I will try and watch the end of the game later and see what the call is I have good knowledge of the women's game although there is such a grey area on so many calls

 

[Degaz-RU]

For anyone that knows the women's game, can you explain how that RU 8th goal was waived off? An illegal follow through that looked like it didn't even touch the Maryland player.

The call was that our shooter's follow-through actually hit the MD defender's head or face. If true, it would be a correct call for the shooter to receive a penalty and for the goal to be waived off.

However, I agree with you that the replay seemed to show that the follow-through did not actually touch the MD player (so I suspect the MD player was doing her best soccer-like Oscar-worthy performance of collapsing in pain while clutching her face). However, I'm guessing that the call on the field was upheld because the video evidence wasn't conclusive on the no-hit.

 

[Wagram97]

Thanks. Seemed like such a crazy call that I've never seen, during a tight game, especially since it cost RU the game.