Here we go again with the Face Off

[wgdsr]

Yup, I get all that and you're right, the officials simply need to enforce the rules which I think say clamp AND RAKE. "Problem" solved.

rake is not in there. lobster claws are allowed to your consternation.
the words (and there are others) are immediately
in one continuous motion

also something to the effect of propel the ball.

and within one step.

it's all there. poorly worded, but it's there.

edit: raked is in there. but cobbled with moved and directed (my "propel the ball" above). meaning... lobster claws allowed. i should also say that that is h.s. rules i'm now looking at. and have to mow the lawn. but nc$$ is very similar and nfhs was built on it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, I get all that and you're right, the officials simply need to enforce the rules which I think say clamp AND RAKE. "Problem" solved.

rake is not in there. lobster claws are allowed to your consternation.
the words (and there are others) are immediately
in one continuous motion

also something to the effect of propel the ball.

and within one step.

it's all there. poorly worded, but it's there.

edit: raked is in there. but cobbled with moved and directed (my "propel the ball" above). meaning... lobster claws allowed. i should also say that that is h.s. rules i'm now looking at. and have to mow the lawn. but nc$$ is very similar and nfhs was built on it.

Is the one step with the ball trapped in the back of the stick?

[Typical Lax Dad]

at all levels but espec @ nc$$ w/ the 3 violation per half rule, pretty sure a couple early whistles would clean that up straight away!
then lower level officials wouldn't feel compelled to ape it.
not sure why it is what it is.

instead, change the rule every 2 years.

Yep. No need to change the rule. It’s really much cleaner now and calling the withhold tighter would be better. Players will push it as far as the ref allows.

[wgdsr]

Yup, I get all that and you're right, the officials simply need to enforce the rules which I think say clamp AND RAKE. "Problem" solved.

rake is not in there. lobster claws are allowed to your consternation.
the words (and there are others) are immediately
in one continuous motion

also something to the effect of propel the ball.

and within one step.

it's all there. poorly worded, but it's there.

edit: raked is in there. but cobbled with moved and directed (my "propel the ball" above). meaning... lobster claws allowed. i should also say that that is h.s. rules i'm now looking at. and have to mow the lawn. but nc$$ is very similar and nfhs was built on it.

Is the one step with the ball trapped in the back of the stick?

yup. that's what defines immediately!! huh?
here's the applcable h.s. rule. anyone can google ncaa rule but very similar/same (on my aging one year memory):

i. A violation will be called if a player picks up and carries the ball on the back of his stick. It is legal to clamp the ball with the back of the stick, but it must be moved, raked or directed immediately. Immediately is defined as within one step. 

j. A player may not lie on the ball or trap it with his crosse longer than necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, I get all that and you're right, the officials simply need to enforce the rules which I think say clamp AND RAKE. "Problem" solved.

rake is not in there. lobster claws are allowed to your consternation.
the words (and there are others) are immediately
in one continuous motion

also something to the effect of propel the ball.

and within one step.

it's all there. poorly worded, but it's there.

edit: raked is in there. but cobbled with moved and directed (my "propel the ball" above). meaning... lobster claws allowed. i should also say that that is h.s. rules i'm now looking at. and have to mow the lawn. but nc$$ is very similar and nfhs was built on it.

Is the one step with the ball trapped in the back of the stick?

yup. that's what defines immediately!! huh?
here's the applcable h.s. rule. anyone can google ncaa rule but very similar/same (on my aging one year memory):

i. A violation will be called if a player picks up and carries the ball on the back of his stick. It is legal to clamp the ball with the back of the stick, but it must be moved, raked or directed immediately. Immediately is defined as within one step. 

j. A player may not lie on the ball or trap it with his crosse longer than necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner.

Let me clean that up:

j. A player may not lie on the ball or trap it with his crosse. Player must pick up the ball with one continuous motion. Player not allowed to withhold the ball from play in any manner.

[shaadb-man]

Question to the group

Does anyone under 35 years old have a problem with the current face-off rules or sticks?

[wgdsr]

Question to the group

Does anyone under 35 years old have a problem with the current face-off rules or sticks?

not sure if that matters.
how old are the majority of the committee members, do ya think?

[shaadb-man]

Question to the group

Does anyone under 35 years old have a problem with the current face-off rules or sticks?

not sure if that matters.
how old are the majority of the committee members, do ya think?

It probably doesn't matter, but it seems to be the "get off my lawn" generation that has problems with the face-off where there are very little complaints that are coming from the people actually playing the game.

For other parts of the game, like the shot clock, there was much more discussion (positive and negative) for each side and the you saw tweets and comments from HS players, college players, and pro's as well past players coaches and fans.

Seems like the face-off issues are just coming from a small (but loud) older fan base.

[DMac]

Actually, people under the age of 35 have got to wonder why it's called a stick.

[wgdsr]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

[Hoya]

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

It would be a refreshing change.

[laxpert]

Once again a rule change is considered because technology and technique have exceeded the intended play of the game rules. The amount of bend and contortion a FOGO can exert on the crosse wasn’t in the mind of officials when creating rules. I wouldn’t be surprised if review of the moto grip is driven by officials as well as coaches. It may that gray area between withholding vs being pinned that is difficult to adjudicate and coaches harp on the officials interpretation.
The softball in the FOGO’s stick is a common site between faceoff due to stick tolerances being on the legal edge. It’s kind of an unwritten rule not to ask for a stick check on FOGO’s stick, maybe the officials should include FOGO’s in the random stick checks?

[kramerica.inc]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"



I've taught faceoffs in all it's variations for the past 15 years. The Over/Under grip is much easier, more accessible, and easier to learn/harder to dominate than the moto. The moto has more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps, requires more muscle memory and is more dependent upon mastery and technique, rather than athleticism, (although that certainly helps). I personally think requiring O/U grip would actually create more competition at the facoff spot, instead of just having a handful of kids available who have been doing it since birth. I'd argue that the current guys probably simply don't want to change the rules because it's a PITA to learn something new, but also because they don't want more competition at the position.

In the very late 90s, and early 00's I can list at least a few guys who solidified themselves D1 roster spots after teaching themselves how to faceoff over a summer or early in their college career when they thought their normal midfield roster spots were in jeopardy. A few of them became very good too. You don't see that as much with the moto. It's just not possible with how complex they have made it.

PS: I also agree that the sticks and technology have exceeded the bounds of the rules. Even if you change back to O/U, the sticks should still be moved back, and the guys made to faceoff on a 6' wide line.

[pcowlax]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"



I've taught faceoffs in all it's variations for the past 15 years. The Over/Under grip is much easier, more accessible, and easier to learn/harder to dominate than the moto. The moto has more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps, requires more muscle memory and is more dependent upon mastery and technique, rather than athleticism, (although that certainly helps). I personally think requiring O/U grip would actually create more competition at the facoff spot, instead of just having a handful of kids available who have been doing it since birth. I'd argue that the current guys probably simply don't want to change the rules because it's a PITA to learn something new, but also because they don't want more competition at the position.

In the very late 90s, and early 00's I can list at least a few guys who solidified themselves D1 roster spots after teaching themselves how to faceoff over a summer or early in their college career when they thought their normal midfield roster spots were in jeopardy. A few of them became very good too. You don't see that as much with the moto. It's just not possible with how complex they have made it.

PS: I also agree that the sticks and technology have exceeded the bounds of the rules. Even if you change back to O/U, the sticks should still be moved back, and the guys made to faceoff on a 6' wide line.

I'm not sure you aren't countering your own argument here kramerica. Something that is more complex/complicated (more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps) and more dependent on mastery and technique would seem to be the approach that produces MORE competition, not less. The more technique (acquired) plays into mastery of something as opposed to strict athleticism (genetic), the more players have an opportunity to succeed at it. Yes it requires years of work but anyone who wants to can put those years in and have a chance to excel. The more something is primarily based on athleticism, the fewer are the players who will ever have a chance to excel and the less will be the reward for dedication and persistent commitment to craft. Yes, it takes years of practice to technically master it. So does shooting! I don't really think that saying that something can be learned and applied at the highest level over a summer is a recommendation for it when we are talking about the highest level of competition. Of course, at the very top of the FO pyramid you will always have those who combine technique and athleticism but the more an activity requires mastery of technique the more democratic and meritocratic it is.

[Typical Lax Dad]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"



I've taught faceoffs in all it's variations for the past 15 years. The Over/Under grip is much easier, more accessible, and easier to learn/harder to dominate than the moto. The moto has more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps, requires more muscle memory and is more dependent upon mastery and technique, rather than athleticism, (although that certainly helps). I personally think requiring O/U grip would actually create more competition at the facoff spot, instead of just having a handful of kids available who have been doing it since birth. I'd argue that the current guys probably simply don't want to change the rules because it's a PITA to learn something new, but also because they don't want more competition at the position.

In the very late 90s, and early 00's I can list at least a few guys who solidified themselves D1 roster spots after teaching themselves how to faceoff over a summer or early in their college career when they thought their normal midfield roster spots were in jeopardy. A few of them became very good too. You don't see that as much with the moto. It's just not possible with how complex they have made it.

PS: I also agree that the sticks and technology have exceeded the bounds of the rules. Even if you change back to O/U, the sticks should still be moved back, and the guys made to faceoff on a 6' wide line.

I'm not sure you aren't countering your own argument here kramerica. Something that is more complex/complicated (more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps) and more dependent on mastery and technique would seem to be the approach that produces MORE competition, not less. The more technique (acquired) plays into mastery of something as opposed to strict athleticism (genetic), the more players have an opportunity to succeed at it. Yes it requires years of work but anyone who wants to can put those years in and have a chance to excel. The more something is primarily based on athleticism, the fewer are the players who will ever have a chance to excel and the less will be the reward for dedication and persistent commitment to craft. Yes, it takes years of practice to technically master it. So does shooting! I don't really think that saying that something can be learned and applied at the highest level over a summer is a recommendation for it when we are talking about the highest level of competition. Of course, at the very top of the FO pyramid you will always have those who combine technique and athleticism but the more an activity requires mastery of technique the more democratic and meritocratic it is.

Conor Mackie made himself a face off man in college. He was so underrated. TD coming in behind him masked how good he was.

[Can Opener]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"



I've taught faceoffs in all it's variations for the past 15 years. The Over/Under grip is much easier, more accessible, and easier to learn/harder to dominate than the moto. The moto has more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps, requires more muscle memory and is more dependent upon mastery and technique, rather than athleticism, (although that certainly helps). I personally think requiring O/U grip would actually create more competition at the facoff spot, instead of just having a handful of kids available who have been doing it since birth. I'd argue that the current guys probably simply don't want to change the rules because it's a PITA to learn something new, but also because they don't want more competition at the position.

In the very late 90s, and early 00's I can list at least a few guys who solidified themselves D1 roster spots after teaching themselves how to faceoff over a summer or early in their college career when they thought their normal midfield roster spots were in jeopardy. A few of them became very good too. You don't see that as much with the moto. It's just not possible with how complex they have made it.

PS: I also agree that the sticks and technology have exceeded the bounds of the rules. Even if you change back to O/U, the sticks should still be moved back, and the guys made to faceoff on a 6' wide line.

I'm not sure you aren't countering your own argument here kramerica. Something that is more complex/complicated (more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps) and more dependent on mastery and technique would seem to be the approach that produces MORE competition, not less. The more technique (acquired) plays into mastery of something as opposed to strict athleticism (genetic), the more players have an opportunity to succeed at it. Yes it requires years of work but anyone who wants to can put those years in and have a chance to excel. The more something is primarily based on athleticism, the fewer are the players who will ever have a chance to excel and the less will be the reward for dedication and persistent commitment to craft. Yes, it takes years of practice to technically master it. So does shooting! I don't really think that saying that something can be learned and applied at the highest level over a summer is a recommendation for it when we are talking about the highest level of competition. Of course, at the very top of the FO pyramid you will always have those who combine technique and athleticism but the more an activity requires mastery of technique the more democratic and meritocratic it is.

wicked smart.jpg (58.58 KiB) Viewed 2545 times

[dawn patrol]

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"

And the alternate possession rule became an acceptable alternative to holding a faceoff anywhere on the field when officials didn't know who to award the ball. Players all being in a circle 10yds? away from two players who may have never taken a face off. Don't get me started on the 9 pole ride.

[droliver]

The way the faceoff has evolved is the last major remaining wart on the modern game. It's not entertaining to spectators and become too specialized an encounter. Alternate possessions needs to be revisited. It works good with just about every other team sport

[DMac]

I'm a spectator and it's entertaining to me.

TD, a phenom, dominant FOGO.
Baptise, a phenom, dominant FOGO.
7 years of D1 lax between them.
One NC.
I find it highly entertaining when the team who loses the face off battle wins the game.
Face offs are a great part of the game, zero need to revisit alternating possessions.

[kramerica.inc]

don't think you got my drift.
we are not the ones who have changed (or influenced to change) the faceoff rules time and again.

i think if you look again at the thread, you'll see a number of us, myself included, who are fine with the rules. and debating rules is time honored tradition.

do you think us old guys got it perfect now for you? or do you think it's young guys who have written the rules as is?

me, on faceoff rules i'd just like them to apply them.

Yeah, what do the old guys know? They have only seen it all and tried it all. Including faceoffs.

We know what NOT to do, for sure-

"The clock is on the field!"



I've taught faceoffs in all it's variations for the past 15 years. The Over/Under grip is much easier, more accessible, and easier to learn/harder to dominate than the moto. The moto has more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps, requires more muscle memory and is more dependent upon mastery and technique, rather than athleticism, (although that certainly helps). I personally think requiring O/U grip would actually create more competition at the facoff spot, instead of just having a handful of kids available who have been doing it since birth. I'd argue that the current guys probably simply don't want to change the rules because it's a PITA to learn something new, but also because they don't want more competition at the position.

In the very late 90s, and early 00's I can list at least a few guys who solidified themselves D1 roster spots after teaching themselves how to faceoff over a summer or early in their college career when they thought their normal midfield roster spots were in jeopardy. A few of them became very good too. You don't see that as much with the moto. It's just not possible with how complex they have made it.

PS: I also agree that the sticks and technology have exceeded the bounds of the rules. Even if you change back to O/U, the sticks should still be moved back, and the guys made to faceoff on a 6' wide line.

I'm not sure you aren't countering your own argument here kramerica. Something that is more complex/complicated (more steps, more counters, more stickwork steps) and more dependent on mastery and technique would seem to be the approach that produces MORE competition, not less. The more technique (acquired) plays into mastery of something as opposed to strict athleticism (genetic), the more players have an opportunity to succeed at it. Yes it requires years of work but anyone who wants to can put those years in and have a chance to excel. The more something is primarily based on athleticism, the fewer are the players who will ever have a chance to excel and the less will be the reward for dedication and persistent commitment to craft. Yes, it takes years of practice to technically master it. So does shooting! I don't really think that saying that something can be learned and applied at the highest level over a summer is a recommendation for it when we are talking about the highest level of competition. Of course, at the very top of the FO pyramid you will always have those who combine technique and athleticism but the more an activity requires mastery of technique the more democratic and meritocratic it is.

I know.

But to try to clarify my point (but likely muddy it) - The O/U grip doesn't negate mastery. It isn't rudimentary. It just doesn't rely as much on solely pinching the ball and putting it where the opponent cant get it, the way the current faceoff styles/rules do. The O/U grip still requires a lot of work to learn and master. The kids who work more and longer at O/U will STILL be better. Markedly better. But the faceoff game is subtle. without relaying on those pinch moves 100% of the time, there will not be clear cut winners the way there is now. There will be more faceoff scrums and 1v1 ground balls. With O/U a "non-fogo" athlete has a shot and can get closer to .500 than they can today. I think that's a good thing.

As a whole, the win percentage numbers have been slowly but surely creeping north. Before there was a lesser range among fogos. Now the range is growing. The faceoff position is now more of a have's vs have-nots issue. And IMO that is bad for the game and partially limiting opportunities for the developing kids or athletes IMO. I've seen the faceoff numbers and game change in the past 30 years first hand. I see the mastery/work/steps as a limiting factor to entry/competition these days. But that's just my opinion as someone who used to do it and currently coaches it.

There are examples here and there of kids picking the skill up late and last minute, but that's NOT commonplace and it's most certainly not as competitive as it used to be, within the overall scheme of the game.

You can (and will) have those that specialize and work at it. And those kids will still get a chance to shine. But now due to the reliance on the "pinch" techniques, if a team doesn't have a faceoff guy that knows it, they are out of luck. Athleticism be damned. You can't throw your best midfielder out there, or train a good athlete, or teach your team's groundball hawk, or have a former wrestler learn it in a preseason. There's not enough time to learn, yet alone master in a few days or even a few months. Those opportunities are becoming more and more lost, and I think that's just a bad thing for the game.