Future of WLax Rules

[Dr. Tact]

To follow your (asinine) logic to the extreme, why not reduce the number of players in baseball to 7, in football to 9?

I was merely making a simple point that more players on the field doesn't equate to growing the game or a higher quality experience for those players. That's all. There are other arguments against dropping from 12 to 10 players, but growing the game is not one of them. There is no need to say that this idea demonstrates "utter and contemptible failure to use normal rationality or perception," as Webster's describes the word asinine. Do you think Jenny Levy, Deemer Class, World Lacrosse, and Athletes Unlimited are "extremely or utterly foolish or silly?" There is also no need to fear evolution. Do you oppose boundary lines on the field? A shot clock? Free movement? Goggles? Regardless of what you and I believe, it seems the number of players is likely to be the next step in women's lacrosse evolution.

I think that going from 12 to 10 is something that many people could get behind. It doesnt change the overall look of the game. Going to sixes is a completely different game. Casual fans or new fans might like that game with its wide open action and speed.

I can see where both full field (10s or 12s) and reduced field (6s) could exist in the world of Women's Lax. It already does. I dont think NCAA will ever change to the latter.

[laxfan22]

Less players on the field means less players on a roster means less girls playing lacrosse in high school and college. I’m sure the coach at UNC doesn’t really give a crap because she is in a pretty elite pool of talent but the game isn’t just for the Jenny Ortegas of the world. Limiting the number on the field has repercussions, just like giving extra years of eligibility (not to go off tangent). Point is, the Jenny levy’s and Dwemer’s don’t necessarily speak even with awareness of joe rule changes impact the game at large. Top 15 d1 programs, sure.

[Brownlax]

Less players on the field means less players on a roster means less girls playing lacrosse in high school and college. I’m sure the coach at UNC doesn’t really give a crap because she is in a pretty elite pool of talent but the game isn’t just for the Jenny Ortegas of the world. Limiting the number on the field has repercussions, just like giving extra years of eligibility (not to go off tangent). Point is, the Jenny levy’s and Dwemer’s don’t necessarily speak even with awareness of joe rule changes impact the game at large. Top 15 d1 programs, sure.

You might not like some of the rule suggestions from Jenny Levy but you really can't say that she doesn't give a crap. She has a phenomenal reputation amongst her players and other coaches. And it's not Jenny Ortega - It's Jamie.

[laxfan22]

Maybe she gives a crap. I just don’t think a lot of high level coaches appreciate differences in the sport at the different levels. What’s right at UNC or Maryland isn’t what’s right for Denison or Roanoke. And it’s not necessarily what’s right at random high school lax team.

[wlaxphan20]

To follow your (asinine) logic to the extreme, why not reduce the number of players in baseball to 7, in football to 9?

I was merely making a simple point that more players on the field doesn't equate to growing the game or a higher quality experience for those players. That's all. There are other arguments against dropping from 12 to 10 players, but growing the game is not one of them. There is no need to say that this idea demonstrates "utter and contemptible failure to use normal rationality or perception," as Webster's describes the word asinine. Do you think Jenny Levy, Deemer Class, World Lacrosse, and Athletes Unlimited are "extremely or utterly foolish or silly?" There is also no need to fear evolution. Do you oppose boundary lines on the field? A shot clock? Free movement? Goggles? Regardless of what you and I believe, it seems the number of players is likely to be the next step in women's lacrosse evolution.

I think that going from 12 to 10 is something that many people could get behind. It doesnt change the overall look of the game. Going to sixes is a completely different game. Casual fans or new fans might like that game with its wide open action and speed.

I can see where both full field (10s or 12s) and reduced field (6s) could exist in the world of Women's Lax. It already does. I dont think NCAA will ever change to the latter.

Question about the 10v10 (I don't' think Levy specified) how many players would be left on either side of the restraining line? 6v6 with 3 and a goalie behind the restraining line? I'm assuming that's what she meant, be cause I don't think its feasible to go down to 5v5 (and even 6v6 is stretching it to the limit). I think someone mentioned it earlier - defense would be at a huge disadvantage...slides would be too far away unless they actually adjusted the field which I don't think would ever happen (too expensive).

[njbill]

To follow your (asinine) logic to the extreme, why not reduce the number of players in baseball to 7, in football to 9?

I was merely making a simple point that more players on the field doesn't equate to growing the game or a higher quality experience for those players. That's all. There are other arguments against dropping from 12 to 10 players, but growing the game is not one of them. There is no need to say that this idea demonstrates "utter and contemptible failure to use normal rationality or perception," as Webster's describes the word asinine. Do you think Jenny Levy, Deemer Class, World Lacrosse, and Athletes Unlimited are "extremely or utterly foolish or silly?" There is also no need to fear evolution. Do you oppose boundary lines on the field? A shot clock? Free movement? Goggles? Regardless of what you and I believe, it seems the number of players is likely to be the next step in women's lacrosse evolution.

Your proposal was to put 24 players on each team. That is asinine. Levy's proposal is 10. I am surprised you had to look up the definition of the word. Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are. Oh, sorry, I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings.

[Sunnylax]

Less players on the field means less players on a roster means less girls playing lacrosse in high school and college. I’m sure the coach at UNC doesn’t really give a crap because she is in a pretty elite pool of talent but the game isn’t just for the Jenny Ortegas of the world. Limiting the number on the field has repercussions, just like giving extra years of eligibility (not to go off tangent). Point is, the Jenny levy’s and Dwemer’s don’t necessarily speak even with awareness of joe rule changes impact the game at large. Top 15 d1 programs, sure.

You might not like some of the rule suggestions from Jenny Levy but you really can't say that she doesn't give a crap. She has a phenomenal reputation amongst her players and other coaches. And it's not Jenny Ortega - It's Jamie.
[/quot

She definitely Does give a crap! And learn the names of coaches and players if you are going to reference them. Unless you were trying to be cute/ funny by merging the names.

[laxfan22]

Less players on the field means less players on a roster means less girls playing lacrosse in high school and college. I’m sure the coach at UNC doesn’t really give a crap because she is in a pretty elite pool of talent but the game isn’t just for the Jenny Ortegas of the world. Limiting the number on the field has repercussions, just like giving extra years of eligibility (not to go off tangent). Point is, the Jenny levy’s and Dwemer’s don’t necessarily speak even with awareness of joe rule changes impact the game at large. Top 15 d1 programs, sure.

You might not like some of the rule suggestions from Jenny Levy but you really can't say that she doesn't give a crap. She has a phenomenal reputation amongst her players and other coaches. And it's not Jenny Ortega - It's Jamie.
[/quot

She definitely Does give a crap! And learn the names of coaches and players if you are going to reference them. Unless you were trying to be cute/ funny by merging the names.

Whatever. I was typing on my phone at work. Chill out

[laxfan22]

Also you provide to response. Ok she cares. But the proposal of going 10v10 would likely reduce participation in the sport significantly in high school and college by way of smaller rosters. Is that proposal good for the game? How? What exactly does it do positively except spread out defenses and increase scoring significantly.

[Can Opener]

To follow your (asinine) logic to the extreme, why not reduce the number of players in baseball to 7, in football to 9?

I was merely making a simple point that more players on the field doesn't equate to growing the game or a higher quality experience for those players. That's all. There are other arguments against dropping from 12 to 10 players, but growing the game is not one of them. There is no need to say that this idea demonstrates "utter and contemptible failure to use normal rationality or perception," as Webster's describes the word asinine. Do you think Jenny Levy, Deemer Class, World Lacrosse, and Athletes Unlimited are "extremely or utterly foolish or silly?" There is also no need to fear evolution. Do you oppose boundary lines on the field? A shot clock? Free movement? Goggles? Regardless of what you and I believe, it seems the number of players is likely to be the next step in women's lacrosse evolution.

Your proposal was to put 24 players on each team. That is asinine. Levy's proposal is 10. I am surprised you had to look up the definition of the word. Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are. Oh, sorry, I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings.

My proposal is to have 10 players on the field. I never proposed 24 players. To say otherwise is "To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

[njbill]

It’s OK to admit you were wrong. It doesn’t make you any less of a man. Ever heard that before?

[Brownlax]

Change the rule for going into the crease after the ball has already crossed the goal line just like in men’s lacrosse. Dumb rule!

[njbill]

Change the rule for going into the crease after the ball has already crossed the goal line just like in men’s lacrosse. Dumb rule!

Maybe. It's a safety rule. Men's game is different. They wear protective equipment. I generally don't like changing women's rules to make them like men's. How about we have a discussion about changing some men's rules to make them like women's? Start with replacing the face off with a draw. Much better. Much more athleticism required.

Even if your proposal were to be adopted, if the attacker collides with the goalie or the frame whether or not after the ball crosses the line, that should be a foul.

What I don't like is the refs won't call goal circle violations if the attacker goes in the circle and a defender breathes on her heavily. There is nothing in the rulebook providing for that ("she was pushed in"). Distinguish that from when a foul is called and the offensive team is awarded the ball on the ensuing draw. If the attacker's momentum carries her into the circle, that should be a foul. Similar to pickleball except the kitchen is two dimensional while the goal circle is three dimensional.

[lax410]

Also you provide to response. Ok she cares. But the proposal of going 10v10 would likely reduce participation in the sport significantly in high school and college by way of smaller rosters. Is that proposal good for the game? How? What exactly does it do positively except spread out defenses and increase scoring significantly.

This ^^^ and as others have pointed out very different watching UNC v Syracuse playing 10 v 10 compared to say Denison v Kenyon (not terrible D3 teams). I don’t see how anyone could argue with a straight face that 10 v 10 is better to grow the game for most programs. Maybe it’s Better for the elite players on elite teams to play with only 10 v 10 but that’s it.

Otherwise it’s not a great choice.

[admin]

... Oh, sorry, I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings.

No personal attacks.

[njbill]

Here we go again, admin. Can Opener expressly calls me a liar. That’s not a personal attack, but sarcastically commenting on hurting his feelings is.

Yeah, OK.

[Can Opener]

Here we go again, admin. Can Opener expressly calls me a liar. That’s not a personal attack, but sarcastically commenting on hurting his feelings is.

Yeah, OK.

My educated guess is that although the admin quoted only the tail end of your post here, the real problem was with the earlier part when you fabricated a proposal I made, called that fabricated proposal "asinine" and then said: "Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are." The conversation started as a good faith debate over whether 10 or 12 players should be on the field. No need for name calling and personal attacks. As always, I'd be happy to debate the merits of this question.

[njbill]

You are mixing and matching to suit your purposes.

My "asinine" comment was to your proposal that the number of participants be limited like in peewee sports. We are talking about college lacrosse not 2nd grade soccer. That suggestion was asinine.

Then you shifted to goggles, boundaries, etc. God knows why. Those subjects had nothing to do with the discussion.

Here is what you said:

why not put 24 players on the field for each team so you can double the number of girls playing?

So not a fabrication at all, just another asinine suggestion.

Now you seem to be backing off the ridiculous idea of putting 24 players on the field. You see you made a mistake and are, in effect, admitting your error. That's a good thing. Progress.

P.S. Do you deny you reported my post? Why continue to do that and then in the next breath level a much more extreme personal attack at me? You are a big boy. I am too. Fight your own battles. Or are you using the report button as a sword and not a shield?

[Can Opener]

On Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:35 pm I said that I support 10v10:

"+1 on 10 v 10

The offensive flow and ball movement is fun to watch in the World Lacrosse format."
https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=452561#p452561

The next day I reiterated my support for 10 v 10 and pointed out holes in the logic of saying this would limit playing opportunities. The reference to 24 v 24 was clearly a rhetorical question and not a proposal. Any reasonable reader of my post would agree. It is not accurate or truthful to say: "Your proposal was to put 24 players on each team."

10 v 10 is the opposite of growing the game. You’re decreasing opportunities for girls to play.

This! There’s nothing wrong with the number of girls on the field. We really want to limit kids playing?

You have to consider quality over quantity of playing time. There are still only 60 minutes in a game, so if you have more players on the field, each athlete will have fewer touches and time of possession on average. That's why youth soccer, hockey and lacrosse emphasize small-sided games at younger ages. To follow your logic to an extreme, why not put 24 players on the field for each team so you can double the number of girls playing? As former USC women's assistant coach Deemer Class said in response to Jenny Levy's suggestion: "All I heard from every @AUProSports player I talked to was that the lower numbers, 6v6 half field was incredible."

Again, I am happy to return to discussing the merits of an intriguing and timely issue regarding the future of NCAA women's lacrosse.

[njbill]

So you acknowledge you did say "24" (now it's a "rhetorical question" ) and that it wasn't a fabrication. Apology accepted.

Edit: I take it by your silence that you admit you were using the report button as a sword. Hmmm. Proud of yourself?