Possible face-off changes

[mdk01]

If they get rid of the clamp, they might as well do a standing face off like the women.

Clamp is a modern event in the history of lacrosse. I do not have a problem with rules that are trying to curb specialization in lacrosse. That said there will always be a player/team that has an advantage at the X. Lowering the play clock may have a bigger affect on the game, than the clamp. Slow substitution and you have burned a good portion of the clock.

Define modern event. The clamp's been around for more than 50 years.

Game goes back quite a bit further than mid 80s/late 80s..When did the FOGO become a widespread position?

Concept of a FOGO increased throughout the 70's. By the end of the decade it wasn't far off from where things stand today.

And as pointed out above, there has been a lot more specialization, particularly at midfield, going on simultaneously.

[rolldodge]

Logically, getting rid of the clamp makes sense. Why should an action (witholding) that is illegal in every other aspect of the game be legal for a faceoff?

[xxxxxxx]

Now it will go to the rules committee in June where it will pass and the FaceOff Specialist position will be eliminated from the sport. Really not fair for all the FaceOff specialists out there. Gotta be a weird relationship between fogos and coaches this spring knowing the coaches voted to eliminate the position.

You mean essentially go back to college lax was like 15 years ago...oh, the horror. The worst thing to happen to face offs was the introduction of the FOGO. And this is coming from a dad whose son is primarly going to be one. It is better for the game to have less specialization in this context. Have face off guys play offense and defense and make the more rounded players.

One thing that is overlooked is the likely impact this has from the Olympics perspective.

The ridiculous game they are trying to play in the Olympics is not lacrosse, but a 6 on 6 version of gym class lacrosse. It only has face offs to start quarters, after goals the goalie picks up the ball and passes it into play.

[xxxxxxx]

This is a policy that is driven by TV. The time leading up to the face off is dead air, and lengthens games, two things that networks don't want happening.

Is any sport more popular on TV than football and it has dead air on every play? This happens every two years when the genius rules committee changes the rules of a great sport. Have they ever said after one of these meetings, that the rules are good no changes? They all want to leave their mark while they are on the committee. It is literally a clown show, no sport makes more changes to rules than lacrosse and the face off is their favorite target. Please stop, get better players, coach them up, and work hard, the game is great.

[Laxxal22]

Obviously a bit of bias in the perspectives but IL released a podcast with TD Ierlan and Joe Nardella today. I tend to agree that they had it pretty close to perfect right before Covid. Since it is safe to breathe again I'd love to see the game get back to that with the shortened shot clock.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ella/62342

[youthathletics]

Happy to see I was not the only one in favor of this this rule mod.

Someone mentioned the time between goal and next faceoff which is a bunch of deadtime. That is another rule that could be added.....start the shot clock at 60 again to initiate the next faceoff, the team not properly set for a restart will be charged with delay procedure, ball handed to opposing team. No different than the clock between plays for football and recently added for pitches in the MLB..... which did a great service for the game.

[RumorMill]

Elite clampers get paid well. College coaches would rather spend that money on players who are on the field all of the time. Proposal was supported by a significant majority of D1 coaches

I would refer back to my original post, the majority of college coaches voted to ban the faceoff in 1979 and it was a disaster. They should read their lax history.

As for being paid well, most college lax players actually get very little money. The majority of the conferences split 12 scholarships among 40-50 players. It is not a money thing.

No matter how much they tinker, you can’t regulate one team having a better player than another team. It never works. The FO is a great part of the game, a close game that requires a FO win is not replicated in any other sport…mess with it at your peril.

Shortsighted view, IMO. I have coached for decades and officiated. The F/O is likely the most challenging event to officiate, next to the stupid ass goal mouth debacle.

But your last part speaks volumes and is the reason 'WHY' all the attention. No single game/point, should come down to earning possession based off of a poorly / inconsistent officiated dead-ball restart by two single players where there is often a clear advantage/disadvantage and no other players on the field can support that effort. You can't use the goalie as a counter-argument, because he has 6 guys in front of him, and you cant argue a lefty attackman b/c you still have 6 defenders and a goalie that collectively impact that sequence of events.

Again.....the game still needs the F/O and I'm not advocating against it, just simplify the damn thing to allow two men to to fight it out w/out too much concern for the mechanics of the setup (leaning, hands, illegal bent head, etc-etc).

Just my 2 cents....

bad take, ya. it doesn't come.down to 1 v 1. wings and disrupting disadvantaged fogo is WAY undercoached. plus... you now have the shot clock as a defender. [YA --> It is 1v1, if the clamper can possess in a split second of the whistle before a wing even gets two steps underway]

disrupt the fogo. win gbs. beat your man in and double. pressure the worst offensive player on the field. cut off outlets. recruit better. care about winning them back and coach for it. officiating on it for college seems to be fine. [YA --> 1st you are not allowed to contact the FOGO and stick unless they are up with the ball, so closer-in wings only come into play IF the FOGO first wins the clamp or they allow contact on stick while in the FO scrum...which is the point we are discussing, no?. 2nd. And I agree 110%, far too many coaches are clueless or are just neutral and would rather just play 6v6, recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so....its often out the coaches control. 3rd --> I'll concede the officiating for D1...thereafter and HS, luck of the draw.]

have 2 state titles and would likely have 4-5 if not for faceoffs, so it's not like i'm biased. [YA -->have 1 and likely 3, and then short an additional chance by 1 game and a 1 point...so I feel ya]

this smacks of politicians. the people want it and are sick of coaches sticking their nose in. instead of doing what the people want, they do what they think gets them re-elected. every coach voting for this ish is remembering the game or 2 that ended their season because their genius wasn't allowed to change the outcome... while conveniently forgetting all the games they had the upper hand. it's dumb, lazy and weak.

bring the wings in 5 yards and you solve all the whining. a clamp vs a rake is a few people raising the white flag for the whole lacrosse community. lame. [YA --> I'd be okay with giving this a shot as well, I'd just be concerned we'd end up w/FOGO's getting blown up as they turn/pivot to exit, like a defenseless receiver, then wings are in closer in full sprint.]

Appreciate the convo. Tough loss for Navy today...but expected.

Just to address the “recruit better” topic, youthathletics, what do you have to say about this list?

https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-men ... vidual/410

Read Section 6, the way the stats are scored is not as clear as one may think. The stats for FO players are rather ambiguous and not as clear as one my think. For instance see A.R. 9. This only elevates the FO players states when clearly his wingman picked it up. In the example below, B1 could have won the clamp, performed a reverse exit to his wing but A2 picks up the GB, A1 gets credit when he did nothing...strange, right?

A.R. 9. If player A1 and opponent B1 face off, and teammate A2 is the first player to get clear possession, credit A1 with a faceoff win and A2 with a ground ball.

Meaning, our stats for FO men are rather skewed and not truly telling, we really should have a stat that recognizes a 'clean' or 'initial' FO win w/out wing support.

Got it, so you are saying wings play an extremely important part in winning the FO possession? And that the majority of the top 10 FO middies in win percentage last year relied heavily on wing play?

Sisselberger, Burke and Cole? Would you consider Lehigh, Vermont and St Joseph’s mid majors?

We are talking past one another and conflating a couple things.

1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS.
2nd - Not going to get into talking about players, other than to say, each of them contributed immensely to their teams success and had they NOT had them, the argument would be their team may not have been as successful. And referring back to item 1, we just do not have a way to measure their whistle to possession stat.

I'm not "talking past" you at all. You state you don't like the fact that there is or can be a dominant 1v1 faceoff specialist, then won't except FO win percentage stats because they are biased due to wing play and wings winning the possession.

You state:
"1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS."

FOR STATS? What does that even mean? So wing play only matters a ton for STATS? Not for actually getting your team possession of the ball and an opportunity to score and/or win? If you gave a coach two options... Your FO specialist can go 60% every game but 10% of those wins will be by his wings... or he can go 50% every game and all wins will solely be to himself... which option is the coach going to pick? Which option is the FO middie going to pick?

You stated:
"recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so."

When presented with facts (statistics), that 6 or arguably 7 of the top ten FO specialists from last year were playing at "mid-major" programs you're not going to talk about players? Why because it defeats your statement about the handful of top FOGO's not going to mid majors?

You want the FO to be more like ice hockey? Fine, let's have a faceoff every time the ball goes out of bounds (kidding, i wouldn't want that), but that's what you get when you try to compare it to other sports. Women's draw, again pointed out facts (statistics) which counters your argument.

I will agree with those talking about how it is difficult to officiate, but from the little bit of college lacrosse I watched last spring I thought they did a decent job... and if they would keep the rules consistent for a few years my assumption is the officials would get better at it. Also would like to note I'm pretty sure the officiating in every sport gets severely criticized.

I also don't mind the suggestions about mandating the FO middie needs to stay on through the whole possession, etc.

I don't like the argument to get rid of the FO or neuter it because some teams have a more dominant player at that position than others. If it's about money, tv, whatever, so be it.

[FOGO_Daze]

This is a policy that is driven by TV. The time leading up to the face off is dead air, and lengthens games, two things that networks don't want happening.

Have you watched baseball? Umm yaaaa. How about NFL - 13 total minutes of actual playtime in 3 hours.

[youthathletics]

Elite clampers get paid well. College coaches would rather spend that money on players who are on the field all of the time. Proposal was supported by a significant majority of D1 coaches

I would refer back to my original post, the majority of college coaches voted to ban the faceoff in 1979 and it was a disaster. They should read their lax history.

As for being paid well, most college lax players actually get very little money. The majority of the conferences split 12 scholarships among 40-50 players. It is not a money thing.

No matter how much they tinker, you can’t regulate one team having a better player than another team. It never works. The FO is a great part of the game, a close game that requires a FO win is not replicated in any other sport…mess with it at your peril.

Shortsighted view, IMO. I have coached for decades and officiated. The F/O is likely the most challenging event to officiate, next to the stupid ass goal mouth debacle.

But your last part speaks volumes and is the reason 'WHY' all the attention. No single game/point, should come down to earning possession based off of a poorly / inconsistent officiated dead-ball restart by two single players where there is often a clear advantage/disadvantage and no other players on the field can support that effort. You can't use the goalie as a counter-argument, because he has 6 guys in front of him, and you cant argue a lefty attackman b/c you still have 6 defenders and a goalie that collectively impact that sequence of events.

Again.....the game still needs the F/O and I'm not advocating against it, just simplify the damn thing to allow two men to to fight it out w/out too much concern for the mechanics of the setup (leaning, hands, illegal bent head, etc-etc).

Just my 2 cents....

bad take, ya. it doesn't come.down to 1 v 1. wings and disrupting disadvantaged fogo is WAY undercoached. plus... you now have the shot clock as a defender. [YA --> It is 1v1, if the clamper can possess in a split second of the whistle before a wing even gets two steps underway]

disrupt the fogo. win gbs. beat your man in and double. pressure the worst offensive player on the field. cut off outlets. recruit better. care about winning them back and coach for it. officiating on it for college seems to be fine. [YA --> 1st you are not allowed to contact the FOGO and stick unless they are up with the ball, so closer-in wings only come into play IF the FOGO first wins the clamp or they allow contact on stick while in the FO scrum...which is the point we are discussing, no?. 2nd. And I agree 110%, far too many coaches are clueless or are just neutral and would rather just play 6v6, recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so....its often out the coaches control. 3rd --> I'll concede the officiating for D1...thereafter and HS, luck of the draw.]

have 2 state titles and would likely have 4-5 if not for faceoffs, so it's not like i'm biased. [YA -->have 1 and likely 3, and then short an additional chance by 1 game and a 1 point...so I feel ya]

this smacks of politicians. the people want it and are sick of coaches sticking their nose in. instead of doing what the people want, they do what they think gets them re-elected. every coach voting for this ish is remembering the game or 2 that ended their season because their genius wasn't allowed to change the outcome... while conveniently forgetting all the games they had the upper hand. it's dumb, lazy and weak.

bring the wings in 5 yards and you solve all the whining. a clamp vs a rake is a few people raising the white flag for the whole lacrosse community. lame. [YA --> I'd be okay with giving this a shot as well, I'd just be concerned we'd end up w/FOGO's getting blown up as they turn/pivot to exit, like a defenseless receiver, then wings are in closer in full sprint.]

Appreciate the convo. Tough loss for Navy today...but expected.

Just to address the “recruit better” topic, youthathletics, what do you have to say about this list?

https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-men ... vidual/410

Read Section 6, the way the stats are scored is not as clear as one may think. The stats for FO players are rather ambiguous and not as clear as one my think. For instance see A.R. 9. This only elevates the FO players states when clearly his wingman picked it up. In the example below, B1 could have won the clamp, performed a reverse exit to his wing but A2 picks up the GB, A1 gets credit when he did nothing...strange, right?

A.R. 9. If player A1 and opponent B1 face off, and teammate A2 is the first player to get clear possession, credit A1 with a faceoff win and A2 with a ground ball.

Meaning, our stats for FO men are rather skewed and not truly telling, we really should have a stat that recognizes a 'clean' or 'initial' FO win w/out wing support.

Got it, so you are saying wings play an extremely important part in winning the FO possession? And that the majority of the top 10 FO middies in win percentage last year relied heavily on wing play?

Sisselberger, Burke and Cole? Would you consider Lehigh, Vermont and St Joseph’s mid majors?

We are talking past one another and conflating a couple things.

1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS.
2nd - Not going to get into talking about players, other than to say, each of them contributed immensely to their teams success and had they NOT had them, the argument would be their team may not have been as successful. And referring back to item 1, we just do not have a way to measure their whistle to possession stat.

I'm not "talking past" you at all. You state you don't like the fact that there is or can be a dominant 1v1 faceoff specialist, then won't except FO win percentage stats because they are biased due to wing play and wings winning the possession.

You state:
"1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS."

FOR STATS? What does that even mean? So wing play only matters a ton for STATS? Not for actually getting your team possession of the ball and an opportunity to score and/or win? If you gave a coach two options... Your FO specialist can go 60% every game but 10% of those wins will be by his wings... or he can go 50% every game and all wins will solely be to himself... which option is the coach going to pick? Which option is the FO middie going to pick?

You stated:
"recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so."

When presented with facts (statistics), that 6 or arguably 7 of the top ten FO specialists from last year were playing at "mid-major" programs you're not going to talk about players? Why because it defeats your statement about the handful of top FOGO's not going to mid majors?

You want the FO to be more like ice hockey? Fine, let's have a faceoff every time the ball goes out of bounds (kidding, i wouldn't want that), but that's what you get when you try to compare it to other sports. Women's draw, again pointed out facts (statistics) which counters your argument.

I will agree with those talking about how it is difficult to officiate, but from the little bit of college lacrosse I watched last spring I thought they did a decent job... and if they would keep the rules consistent for a few years my assumption is the officials would get better at it. Also would like to note I'm pretty sure the officiating in every sport gets severely criticized.

I also don't mind the suggestions about mandating the FO middie needs to stay on through the whole possession, etc.

I don't like the argument to get rid of the FO or neuter it because some teams have a more dominant player at that position than others. If it's about money, tv, whatever, so be it.

This is why the FO stats do not tell the entire story.....I'll try to explain in this 'hypothetical'.

Scenario 1:
If you and I faceoff vs. one another 10 times in a game and the final score of the game is if 10-0, we win. In that game, I won every clamp (I never gained possession) and pulled it behind me of a clamp, but your wings picked up the ball every time, by stat rules, the FO stats would award you 10 FO wins and me 0. Wings matter and each awarded with a GB. Although I am clearly better than you at the initial Clamp. My FO% is now 0%, your FO% is 100%, You get all the credit and did nothing to earn that.

Scenario 2: We then play again, faceoff another 10 times and the final score 10-0, yet again, we win. In that game, I won every clamp and gained possession every time, wings never touched the ball. By stat rules I am awarded the 10 FO wins, you are awarded Zero. My FO% is now 50%, your FO% is 50%....yet you still have not 1 faceoff against me.

Scenario 3: We then play a third time for the playoffs, faceoff another 10 times and the final score 10-0, yet again, we win. In that game, I won every clamp but never gained possession, your wings got every ground ball. By stat rules I am awarded 0 FO wins, you are awarded 10. My FO% is now 33%, your FO% is 66%.

We are now 3-0 vs your team, we could play make-it-take-it, b/c you are really not as good as me clamping at facing-off, but your stats make you look like a rock star and make me look like I stink. And b/c I am good and didn't want to embarrass you, I only pulled the pull behind me to give your team a chance.

Now, run that same 3 game scenario back with the clamp no being legal....you can not 'control' the ball in to your stick nearly as simple as you could with your clamp.

[youthathletics]

This is a policy that is driven by TV. The time leading up to the face off is dead air, and lengthens games, two things that networks don't want happening.

Have you watched baseball? Umm yaaaa. How about NFL - 13 total minutes of actual playtime in 3 hours.

Baseball is much more fun to watch, now that they have a timer in-between pitches. 3 hours....that was the 90's....its now cloer to 3:30 minutes. But your point is so true....13 minutes even seems high for actual play time.

[Laxxal22]

Logically, getting rid of the clamp makes sense. Why should an action (witholding) that is illegal in every other aspect of the game be legal for a faceoff?

Don't goalies withhold all the time when they clamp down on rebounds and drag them back into crease? Would that have to go away too? Imagine the chaos, physical carnage, and amount of garbage goals that would result.

[Laxxal22]

This is a policy that is driven by TV. The time leading up to the face off is dead air, and lengthens games, two things that networks don't want happening.

Have you watched baseball? Umm yaaaa. How about NFL - 13 total minutes of actual playtime in 3 hours.

Other than basketball, what team sport doesn't have significant dead air after a score? And if dead air is an issue, then why in the world are they bringing in booth reviews that will absolutely add time/kill the flow of games. I haven't agreed with much of what Youthathletics has said in this thread but I do like the idea of an immediate timer going on after a goal is scored to get the faceoff unit out there and ready to go in 60 seconds or forfeit possession.

[RumorMill]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

YA, I sincerely appreciate your input and contributions... this type of back and forth is what I enjoy about these forums and the differing opinions.


Ok... I guess I don't understand your definition of make-it, take-it. In the hypothetical scenario you outlined above, you "make it" (score) and my team "takes-it" (gains possession off the face-off) 66% of the time. Completely defeating your argument that a dominant FO middie can play make it take it. And you also point out the fact that "Rock Star" wing play can neutralize the "make-it, take-it" you are talking about. Apparently my attack and O middies suck... or you have the best goalie in the world.

Just so we are clear my definition of make it take it, is my team scores and my team "wins" (gets possession) on the following face off, doesn't matter if it's from the FO winning to himself or if it's from my teams wings winning possession.

And just to nit-pick, there would hypothetically be 14 faceoffs in your 10-0 thrashing of my team... and hypothetically because we would potentially be man-down at the beginning of every quarter.

Just re-read your hypothetical scenario. Is your whole argument based on the fact your FO middie is "losing" the faceoff (costing his team possession) because he feels bad for my team? If you want we can do an anonymous poll of FO middies and see how many would take the chance of losing a FO because they feel sorry for the other team... likewise poll the wings and see how many would let their opposing wing win the ground ball because they felt sorry for them

[rolldodge]

Logically, getting rid of the clamp makes sense. Why should an action (witholding) that is illegal in every other aspect of the game be legal for a faceoff?

Don't goalies withhold all the time when they clamp down on rebounds and drag them back into crease? Would that have to go away too? Imagine the chaos, physical carnage, and amount of garbage goals that would result.

I get your point but goalies have sticks that are 8 times the size of normal, can use their hands, and live inside a magic circle. They don’t count.

[youthathletics]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

YA, I sincerely appreciate your input and contributions... this type of back and forth is what I enjoy about these forums and the differing opinions.


Ok... I guess I don't understand your definition of make-it, take-it. In the hypothetical scenario you outlined above, you "make it" (score) and my team "takes-it" (gains possession off the face-off) 66% of the time. Completely defeating your argument that a dominant FO middie can play make it take it. And you also point out the fact that "Rock Star" wing play can neutralize the "make-it, take-it" you are talking about. Apparently my attack and O middies suck... or you have the best goalie in the world.

Just so we are clear my definition of make it take it, is my team scores and my team "wins" (gets possession) on the following face off, doesn't matter if it's from the FO winning to himself or if it's from my teams wings winning possession.

And just to nit-pick, there would hypothetically be 14 faceoffs in your 10-0 thrashing of my team... and hypothetically because we would potentially be man-down at the beginning of every quarter.

Just re-read your hypothetical scenario. Is your whole argument based on the fact your FO middie is "losing" the faceoff (costing his team possession) because he feels bad for my team? If you want we can do an anonymous poll of FO middies and see how many would take the chance of losing a FO because they feel sorry for the other team... likewise poll the wings and see how many would let their opposing wing win the ground ball because they felt sorry for them

I was primarily addressing what you were not understanding with regard to the FO Stats and how they can skew what actually took place.

In my scenarios I was so much better than you, I toyed with you at the X, by sending it to the wings just to give your team a chance AND as a hypothetical so you could see how the stats scoring can be skewed. I could have easily just picked up each FO, thus playing make-it-take-it.

And you are correct about the 14 vs 10 FO's I was just trying to keep the numbers easy for discussion purposes.

At this point, I think I have exhausted my stance.

In closing, I do not want the Faceoff to go away, while I can also comprehend and rationalize why they want to consider removing the clamp from the FO mechanic. I can envision that this increases the excitement, b/c we would see far more battles for the loose ball ...forcing O and D, to entertain odd man breaks from untraditional spots on the field. I would also like the clock to start 'after' a goal and before the ensuing Faceoff, to speed up play...unless a TV or sideline timeout. This would also force coaches to be strategic in their TO's.

[RumorMill]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

YA, I sincerely appreciate your input and contributions... this type of back and forth is what I enjoy about these forums and the differing opinions.


Ok... I guess I don't understand your definition of make-it, take-it. In the hypothetical scenario you outlined above, you "make it" (score) and my team "takes-it" (gains possession off the face-off) 66% of the time. Completely defeating your argument that a dominant FO middie can play make it take it. And you also point out the fact that "Rock Star" wing play can neutralize the "make-it, take-it" you are talking about. Apparently my attack and O middies suck... or you have the best goalie in the world.

Just so we are clear my definition of make it take it, is my team scores and my team "wins" (gets possession) on the following face off, doesn't matter if it's from the FO winning to himself or if it's from my teams wings winning possession.

And just to nit-pick, there would hypothetically be 14 faceoffs in your 10-0 thrashing of my team... and hypothetically because we would potentially be man-down at the beginning of every quarter.

Just re-read your hypothetical scenario. Is your whole argument based on the fact your FO middie is "losing" the faceoff (costing his team possession) because he feels bad for my team? If you want we can do an anonymous poll of FO middies and see how many would take the chance of losing a FO because they feel sorry for the other team... likewise poll the wings and see how many would let their opposing wing win the ground ball because they felt sorry for them

I was primarily addressing what you were not understanding with regard to the FO Stats and how they can skew what actually took place.

In my scenarios I was so much better than you, I toyed with you at the X, by sending it to the wings just to give your team a chance AND as a hypothetical so you could see how the stats scoring can be skewed. I could have easily just picked up each FO, thus playing make-it-take-it.

And you are correct about the 14 vs 10 FO's I was just trying to keep the numbers easy for discussion purposes.

At this point, I think I have exhausted my stance.

In closing, I do not want the Faceoff to go away, while I can also comprehend and rationalize why they want to consider removing the clamp from the FO mechanic. I can envision that this increases the excitement, b/c we would see far more battles for the loose ball ...forcing O and D, to entertain odd man breaks from untraditional spots on the field. I would also like the clock to start 'after' a goal and before the ensuing Faceoff, to speed up play...unless a TV or sideline timeout. This would also force coaches to be strategic in their TO's.

You are correct... I can not understand or play in a mythical world where the FO middie and his wings intentionally lose possession to prove a statistical point.

Regardless, my team still sucks.

Thanks YA.

[FMUBart]

I always go back to what John Desko said about FOGO's: Why are the (arguably) worst lacrosse players, FOGO's, able to dictate possession and often affect the game's outcome

[xxxxxxx]

I always go back to what John Desko said about FOGO's: Why are the (arguably) worst lacrosse players, FOGO's, able to dictate possession and often affect the game's outcome

I'd like to verify that quote as it is pretty degrading to many of his players, and like it or not some great athletes/lacrosse players have faced off. I won't bother to list them. If he did say it, it's disappointing.

Sources tell me Tambroni is pushing this, funny when Arceri was all big ten he had no problem with face offs. The rule committee is a bunch of self-serving frauds.

[Doxology]

Sources tell me Tambroni is pushing this, funny when Arceri was all big ten he had no problem with face offs. The rule committee is a bunch of self-serving frauds.

If it's really Tambroni, then Marr is his mouthpiece because Marr is the one who spoke up.

Regardless, as someone else pointed out a few days ago - this has to go through PROP first. The rules committee did not come up with this suggestion (as early posters said); it's from the coaches.

[HooDat]

Is any sport more popular on TV than football and it has dead air on every play? This happens every two years when the genius rules committee changes the rules of a great sport. Have they ever said after one of these meetings, that the rules are good no changes? They all want to leave their mark while they are on the committee. It is literally a clown show, no sport makes more changes to rules than lacrosse and the face off is their favorite target. Please stop, get better players, coach them up, and work hard, the game is great.

The bolded above is just so true. As suggested earlier, the answer to the embarrassment that is new rules EVERY 2 years, may be spacing out rule-making: meet every five years, one committee can suggest a rule change, but it can't be implemented until taken up by the next rule committee. New rules then effectively take a decade to go into effect.