Who does 60' clock benefit, who does it "harm"?

[seriously?]

Over at laxpower just too much "let me lay out what is going to happen with the clock so I can pat myself on the back when I am right next year." It's like economists. If you are right, wow! You're brilliant! When you're wrong, no one remembers.

With that said and NOT continuing that lame discussion, looking at teams. Who is ready and who is not? And do any of those teams cross paths so it will really make a difference at the end of the day?

[admin]

Besides teams that frequently score in transition, i'm not convinced that a shot clock benefits one team over another.

[DocBarrister]

The Blue Chip teams will benefit most. Things just got tougher for teams hoping to slow down play and pull off an upset.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Will this bring back the 2 way middie ?

[FannOLax]

Will this bring back the 2 way middie ?

My guess would be "yes," with middies taking longer shifts, longer breaks between shifts. Yale has some middies who would work well in that type of role; for example, 2019 captain Danigellis, who was largely a SSDM his sophomore year, mainly on offense his junior year: an athletic guy who got also got recruited to play D1 football. Tevlin could also be a good 2-way middie.

[hickorystick]

Over at laxpower just too much "let me lay out what is going to happen with the clock so I can pat myself on the back when I am right next year." It's like economists. If you are right, wow! You're brilliant! When you're wrong, no one remembers.

With that said and NOT continuing that lame discussion, looking at teams. Who is ready and who is not? And do any of those teams cross paths so it will really make a difference at the end of the day?

This is pretty harsh, seriously?, as well as pure conjecture on your part. The LP posters are expressing their concerns about what the shot clock is going to bring to the game so they can later pat themselves on the back? I highly doubt that, I rather think they are doing nothing more than expressing concerns about what changes this is going to bring to the game and how coaches are going to coach their teams. The shot clock is a game changer, it should come as no surprise that long time lacrosse fans are airing their concerns as to what the game is going to look like with its inception.
Who does it benefit? The team whose coach best learns to manipulate the clock (more over coaching). How do you best use your 20 seconds on a change of possession to get your subs on and off the field before crossing the mid field line and the 60 second clock begins will likely be a factor and do anything but speed the game up. Teams who learn to play the game backwards will benefit the most. I think you're likely to see Dmen looking to their GK on TOs rather than looking up field so as to not engage the 60 second clock too early. In essence they'd rather go backwards than forward in order to preserve the seconds they have once crossing the mid field line. So maybe teams with the best stick handling Dmen will benefit the most.
Who is ready and who is not remains to be seen as unintended consequences remain to be seen, we'll all just have to wait and see.

[Dip&Dunk]

Random thoughts:

I can’t help but think this will cause more individual dodges or at best two man games then running full plays.

The work it around once should happen fewer times, and as noted by many, the personnel switch outs will also happen less.

LSMs will get even less playing time.

Players will be dragging in the fourth quarter. (And no more “Well when I played we were in better shape and could run all game.” .....you didn’t have a shot clock then. The number of possessions/clears/turnovers/ etc. will increase dramatically.)

Referees will play even more a part of outcomes. (really, really tired of this trend. But that is another thread topic.)

Ensuring a man at X will be even more important.

Inbounds plays to a quick stick will increase.

You could almost say offense will consist of three plays: transition, two man plays and inbound plays. Gross simplification I know but closer to right than wrong.

[seriously?]

H'stick, you had to follow us here? I was trying to get away from you guys and get an opinion without all the extra sauce. I can see even lax dads have lost their sense of humor in this current politicized climate.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

Over at laxpower just too much "let me lay out what is going to happen with the clock so I can pat myself on the back when I am right next year." It's like economists. If you are right, wow! You're brilliant! When you're wrong, no one remembers.

With that said and NOT continuing that lame discussion, looking at teams. Who is ready and who is not? And do any of those teams cross paths so it will really make a difference at the end of the day?

This is pretty harsh, seriously?, as well as pure conjecture on your part. The LP posters are expressing their concerns about what the shot clock is going to bring to the game so they can later pat themselves on the back? I highly doubt that, I rather think they are doing nothing more than expressing concerns about what changes this is going to bring to the game and how coaches are going to coach their teams. The shot clock is a game changer, it should come as no surprise that long time lacrosse fans are airing their concerns as to what the game is going to look like with its inception.
Who does it benefit? The team whose coach best learns to manipulate the clock (more over coaching). How do you best use your 20 seconds on a change of possession to get your subs on and off the field before crossing the mid field line and the 60 second clock begins will likely be a factor and do anything but speed the game up. Teams who learn to play the game backwards will benefit the most. I think you're likely to see Dmen looking to their GK on TOs rather than looking up field so as to not engage the 60 second clock too early. In essence they'd rather go backwards than forward in order to preserve the seconds they have once crossing the mid field line. So maybe teams with the best stick handling Dmen will benefit the most.
Who is ready and who is not remains to be seen as unintended consequences remain to be seen, we'll all just have to wait and see.

There’s one yuge dirtbag who routinely pats himself on the back for making supposed transformative declarations.

[Oldbarndog]

More Box/Field hybrid offense? Getting to the middle gets more shots on cage? Horizontal to vertical clearing? Embrace it, not all change is bad. Excited for the future of the game.

[hickorystick]

H'stick, you had to follow us here? I was trying to get away from you guys and get an opinion without all the extra sauce. I can see even lax dads have lost their sense of humor in this current politicized climate.

JFTR, I get it that the new game of lacrosse has taken over and will continue to change, the sanctity and history of the game is not a consideration when changing the dynamics of the game, I get that. The outrage (as some refer to it as) is about further losing lacrosse that we old timers played and watched for, in my case, more than a half century. That game is no longer. In days of yore, offense was much more a matter of survival, you better move, or move the ball, or a Dman and his lumber was going to separate you from the ball. Anyone who played in the days of wooden sticks will tell you that a poke check to the arm/hand was a real motivator to get your feet in motion or look for help in an outlet pass. It was wise to be moving for your sake and your teammates sake (there was a reason it was dubbed the fastest game on feet). Today a poke check is nothing more than a bit of a nuisance which is, at best, a little annoying to the ball handler. You also better be cradling the ball in the days of yore or it wasn't staying in your stick, that was the art of the game. Once that element was virtually taken out of the game it became a different game, hence, the resulting shot clock. You'll say this is just old timer talk from someone who has lost touch with the game and I'd say that is not at all the case. I've seen both games and IMO the old game was a much better game. Watching a guy with his hot pink with glitter stick hit the deck, roll over a couple of times and stand up and fire a 100+ mile an hour rocket at the cage is not an improvement to the game, IMO. Today's game only resembles the game of yore, but is a different game. This is what the latest generation wants and that's what they'll get, I get that, but for the first time ever I'm not all that excited about the bastardized version of lacrosse that this spring will bring us. If you want to see a better version of lacrosse as it was intended to be played (with a stick that was intended to cradle a ball, not hold it in for you) watch a girl's game, it's a better and prettier game than the men's game. You'll see a faster game of finesse with more ball movement than you will at men's game....that's the sad truth.

[molo]

The short answer is that it favors more talented, deeper teams. It could make for more entertaining practices featuring five on four and other uneven transition scenarios instead of too much time spent on settled six on six situations. More learning how to play over learning prescribed plays.

[DaneFan]

I'm going to say Denver. Denver played too deliberate often passing up high percentage shots. With the reigns forced to be off I see them being even more prolific with a shot clock and you know Tierney is going to have a great defensive plan with the new rules.

I think in the short term it will hurt teams like Towson who playing slow seemed to be part of their DNA.

[a fan]

Over at laxpower just too much "let me lay out what is going to happen with the clock so I can pat myself on the back when I am right next year." It's like economists. If you are right, wow! You're brilliant! When you're wrong, no one remembers.

With that said and NOT continuing that lame discussion, looking at teams. Who is ready and who is not? And do any of those teams cross paths so it will really make a difference at the end of the day?

So we're lame for discussing what we think the clock will do to all of D1, but it's totally cool to discuss which team will benefit, and which won't?

Fair enough.

From reading the comments here about 2 way middies and dodging being a premium, I guess no one here thinks teams in D1 will simply run variations on zone D. Coaches will just run the same D schemes in 2019 that they did in 2018? That's the consensus here?

Disagree, but let's get to your point: which teams ran the best zone defenses in 2018? Answer that, and that is who I think the shot clock will benefit most.

And this assumes the clock is pegged at 60 seconds.

But my direct answer is Tierney. Both for teaching zone D, and for having an O that puts a premium on ball movement. Although the Pios outside shooting was spotty, at best last year.

[seriously?]

Quint makes an excellent suggestion:

See the video at the end of this story.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nges/53055

[Tdemling6]

Benefits a lot of people. I've talked to players on both sides of the ball that love the rule. On offense it speeds up possessions, or can, and for defense they wont have so much standing around and playing for 3 and 5 minute possessions.

[AreaLax]

The committee changed it to 80 second on possession and resets to 80

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... back/53063

[Typical Lax Dad]

The committee changed it to 80 second on possession and resets to 80

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... back/53063

More time is better. Will allow for more flowing offense and continuity.

[hickorystick]

Am really glad to see this, it's a MUCH better idea. Have said from the beginning I'd like to see a 90 second possession clock (that is with the clock coming to the game being a given) and this is pretty darn close. Teams can now still play different styles and won't be tempted to play the game backwards in order to save time by not crossing the midfield line (that was a dumb idea). Galloway might be the best outlet passer I've ever seen, would he have looked downfield (midfield or beyond) if that pass would cost his team 15-18 sec of possession time? Would he have been coached to not throw that pass? I think so.
This is very similar to the girl's possession clock and that works like an absolute champ in their game with pace and flow of game.
Well done committee, real good reconsideration.

[Voyuer]

Yep...much better idea. 80 seconds on possession will help a lot. I still think this will hurt teams that are traditionally very patient on offense and who rely on an X type quarterback. Dodging will be even more important as D teams try to force the ball to the 5'th and 6'th O option as clock runs down.