Here we go again with the Face Off

[kramerica.inc]

Right now, if you don't send a trained fogo to the "X" you are conceding a loss of possession.
With the O/U grip that isn't the case. You can put an athlete out there to compete for the ball and you can train a guy up to take faceoffs quicker.

[jrn19]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

[wgdsr]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

[jrn19]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

[SCLaxAttack]

....
But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

There have been some posts that say the change in rules is to make the face-off fairer. If one believes a rules change will just be used to create an advantage for whoever can adapt to the new rule then we're on a hamster wheel.

You want fair but not a replay of the 1979 debacle of the team getting scored on gets possession? Flip a coin at the start of the game to start a possession arrow that changes after the start of each quarter and goal. There. Things are fair. Everyone gets a reward.

(I'm not in favor of that suggestion - just playing devil's advocate.)

[wgdsr]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

[jrn19]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

You can’t have a devoted “face-off specialist.” Whoever takes the face-off for your team must be a field player, be it midfielder, attack, or defense; but a player who plays and participates in the other facets of the game as well when the face-off is not taking place.

So your face-off guy can be a SSDM who plays defensive midfield when you’re on defense, and then goes out to take the next face-off. It can be a midfielder who wins the face-off and stays on and plays offense but if he isn’t taking the face-off is still playing on that side of the ball. If you want it to be a long pole the long pole also has to play defense.

Basically, think of a regular field player right now, can be anyone - again, middie, a pole, even attackmen - but also taking face-offs in addition. That would be your face-off guy. Not guys who spend 90% of the game standing on the sidelines really.

If you want to eliminate a guy winning 75% and completely tilting the game and not having it be so specialized, that’s the way to go.

[youthathletics]

little argument there.....I just think the end goal, as with officiating 101, is that the advantage/disadvantage element is minimized. If they can come to agreement that it truly is a neutral battle, leave it alone.

what advantage/disadvantage? who has which?

Going early, neutral zone, leaning (different refs setup sticks inconsistently). My point is pick any game and there will an argument from a coach or form the sidelines that player X ir doing x on the face off. We all know damned near every F/O guy has either taught or sad "if you are not cheating you are not trying"...why else do they have to keep intervening with this one spot. So much so the PLL introduced and studied it for a year before they blew the first whistle.

so it's your contention that lacrosse coaches want to change the rules because other coaches are yelling at the refs? or other guys are cheating all the time and not getting caught, but not their guys?

You must not have read me post, and have your mind made up already.

[wgdsr]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

You can’t have a devoted “face-off specialist.” Whoever takes the face-off for your team must be a field player, be it midfielder, attack, or defense; but a player who plays and participates in the other facets of the game as well when the face-off is not taking place.

So your face-off guy can be a SSDM who plays defensive midfield when you’re on defense, and then goes out to take the next face-off. It can be a midfielder who wins the face-off and stays on and plays offense but if he isn’t taking the face-off is still playing on that side of the ball. If you want it to be a long pole the long pole also has to play defense.

Basically, think of a regular field player right now, can be anyone - again, middie, a pole, even attackmen - but also taking face-offs in addition. That would be your face-off guy. Not guys who spend 90% of the game standing on the sidelines really.

If you want to eliminate a guy winning 75% and completely tilting the game and not having it be so specialized, that’s the way to go.

ok, so after a goal someone who was on the field needs to take the next faceoff depending on what end it was?

[jrn19]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

You can’t have a devoted “face-off specialist.” Whoever takes the face-off for your team must be a field player, be it midfielder, attack, or defense; but a player who plays and participates in the other facets of the game as well when the face-off is not taking place.

So your face-off guy can be a SSDM who plays defensive midfield when you’re on defense, and then goes out to take the next face-off. It can be a midfielder who wins the face-off and stays on and plays offense but if he isn’t taking the face-off is still playing on that side of the ball. If you want it to be a long pole the long pole also has to play defense.

Basically, think of a regular field player right now, can be anyone - again, middie, a pole, even attackmen - but also taking face-offs in addition. That would be your face-off guy. Not guys who spend 90% of the game standing on the sidelines really.

If you want to eliminate a guy winning 75% and completely tilting the game and not having it be so specialized, that’s the way to go.

ok, so after a goal someone who was on the field needs to take the next faceoff depending on what end it was?

It just needs to be a field player. Someone who plays another part of the game besides just taking face off. You’ll no longer have “FO” as a position, one of your defenders, midfielders, or attackers will be your face-off guy

[wgdsr]

little argument there.....I just think the end goal, as with officiating 101, is that the advantage/disadvantage element is minimized. If they can come to agreement that it truly is a neutral battle, leave it alone.

what advantage/disadvantage? who has which?

Going early, neutral zone, leaning (different refs setup sticks inconsistently). My point is pick any game and there will an argument from a coach or form the sidelines that player X ir doing x on the face off. We all know damned near every F/O guy has either taught or sad "if you are not cheating you are not trying"...why else do they have to keep intervening with this one spot. So much so the PLL introduced and studied it for a year before they blew the first whistle.

so it's your contention that lacrosse coaches want to change the rules because other coaches are yelling at the refs? or other guys are cheating all the time and not getting caught, but not their guys?

You must not have read me post, and have your mind made up already.

i'm not trying to be a smart ass, i'm trying to figure out what you're saying. in my mind, there IS an advantage/disadvantage, it's whose team has the better fogo. that goes to recruiting, training, coaching. it's my view that coaches just simply don't like the fact that they have to coach around that when they don't have that guy. that all their best laid plans of spectacular coaching and recruiting and results are upended because of one position.
that's one reason why they would keep intervening with this one spot.
there might also be additional pressures related to teevee... like now that they're on an upward trajectory in scoring with the shot clock... maybe they can't get games in in 2 hours and they're looking for ways to speed/clean it up to save a few minutes a game. next step being eliminating them. this latter guess a long shot.

mostly guess there's probably just a lot of coaches b*tching because they lost a key game or 2 where possessions were uphill. the cheating part would just be a red herring. imo.

[wgdsr]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

You can’t have a devoted “face-off specialist.” Whoever takes the face-off for your team must be a field player, be it midfielder, attack, or defense; but a player who plays and participates in the other facets of the game as well when the face-off is not taking place.

So your face-off guy can be a SSDM who plays defensive midfield when you’re on defense, and then goes out to take the next face-off. It can be a midfielder who wins the face-off and stays on and plays offense but if he isn’t taking the face-off is still playing on that side of the ball. If you want it to be a long pole the long pole also has to play defense.

Basically, think of a regular field player right now, can be anyone - again, middie, a pole, even attackmen - but also taking face-offs in addition. That would be your face-off guy. Not guys who spend 90% of the game standing on the sidelines really.

If you want to eliminate a guy winning 75% and completely tilting the game and not having it be so specialized, that’s the way to go.

ok, so after a goal someone who was on the field needs to take the next faceoff depending on what end it was?

It just needs to be a field player. Someone who plays another part of the game besides just taking face off. You’ll no longer have “FO” as a position, one of your defenders, midfielders, or attackers will be your face-off guy

now i'm back to being confused. what would the rule need to be written as? what would stop a coach from calling a fogo an ssdm and trotting him out there just for faceoffs?

[jrn19]

Does anyone really dislike the rules or the method in which face off guys take face-offs or do they just not like the impact the face-off has on the game? Whether you outlaw the grip and taking a knee, or not letting guys carry the ball in the back of the stick like they used to, you’re still going to get players who dominate the FO and give their team a big advantage

Feels like all the rule changes or proposals constantly miss the forest for the trees. If you don’t like the impact FOGOs have, well then don’t let there be any more FOGOs. Pass a rule saying the face-off guy has to play another position or be an actual field player and can’t just be a FOGO. That solves your issue.

But the rule changes are just window dressing. Some kid is still going to come around and win 65-70%

if that's their problem, that won't change anything. smart coaches that know numbers will understand that having the ball is worth having a fogo. if you're keeping him on longer, the impact will be in the effect that he'll have to take more breaks. so top teams will need 2 fogos. cue the transfers.

No, I don’t mean keeping a FOGO on longer, I mean getting rid of FOGO’s. You have to play a position. So think Kyle Harrison or Zach Currier. Your face-off guy has to be an actual field player. That way, you reduce the extreme specialization of it.

let me understand how that rule would work. how would it be written?

You can’t have a devoted “face-off specialist.” Whoever takes the face-off for your team must be a field player, be it midfielder, attack, or defense; but a player who plays and participates in the other facets of the game as well when the face-off is not taking place.

So your face-off guy can be a SSDM who plays defensive midfield when you’re on defense, and then goes out to take the next face-off. It can be a midfielder who wins the face-off and stays on and plays offense but if he isn’t taking the face-off is still playing on that side of the ball. If you want it to be a long pole the long pole also has to play defense.

Basically, think of a regular field player right now, can be anyone - again, middie, a pole, even attackmen - but also taking face-offs in addition. That would be your face-off guy. Not guys who spend 90% of the game standing on the sidelines really.

If you want to eliminate a guy winning 75% and completely tilting the game and not having it be so specialized, that’s the way to go.

ok, so after a goal someone who was on the field needs to take the next faceoff depending on what end it was?

It just needs to be a field player. Someone who plays another part of the game besides just taking face off. You’ll no longer have “FO” as a position, one of your defenders, midfielders, or attackers will be your face-off guy

now i'm back to being confused. what would the rule need to be written as? what would stop a coach from calling a fogo an ssdm and trotting him out there just for faceoffs?

I have no clue why you're confused. It's not hard. If a coach calls a FOGO an SSDM but just trots him out there for faceoffs, he's a FOGO. You have to play another position. Kyle Harrison, Zach Currier, John Glynn, all of these guys actually played a position in addition to taking face-offs.

I don't know exactly what jargon they would use to write the rule, that's up to them. But your face-off guy has to play in the field. He has to play defense, he has to be a midfielder, or he has to play attack. He can't just be a guy who takes face-offs and that's all he does. It doesn't matter what end of the field it is, or what position, or when the goal was scored. But there won't be FOGO's anymore. Your face-off guy will instead also play lacrosse outside of when the FO is taken.

[LRoggy]

How about a 5 second limit on the ball coming out? After 5 seconds you start over?

Or try the Women's draw in fall ball? But the sticks are placed higher so the ball drops down. Move the wings closer and it becomes more like a hockey faceoff where there is almost never a scrum.

[Freedom1234]

I keep seeing "fairness" and "making it more competitive" in a lot of posts. Just because some players are more advanced than others, we need to make it more fair or competitive? This does not make sense to me. These kids work really hard. Some harder than others. Should we change the attack position because someone is far superior than others? Should we not allow ground balls because some are better than others? Should a really fast player not be allowed to play because he is faster than others? Should all goalies play left handed? The list could go on and on. If we are going to get rid of specialists to make it fair or more competitive get rid of them all. Everyone plays offense and defense. No more only attack or defensive players.

Bottom line is there are marquee players in every position. They work extremely hard to get in that position. I am more worried about rules that are hard to judge like the goal dive that also have risks to serious injury. It is the same old argument of the haves and have nots. Plus I remember the Yale/PSU regular season game. Two really good face off guys. One dominated, but it was a close game at the end. I think the face off is a very exciting part of the game. Talk about fairness, each team has a 50/50 shot of getting the ball if they play it right.

[DocBarrister]

However it's evolved, the lacrosse world has let the face off get completely out of control. I like the face off, think it adds a great element to the game as well as bringing a unique and different stick skill. A stick skill shouldn't include picking the ball up with a tongs like grip on the ball and lifting it with a plunger like motion though. Don't care how FOGOs grip the stick, don't care if they have a knee up or down, only care that when the whistle blows the ball comes into play. Two guys clamping the ball down and circling in a wrestling match of sorts shouldn't happen on a lacrosse field. Clamp and scrape...it's about quickness, not who the better wrestler is. Doesn't surprise me that the rules committee is looking at the face off again, they sure as hell need to make a decision and stick with it though.
My suggestion would be that FOGOs use wooden sticks only.
Grip it whatever way you want. You can squat or kneel too.

Doesn’t matter how they change the rules. Elite faceoff specialists will find a way to dominate. The rules may change who dominates and how (style), but there will always be some group of faceoff specialists who will dominate.

So there is no purpose for all of these rule changes. Just leave the rules alone and let the players play.

DocBarrister

I never suggested that he who masters the skill the best wouldn't still dominate regardless of how the face off is done. It always comes back to the sticks, it's not the grip or whether your knee is on or off the ground, it's how the stick can be manipulated so as to pick the ball up like picking a meatball out of a bowl with tongs. Shouldn't happen, period. What also shouldn't happen is clamping the ball and holding. One of the two, or both, is happening when we get the circle dance/wrestling match at the face off X. No way the ball should be at one spot on the ground with two players sticks on it without moving for as long as we see in many face offs. The ball should be directed instantly when the whistle blows, should not be in the same spot 3, 5, 7 seconds later with two guys holding it there. I would guess that's why the rules committee is yet again looking at the face off.

I hear what you’re saying. Some classic plays would never have happened with all the clamping that goes on today (e.g., G. Pyser to J. Byrne in the 2005 NCAA semifinal).

On the other hand, I actually enjoy the drama of those prolonged clamps ... sorta like a rugby scrum.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

I have no clue why you're confused. It's not hard. If a coach calls a FOGO an SSDM but just trots him out there for faceoffs, he's a FOGO. You have to play another position. Kyle Harrison, Zach Currier, John Glynn, all of these guys actually played a position in addition to taking face-offs.

I don't know exactly what jargon they would use to write the rule, that's up to them. But your face-off guy has to play in the field. He has to play defense, he has to be a midfielder, or he has to play attack. He can't just be a guy who takes face-offs and that's all he does. It doesn't matter what end of the field it is, or what position, or when the goal was scored. But there won't be FOGO's anymore. Your face-off guy will instead also play lacrosse outside of when the FO is taken.

jrn, no offense, man, but that's not a rule. if he has to stay on after a faceoff win, through the offensive possession, i get it. in that instance, as i said before, i think coaches would value the possession 1st if he's a good to great fogo, send him out there and set picks.
if he has to stay on through a loss and a defensive possession, you'd think the other team's guy often would be pretty good to beat him and more of a fogo as well. both teams would probably just play 5 on 5. even if your own fogo was competing with a "regular" middie, a coach would take his chances that he'd win much more frequently than lose, and be ok playing d against the "regular" O-middie.

other than that, in absence of a different rule... how would you regulate that? any player that takes faceoffs has to be on the field for x minutes per game? obviously, there's no way you could do something like that.

both players that take a faceoff have to stay on the field until the next goal?

[DocBarrister]

Simple change: set it up as a duel. Each specialist five yards from the ball. No long stick. Blow whistle. Good luck.

My main concern would be the big hits and injuries (especially head injuries) that would follow. Five yards is plenty to gain some major momentum for a hit.

DocBarrister

[Hoya]

Simple change: set it up as a duel. Each specialist five yards from the ball. No long stick. Blow whistle. Good luck.

My main concern would be the big hits and injuries (especially head injuries) that would follow. Five yards is plenty to gain some major momentum for a hit.

DocBarrister

This is my worry as well. As a father with two sons playing youth lacrosse and remembering way back when I was a LSM I fear the collisions. We'd have blown people up with a 5 yard head start.

[DMac]

DocBarrister wrote
On the other hand, I actually enjoy the drama of those prolonged clamps ... sorta like a rugby scrum.

I can't really enjoy that part of the face off as I can't help but think it shouldn't be happening for the exact reason you mention. Clamp is not a part of lacrosse for any player whether it be to clamp the ball against his chest or to the ground. Aint allowed, period (GK a little but that's a whole different deal).