Here we go again with the Face Off

[droliver]

That face off video by Gurenlian pretty much sums up why the face-off needs to go. It's become a distorted, overly specialized encounter in the game that's a net negative and certainly is not anything resembling 'traditional' (if one is making that a reason to keep it). I still haven't really heard anyone make a compelling argument to not switch to alternating possessions.

[shaadb-man]

It's called 1979

[wgdsr]

tradition (actually think it resembles it much more than not)
1979
cellys
sets a pace i like.
comebacks.
fast breaks.
there are actually competitive gbs and you're not just granted possession bc the other team scored. or out of luck in alternate if you got the last one.

of course you don't consider any of these compelling arguments as you're likely aware of them, but i do.

also fine with the specialization.

i've participated in plenty of alternate possession/goalie release formats in the off season and they'd s*ck in the regular game. imo.

actually in favor of goalie release in box. up and down game, subs, shots, shorter shot clock and full game time.

[laxpert]

It's called 1979

We are just discussing elimination of the moto grip however I played in games with the no face off rule and thought it needed clarification. I’m not for elimination of the face off but support more wing involvement.

Citing the 1979 no face off fiasco is a specious argument that wouldn’t happen today.

An unmitigated failure but you have to consider the rules at that time, no limits on poles, subs on any whistle and on the fly, no advancement rules, over and back allowed.
Ball started at midfield with 6 long poles on defense and 6 shorts on offense, at least 4 of the shorts were attackman on the roster.

On a change of position a substitution fest took place as both longs and shorts attempted to get their counterparts on. If there wasn’t a whistle and with no advancement rules it wasn’t difficult to stall the ball while subs took place. Remember you could clear past midfield and redirect back to the defensive half. Simply said, a rule that was intended to increase transition resulted in zero transition.

Today with a limit on poles, no horn for subs, shot clock, exotic shafts making poles more def at stick handling it would be different.

[laxtalker]

1979 was not a bad year. Please be mindful of this, the longest delay in a lacrosse game is after a goal is scored. It takes nearly a minute to begin action again, if you want lacrosse to GROW outside of lacrosse "people" via television the game needs to speed up after goals. More shots, more goals and more excitement. Casual fans want action and eliminating the face-off will actually help grow the game.

[wgdsr]

football seems to do just fine.
basketball takes about 20-30 minutes to play the last 5 in any reasonably tight game. 40 fouls per game, teevee timeouts and free throws throughout probably don't get too many fans jacked up, either.
outside of the double halftime (two 17 minute intermissions) for hockey, it's the longest delay for them, too. the next longest would be faceoffs for icing and flipping the puck into the stands, and they have about 60+ of those per game.

[nrthcrosslax]

And baseball is also non stop action

[spartanslynx]

In televised games with replay the time is not bad factor.
The PLL got it a bit more time efficient with having markings one the field of where to place the ball and sticks. They take 15 seconds to show celebrations and 30 seconds for replays and breakdowns. Then right back to action when the whistle blows. No need to watch the face-off set up.

But the time is bad when you watch it live

[DMac]

1979 was not a bad year. Please be mindful of this, the longest delay in a lacrosse game is after a goal is scored. It takes nearly a minute to begin action again, if you want lacrosse to GROW outside of lacrosse "people" via television the game needs to speed up after goals. More shots, more goals and more excitement. Casual fans want action and eliminating the face-off will actually help grow the game.

Took a newbie to a game this year, football guy, he commented after the game about how quickly the game goes by and how little screwing around there is in lacrosse. Was a tight game all the way through, final was a two goal difference. The face off brings an extra element of excitement in not knowing if the trailing team is going to have an opportunity to close the gap with a possession or the leading team is going to be able to ice the game with a possession. The face off brings a very cool element to the game in that respect, IMO. I'd hate to give that up to appease the casual fan who doesn't really understand or appreciate the game anyway. I don't see growing the game as a reason to change it.
IMO soccer could improve their game by doing away with off sides. Would be more fast breaks and goals, but the soccer world doesn't much care what I think and they're not going to change their game for me. I feel the same way about the casual fan when it comes to lacrosse. I don't watch soccer and it's fine with me if they don't watch lacrosse.

[wgdsr]

1979 was not a bad year. Please be mindful of this, the longest delay in a lacrosse game is after a goal is scored. It takes nearly a minute to begin action again, if you want lacrosse to GROW outside of lacrosse "people" via television the game needs to speed up after goals. More shots, more goals and more excitement. Casual fans want action and eliminating the face-off will actually help grow the game.

Took a newbie to a game this year, football guy, he commented after the game about how quickly the game goes by and how little screwing around there is in lacrosse. Was a tight game all the way through, final was a two goal difference. The face off brings an extra element of excitement in not knowing if the trailing team is going to have an opportunity to close the gap with a possession or the leading team is going to be able to ice the game with a possession. The face off brings a very cool element to the game in that respect, IMO. I'd hate to give that up to appease the casual fan who doesn't really understand or appreciate the game anyway. I don't see growing the game as a reason to change it.
IMO soccer could improve their game by doing away with off sides. Would be more fast breaks and goals, but the soccer world doesn't much care what I think and they're not going to change their game for me. I feel the same way about the casual fan when it comes to lacrosse. I don't watch soccer and it's fine with me if they don't watch lacrosse.

haha. the soccer guys i know hate that rule when i tell then that's what soccer needs. i'm such a hypocrite (and of course i "don't understand the nuance of the beautiful game").
many if not all agree pk's suck as a way to end a game. they mostly like my "remove a player from each side every 3-5 minutes" rule for ot to eliminate pks.

[flyerfan17]

1979 was not a bad year. Please be mindful of this, the longest delay in a lacrosse game is after a goal is scored. It takes nearly a minute to begin action again, if you want lacrosse to GROW outside of lacrosse "people" via television the game needs to speed up after goals. More shots, more goals and more excitement. Casual fans want action and eliminating the face-off will actually help grow the game.

Took a newbie to a game this year, football guy, he commented after the game about how quickly the game goes by and how little screwing around there is in lacrosse. Was a tight game all the way through, final was a two goal difference. The face off brings an extra element of excitement in not knowing if the trailing team is going to have an opportunity to close the gap with a possession or the leading team is going to be able to ice the game with a possession. The face off brings a very cool element to the game in that respect, IMO. I'd hate to give that up to appease the casual fan who doesn't really understand or appreciate the game anyway. I don't see growing the game as a reason to change it.
IMO soccer could improve their game by doing away with off sides. Would be more fast breaks and goals, but the soccer world doesn't much care what I think and they're not going to change their game for me. I feel the same way about the casual fan when it comes to lacrosse. I don't watch soccer and it's fine with me if they don't watch lacrosse.

Without the face-off lacrosse becomes a pick up basketball game. It's a great game the way it is for all of the above

[spartanslynx]

The Rules Committee is voting on rule changes tomorrow friday.

Inside Lacrosse confims that the face-off is under consideration, see quote

And of course, the face-off — heading into the meeting, multiple coaches who’d spoken to committee members said they expected some sort of rule change to emerge from this cycle, likely to the officiating mechanic, stance, posture, grip or some other element of the face-off.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... year/56478

[Hoya]

1979 was not a bad year. Please be mindful of this, the longest delay in a lacrosse game is after a goal is scored. It takes nearly a minute to begin action again, if you want lacrosse to GROW outside of lacrosse "people" via television the game needs to speed up after goals. More shots, more goals and more excitement. Casual fans want action and eliminating the face-off will actually help grow the game.

Took a newbie to a game this year, football guy, he commented after the game about how quickly the game goes by and how little screwing around there is in lacrosse. Was a tight game all the way through, final was a two goal difference. The face off brings an extra element of excitement in not knowing if the trailing team is going to have an opportunity to close the gap with a possession or the leading team is going to be able to ice the game with a possession. The face off brings a very cool element to the game in that respect, IMO. I'd hate to give that up to appease the casual fan who doesn't really understand or appreciate the game anyway. I don't see growing the game as a reason to change it.
IMO soccer could improve their game by doing away with off sides. Would be more fast breaks and goals, but the soccer world doesn't much care what I think and they're not going to change their game for me. I feel the same way about the casual fan when it comes to lacrosse. I don't watch soccer and it's fine with me if they don't watch lacrosse.

Without the face-off lacrosse becomes a pick up basketball game. It's a great game the way it is for all of the above

I agree. They might be able to tweak the rules to speed up play, etc. but radical changes aren't needed. It was painful to watch my Hoyas lose almost every faceoff to Yale in 2019 playoffs but it didn't stop them from storming back in the game. Still proud of that team and in their best quarter (3rd) they lost faceoffs 8-0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tEW_JphvhU

[NElaxtalent]

Lots of well-thought-out opinions.

I'd summarize mine as follows . . . in a team sport, with a goal & a goalie, the HC's #1 recruiting priority (& single most important roster spot) should not be a PT face-off specialist.

I don't want to eliminate FOs. I just want them to be more 3v3 vs 1v1, aka FO unit vs FO unit. Lots of great suggestions of how to do that if the plastic specs can't be regulated (ie elim moto grip, adjust spacing from the ball, closer wings, no withholding AT ALL, etc).

Hope the rules committee tweaks 1-2 of these.

[FMUBart]

Agree, never understood why the faceoff, which is often a crucial component of the game, is played with the back of the stick?? Further, once a f/o is won, the player's stick is distorted to the point where he can rarely throw an accurate shot/pass...IMHO, the intent of the game is altered. I suggested to the rules committee many years ago to disallow the clamp--it would be an immediate violation and loss of possession. Make the players rake the ball out, w/o clamping, and create a true gb battle...just my 2 cents..

[xxxxxxx]

I have from very solid sources that the face off rules have been changed dramatically, no moto grip and no more down on a knee. Not sure how I feel about it but we will see. Surprised they would make such a significant change without at least testing it in fall ball to get some data and feed back from players and coaches.

[Henpecked]

Greg Gurenlian has some really interesting ideas about the faceoff position and its role in a game. I will be interested to hear what he has to say about these proposed changes.

I have never really understood the pushback on the FOGO position. It seems to me that the people who know the least about it, complain the most. But I am not one of those people. While I don't understand the intricacies of the position I appreciate the craft and the attention to detail that successful FOGOs exhibit.

The only "problem" I ever considered with the faceoff was that the player who clamps down on the ball and does not move it immediately is by definition withholding the ball. I never see that called though. Am I thinking about that incorrectly?

[xxxxxxx]

Greg Gurenlian has some really interesting ideas about the faceoff position and its role in a game. I will be interested to hear what he has to say about these proposed changes.

I have never really understood the pushback on the FOGO position. It seems to me that the people who know the least about it, complain the most. But I am not one of those people. While I don't understand the intricacies of the position I appreciate the craft and the attention to detail that successful FOGOs exhibit.

The only "problem" I ever considered with the faceoff was that the player who clamps down on the ball and does not move it immediately is by definition withholding the ball. I never see that called though. Am I thinking about that incorrectly?

From what I heard the clamp was a big issue for several on the committee, when you see a player clamp the ball then look up to see where to go, it is a violation on the rule. I think the new/old rules will benefit the athletic agile type player, not so much for the forceful strength type player. The ball will be out much quicker and wings will be even more important.

Oh and for the record I predicted this on May 7th.

[kramerica.inc]

I have from very solid sources that the face off rules have been changed dramatically, no moto grip and no more down on a knee. Not sure how I feel about it but we will see. Surprised they would make such a significant change without at least testing it in fall ball to get some data and feed back from players and coaches.

The test for it was years 1996-2002ish. Right before the Moto was popularized by Paul Cantabene.

[DMac]

The only "problem" I ever considered with the faceoff was that the player who clamps down on the ball and does not move it immediately is by definition withholding the ball. I never see that called though. Am I thinking about that incorrectly?

Other than being able to pick the ball up as if you're using tongs, that is the only "problem" with the face off, IMO. These guys absolutely and unquestionably have been clamping/withholding the ball and that's something that never should happen on a lacrosse field (other than with the GK but that's a different kind of war zone and he should be given a little extra advantage after being shot at). I don't like to see the rules changed so often anymore than anyone else, but frankly, I'm glad the committee is showing respect for the game and doing away with this nonsense.