Here we go again with the Face Off

[Surfs_Up]

Wasn't today when the final Go/No-Go for the rules were to be voted on regarding NCAA Face off change?

Having watched a ton of lax this summer, I am definitely a fan of the old rules - Knee Down Moto. Some people are digging the SNG, as it seems to be a 50-50 on those watching that I have polled. The FOGO's I talked to all seem to prefer Knee Down. Some key points.

1. Wrist pain less in Knee down
2. More ability to use technique to get the ball out

Other things I have noticed
Number of fast breaks are about the same percentage between the 2
Tie ups are shorter in SNG
Less clean wins and more scrums-ground balls from SNG
WIngs are more important than ever with SNG.

With the craziness of everything, it does seem like a bad year to implement this change. I hope they hold off and do a study on face-offs with stated goals, and possible resolutions, with a panel of face-off experts to come up with new rules. That is how it would work in an ideal world.

[Surfs_Up]

It's official.

https://twitter.com/Inside_Lacrosse/sta ... 34913?s=20

The
@NCAA
Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved the men's
@NCAALAX
rule change proposal on Wednesday afternoon, banning the moto-grip, knee-down stance:

[wgdsr]

pretty comical. as the twitter/il link alludes to part of, here is the ncaa.com reasoning...not an actual quote but you can suspect it came from the horses' mouths:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-men/ ... s-faceoffs
Currently, players can start a faceoff on one knee and also can use a motorcycle grip, in which the stick is held with both palms down. Members of the committee, which met by videoconference for four days last week, felt this leads to clamping of the ball and long stalemates.

DON'T MISS: The leading career goal scorers in DI men's college lacrosse history

If the changes are approved, committee members think this area of the game will be cleaned up, and players would have to move the ball in a continuous motion. If the ball is withheld in a player’s stick, a violation would be called, and the opposing team would be awarded possession of the ball.

this has literally been written in the rules for years, as i alluded to some time ago and we went over on this thread, and have had battles with nfhs refs for clarification for years. all they had to do was call it. now, the major rule change of course would make them call it. you can't make this stuff up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

pretty comical. as the twitter/il link alludes to part of, here is the ncaa.com reasoning...not an actual quote but you can suspect it came from the horses' mouths:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-men/ ... s-faceoffs
Currently, players can start a faceoff on one knee and also can use a motorcycle grip, in which the stick is held with both palms down. Members of the committee, which met by videoconference for four days last week, felt this leads to clamping of the ball and long stalemates.

DON'T MISS: The leading career goal scorers in DI men's college lacrosse history

If the changes are approved, committee members think this area of the game will be cleaned up, and players would have to move the ball in a continuous motion. If the ball is withheld in a player’s stick, a violation would be called, and the opposing team would be awarded possession of the ball.

this has literally been written in the rules for years, as i alluded to some time ago and we went over on this thread, and have had battles with nfhs refs for clarification for years. all they had to do was call it. now, the major rule change of course would make them call it. you can't make this stuff up.

Just stupid. It’s Mickey Mouse.

[NElaxtalent]

things I have noticed
Number of fast breaks are about the same percentage between the 2
Tie ups are shorter in SNG
Less clean wins and more scrums-ground balls from SNG
WIngs are more important than ever with SNG.

Looks like your observations are EXACTLY what the rules committee was shooting for. Many of those I see complaining about changing the FO rules (to counterbalance the flexi-stick plastic evolution) appear to be relatively new to the sport and likely haven't watched lacrosse pre-2005 much less pre-1990 so they understandably lack historical perspective. Who took FOs was barely a consideration on most teams much less having a designated specialist for the "role".

[wgdsr]

things I have noticed
Number of fast breaks are about the same percentage between the 2
Tie ups are shorter in SNG
Less clean wins and more scrums-ground balls from SNG
WIngs are more important than ever with SNG.

Looks like your observations are EXACTLY what the rules committee was shooting for. Many of those I see complaining about changing the FO rules (to counterbalance the flexi-stick plastic evolution) appear to be relatively new to the sport and likely haven't watched lacrosse pre-2005 much less pre-1990 so they understandably lack historical perspective. Who took FOs was barely a consideration on most teams much less having a designated specialist for the "role".

i give you a c+ for trolling. all the points off are going to be for being factually incorrect on about everything, but other than that, great job!

[NElaxtalent]

Wgdsr, not sure your point. Surf's up posted his observations of SNG's effects. I only referenced what he said vs the rules committee's intentions.

I keep reading parents of current MS/HS FOs saying leave the FO rules intact. I'm just trying to share historical perspective that prior to the evolution of the plastic, we talked more of "FO units" not FO guys. And often who actually took the FO wasn't a major consideration (like NHL). I'm pretty neutral on the topic. I just think the balance of power/importance has swung a bit too far when a FOGO is your #1 focus in recruiting over Gs & other full-time field players. Imagine if a K or Punter was most NFL team's key playe? Or NBA tip-off jump guy?

Let's all see what happens. I'm sure the best guys will adapt and excel (to what extent remains to be seen).

Fwiw, I think the shot clock implementation already accomplished 60% of this as team's can no longer win a few key 4th Qtr FOs and run-out the last 8-10 min of a game. So, yes, I'm surprised that they are continuing to tweak the FO rules.

[SCLaxAttack]

Wgdsr, not sure your point. Surf's up posted his observations of SNG's effects. I only referenced what he said vs the rules committee's intentions.

I keep reading parents of current MS/HS FOs saying leave the FO rules intact. I'm just trying to share historical perspective that prior to the evolution of the plastic, we talked more of "FO units" not FO guys. And often who actually took the FO wasn't a major consideration (like NHL). I'm pretty neutral on the topic. I just think the balance of power/importance has swung a bit too far when a FOGO is your #1 focus in recruiting over Gs & other full-time field players. Imagine if a K or Punter was most NFL team's key playe? Or NBA tip-off jump guy?

Let's all see what happens. I'm sure the best guys will adapt and excel (to what extent remains to be seen).

History - In 1979 the NCAA eliminated faceoffs after goals. Two words - Ned Radebaugh.

[NElaxtalent]

Yup. Exceptions certainly exist but hardly the norm 1980-2005.

http://dailyorange.com/2014/02/lacrosse-keeping-face/

"Now you have a guy who doesn't play offense or doesn't play defense, but might have the most effect on the outcome of the game."

" We looked at the faceoff, and I don’t mean it as a knock,” Desko said, “but you probably have the team’s worst lacrosse player being the most important on the field and that’s the faceoff.”

-John Desko, SU head coach

[wgdsr]

we must've had and seen discussions with different groups of people. your observation on ms fo parents doesn't really apply to this forum as an example, as many opposing the change aren't ms fo parents.
many also were around and playing years ago, and at least in my experience... we must've been on different fields. bc every team i ever played on and against, it was always critical who was taking faceoffs.
most of the discussion i've seen is by recent faceoff guys, who would predictably vote against it, but offer some pretty good insight as well. insight that was never tapped.

also -- quicker tieups is actually the only thing surf mentioned that the coaches who pushed this thru admitted to, from 4 or 5 items he brought up. and tieups was mentioned fleetingly in their public comments.

i'm still curious what the groundswell was of coaches that demanded change... again. there was quite a bit of publication on the shot clock re: coaches, but yet none that i could find here.. and with lots of time and free media space to do so. pretty curious.

[NElaxtalent]

Read my prior response. I've heard this was driven by many D1 coaches that didn't like the amount of focus & time allocated to a "special team" position with 50 man rosters & and only 3 paid coaches.

As I said before, I personally thought the shot clock had reduced the importance enough to let it be. Apparently the coaches thought otherwise.

[wgdsr]

but that's not what they said. they told you the reason was something else.
they didn't say that they didn't want the chance that they'd lose to someone else in large part because someone else found a better faceoff guy. or coached up their own faceoff guys better. or coached up their wings better.

they didn't say they believe that's all "by chance", and shouldn't impact their great other recruiting and vast coaching and x's and o's skills.

they said clamps and withholding were the problem. and they referenced wording to that effect exactly as it's been written in the rules for years.

let me ask you... if shay and wray were on the committee this year, would this have passed?

[Typical Lax Dad]

but that's not what they said. they told you the reason was something else.
they didn't say that they didn't want the chance that they'd lose to someone else in large part because someone else found a better faceoff guy. or coached up their own faceoff guys better. or coached up their wings better.

they didn't say they believe that's all "by chance", and shouldn't impact their great other recruiting and vast coaching and x's and o's skills.

they said clamps and withholding were the problem. and they referenced wording to that effect exactly as it's been written in the rules for years.

let me ask you... if shay and wray were on the committee this year, would this have passed?

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

[NElaxtalent]

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

+1 (enforce the withholding rule on FOs, problem solved)

Wgdsr, short answer is you are right. More comprehensive answer... many coaches don't like something so pivotal being decided by 1-2 recruits/players that detract from the more free-flowing parts of the game they love coaching. They don't like the time consuming individual technique/reps/practice time for 3-4 FOs taking a coach away from 45 other guys.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

+1 (enforce the withholding rule on FOs, problem solved)

Yep. The sticks only encouraged more withholding.

[primitiveskills]

Other things I have noticed
Number of fast breaks are about the same percentage between the 2
Tie ups are shorter in SNG
Less clean wins and more scrums-ground balls from SNG
WIngs are more important than ever with SNG.

Clean wins are much better from the player safety perspective. MOre scrums will lead to more injuries, particularly if guys are being cleaned out by layers coming in from the wings. Just seems like a bad rule change, partuclarly if (as far as I can see) there was no player safety reason for the change.

[FMUBart]

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

+1 (enforce the withholding rule on FOs, problem solved)

Yep. The sticks only encouraged more withholding.

Couldn't agree more...and further, why is the faceoff done with the BACK of the stickhead?? Only time in the game when the "wrong" side of stick is used, except when goalie clamps... Re Desko: He is against the faceoff when he doesn't have a dominant fogo; when he has a solid fogo, he doesn't say peep..

[Carroll81]

...
I keep reading parents of current MS/HS FOs saying leave the FO rules intact. I'm just trying to share historical perspective that prior to the evolution of the plastic, we talked more of "FO units" not FO guys. And often who actually took the FO wasn't a major consideration (like NHL). I'm pretty neutral on the topic. I just think the balance of power/importance has swung a bit too far when a FOGO is your #1 focus in recruiting over Gs & other full-time field players. Imagine if a K or Punter was most NFL team's key playe? Or NBA tip-off jump guy?
...

FO in hockey is pretty important. During key times of the game, coaches break up lines to the the second best player on the ice for a faceoff, in case the best guy gets bumped.

As a matter of fact, NCAA hockey just tweaked the FO rules - "to generate more scoring opportunities". Teams can now choose which faceoff location to use after penalties and icings. Centers will now be warned instead of kick out of the faceoff for violations. Getting as bad as lacrosse

[wgdsr]

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

+1 (enforce the withholding rule on FOs, problem solved)

Wgdsr, short answer is you are right. More comprehensive answer... many coaches don't like something so pivotal being decided by 1-2 recruits/players that detract from the more free-flowing parts of the game they love coaching. They don't like the time consuming individual technique/reps/practice time for 3-4 FOs taking a coach away from 45 other guys.

and that's a cop out. and it's that much more of a cop out that they don't admit it publicly. the naz coach went so far as to say "it's about the kids", a phrase i hear so often at my school i chuckled... as i know what it has typically meant who it is for.

our vaunted small set f/o coach rules experts, who are afraid they'll lose because they can't recruit/coach faceoffs, will be back in some form in 2 or 4 years. guaranteed. bc faceoff guys will figure it out. these same guys made modifications to allow their misfortune. disallowing anything close to holding once somebody lost the clamp (unlike anywhere else on the field), so it could go "quicker". then they allowed the clamp guy to pick and choose his poison whenever he felt like it. and they wonder why they can't win faceoffs?

what i see, and i look for it on many faceoffs... is where wings get positioned if they have time to get in. to me, it lòoks like they have no idea where they're going if they want to win. 75% or more of exits are 12 or 6 o'clock, anything else is largely on the 9 o'clock side. so you actually sprint in, not jog, box out and position on left shoulder, left cheek, rotate and switch off as need be, with a bias to head where their fogo may go (left) if it's not front or back.
as a fogo if you get behind at any point you disrupt and don't just become a witness.

is that coached? not very often, imo. not by what i see. the 45 min part is bogus. what were they doing with all that time? any of those coaches that think any less precision needs to go into faceoff/wing play now is gonna get smoked. don't goalies have to warmup? don't they have stations? will there be fewer faceoffs? fewer moves? faceoff guys can't work on faceoffs like goalies before they start standing around? if they think they won't any longer have to devote the same time and energy to fo's and wing play, that group is in for a rough year.

all they had to do was emphasize withholding, tell the refs enough's enough, it's in the rules... and actually teach. they will find that out soon enough. until 2/4 years from now, of course.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just don’t know why the refs would not simplify disallow the clamp. You can’t withhold the ball anywhere else on the field. I don’t like legislating technique. I also don’t like how stick technology has changed the FOGO position. I thought face offs over the past couple of years were much better.

+1 (enforce the withholding rule on FOs, problem solved)

Wgdsr, short answer is you are right. More comprehensive answer... many coaches don't like something so pivotal being decided by 1-2 recruits/players that detract from the more free-flowing parts of the game they love coaching. They don't like the time consuming individual technique/reps/practice time for 3-4 FOs taking a coach away from 45 other guys.

and that's a cop out. and it's that much more of a cop out that they don't admit it publicly. the naz coach went so far as to say "it's about the kids", a phrase i hear so often at my school i chuckled... as i know what it has typically meant who it is for.

our vaunted small set f/o coach rules experts, who are afraid they'll lose because they can't recruit/coach faceoffs, will be back in some form in 2 or 4 years. guaranteed. bc faceoff guys will figure it out. these same guys made modifications to allow their misfortune. disallowing anything close to holding once somebody lost the clamp (unlike anywhere else on the field), so it could go "quicker". then they allowed the clamp guy to pick and choose his poison whenever he felt like it. and they wonder why they can't win faceoffs?

what i see, and i look for it on many faceoffs... is where wings get positioned if they have time to get in. to me, it lòoks like they have no idea where they're going if they want to win. 75% or more of exits are 12 or 6 o'clock, anything else is largely on the 9 o'clock side. so you actually sprint in, not jog, box out and position on left shoulder, left cheek, rotate and switch off as need be, with a bias to head where their fogo may go (left) if it's not front or back.
as a fogo if you get behind at any point you disrupt and don't just become a witness.

is that coached? not very often, imo. not by what i see. the 45 min part is bogus. what were they doing with all that time? any of those coaches that think any less precision needs to go into faceoff/wing play now is gonna get smoked. don't goalies have to warmup? don't they have stations? will there be fewer faceoffs? fewer moves? faceoff guys can't work on faceoffs like goalies before they start standing around? if they think they won't any longer have to devote the same time and energy to fo's and wing play, that group is in for a rough year.

all they had to do was emphasize withholding, tell the refs enough's enough, it's in the rules... and actually teach. they will find that out soon enough. until 2/4 years from now, of course.

Yes. This is the Mickey Mouse element in lacrosse.