How is New Shot Clock and Dive Rule going n Fall Ball

[runrussellrun]

Who do we contact to get cracking/tracking shot clock violations? The n$aa?

All these full time coaches, with film break down, but no one can track a pretty vital stat ? Sure, some colleges post box score "timer on" info, but is there a data base for ALL teams. Seems strange. Lacrosse is still in la la land. Get modern

[palaxoff]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

[runrussellrun]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

If contact with goalie is made before ball crosses plane of goal......goal does NOT count. Have never seen this actually called and the goal waived off. This rule is NOT a new rule, btw.

[AreaLax]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

'Dive' Penalties Raise Confusion During Opening Weekend

[runrussellrun]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

'Dive' Penalties Raise Confusion During Opening Weekend

It's pretty clear that the Furman players right foot was on the crease..........dive or no dive....NO goal. Zebra's made no indication of it, though.

The dive rule is idiotic. Who cares if the ball carrier was pushed, illegally, into the goalies knee. His ACL is blown........kind of like US Lax making cross checking legal.......

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

'Dive' Penalties Raise Confusion During Opening Weekend

It's pretty clear that the Furman players right foot was on the crease..........dive or no dive....NO goal. Zebra's made no indication of it, though.

The dive rule is idiotic. Who cares if the ball carrier was pushed, illegally, into the goalies knee. His ACL is blown........kind of like US Lax making cross checking legal.......

I can't remember how many times over the past 15 years that I looked at a college lacrosse game and said, "you know, bringing back the dive will make this game better"

[stupefied]

EVERY other sport has been taking steps EVERY year to best protect players from injuries and these NCAA clowns reinstate the dive that was outlawed .

Going to be some unnecessary injuries and some necessary lawsuits to have it outlawed again.

There was artistry in straddling the crease, now clumsy dives into knees and more uncertainty on calls. Penalties dont repair ACL s

[Typical Lax Dad]

EVERY other sport has been taking steps EVERY year to best protect players from injuries and these NCAA clowns reinstate the dive that was outlawed .

Going to be some unnecessary injuries and some necessary lawsuits to have it outlawed again.

There was artistry in straddling the crease, now clumsy dives into knees and more uncertainty on calls. Penalties dont repair ACL s

Who are the Quint and Carc of those other sports?

[xxxxxxx]

EVERY other sport has been taking steps EVERY year to best protect players from injuries and these NCAA clowns reinstate the dive that was outlawed .

Going to be some unnecessary injuries and some necessary lawsuits to have it outlawed again.

There was artistry in straddling the crease, now clumsy dives into knees and more uncertainty on calls. Penalties dont repair ACL s

I agree 100% Tierney wanted it so they put it back, I don't see this lasting long or ending well.

[MDlaxfan76]

The PC/BU game (2 evenly matched teams) saw, IIRC, 1 20sec violation, 2 dives for goals, 1 unsuccessful dive attempt (no penalty, just a crease violation), and no roll-the-ball-into-the-corner-as-clock-expires events; teams would push the ball out front and take shots you wouldn't see last year. A seeming lot (35%+/-?)of goalie-initiated or endline clears got over midfield with about 65seconds on the clock. D to D for 1 pass; another crossfield pass and the clear had to be rushed. A lot more midfield action than otherwise, especially within 7 yards of midline. BU goalie in particular was aggressive with outlets and put his mids in some tough spots. Fortunately the refs let these midfield scrums play out. Except for clear and blatent pushes, they let the players play. I could forsee other crews calling a similar game tighter, and slowing down the game considerably by calling 'high school' pushing rules instead of being circumspect.

Are those good shots or just shots taken for the sake of shooting?

Well, we can certainly find video evidence of players taking shots, in a Championship game no less, when the shooter has one foot OUTSIDE the restraining line, a little off to the left, making it a 22-23 yard shot. Plenty of those. And bring back the shallow pocket sticks while we're taking those distant shots. Goalies are WAY better than they were in the 1980's.

Yeah, the 80's was great lacrosse.



possessions where cheap.... like in the box game, actually.

Thank you for making my point......first shot was taken 18 yards away. 2 yards further back than the 16 that is the 2 point MLL shot.
Low percentage.

about 100 other college players that had more than 3 years experience NOT playing in this game. (NO ONE played in HS back in the 70's-80's, let alone 2nd or 3rd graders.

The 80's America's Cup races were great too.

Those were my glory days.

I dunno about goalies actually being "better" these days, but the job is certainly considerably harder. Resulting in much lower saves % of most top goalies today. Check out some of those saves by Federico, though. You're not going to see better today.

In my dad's era ("50's), the saves % and # of saves per game were much higher, as it was so much harder to get as hard a shot off and the general stick work made it more important to get a shot off before losing possession. On the other hand, the grass fields produced irregular bounces, so with a screen, an outside shot had a pretty decent chance of beating the tender. So, a lot of such shots were taken. Goalies played a high arc to cut off those bounces.

In my era, the '70's and '80's, the sticks had improved dramatically over the prior era, resulting in shots being taken from more angles, with control. More players could throw a hard fake before releasing in close shots, and more guys per team could rip shots with precision. But most games were still being played on grass, so there was still a tendency to believe that an outside shot had a good chance of beating a tender. But the truth (from a goalie's POV) was that only the very best shooters could really pull that off, especially without a screen. and on astro turf they really shouldn't be able to score from the restraining line. In closer, most shots were still being taken overhand, and the point of release was easier to read.

But in today's era the sticks are further dramatically improved and virtually every offensive player in D1 can rip shots, from all angles of shooting, most from both hands. Guys can throw multiple fakes, behind the back shots are not frowned upon, and the release points for a shot are much harder to read. Deep pockets have led to far fewer ball carrying errors. The ability to control the ball has led to much greater patience to improve shooting %, in closer. Goalies have responded with a lower or flat arc, and get far fewer easy saves, at least against the better teams.

It'll be interesting to see whether goalie saves % increase a lot, as well as # of saves per game, with the new rules. Seems to me that's likely.

[runrussellrun]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JH0LnA0Wog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz_Hw3zGcDM

you need to get out of your opinions....they are in the way.

Goalies are just better...today.....so are all players. How many players on your Green Indians never played lacrosse.....at all.....before arriving in Hanover? Or, in your dads day? Lots of em. At the white collar welfare college in Brighton, how many kids on the roster did NOT have at least 10 years of experience until heading to Harvard?

YOu could make team USA with having zero pre-college playing experience (dom s. ) It happens all the time,today

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JH0LnA0Wog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz_Hw3zGcDM

you need to get out of your opinions....they are in the way.

Goalies are just better...today.....so are all players. How many players on your Green Indians never played lacrosse.....at all.....before arriving in Hanover? Or, in your dads day? Lots of em. At the white collar welfare college in Brighton, how many kids on the roster did NOT have at least 10 years of experience until heading to Harvard?

YOu could make team USA with having zero pre-college playing experience (dom s. ) It happens all the time,today

None of the players on my Dartmouth team had never played the game, but some of them had indeed played very little prior to HS. Some terrific athletes were able to contribute. But they were not actually the best players, and it wasn't until the guys who grew up with a stick in their hands were the juniors and seniors that we were able to compete at a high level. In my case, I played rec ball at age six, so did Mike McCarthy, Steve O'Neill, Bob Garry, etc.

When you're watching that UVA-Hopkins final, all those guys played youth rec ball.

My dad's team had just two players who didn't play much ball pre-college, but again amazing athletes. Played defense. Which is why his coach had my dad sprint up the field with the ball himself if he didn't have an open middle...bypassing the sticks of the defense. But the top offensive players all played as kids, grew up with a stick in their hands.

But sure, there's a heck of a lot more total talent in the sport, many more terrific players playing, meaning the depth is greater both on teams and many more teams that have high skilled players.

And certainly nutrition and training is much more extensive than in my day. Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster.

And as I said, the sticks are much better, so the available shot capabilities are much higher, from more players.

Which is why the goalie job is so much harder today. And there are indeed more kids playing, so making it to the starting lineup is indeed harder.

But I think Michael Federico and Bob Clements who split 1st team AA my senior year, 1980, would be the two best or at least two of the four best in any year in the past decade. But their saves % would be lower for all the reasons above.

Remember, I'm pretty familiar with goalies in the current era and their challenges, as my son was a 2016. Without the injuries, I think he might have been the best in his lineage, but as it was, pretty darn good and played his best against a bunch of different Tewy candidates and award winners. In the year that he got most of the playing time, he was 2nd in the country in saves per minute played, so a lot of action at his end of the field. IMO, his 54.8% career saves was every bit the equal of my 59% but I had 4 healthy years and he never had a complete season without injury.

[Antonio114]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

The irony of that Furman v Duke play (which is almost exactly this scenario) is that last year, without the new dive rules, it would have almost definitely been called a penalty on Duke, and if the Furman guy wasn't in the crease before the dive it would be a goal for Furman, since the Duke defender was on his back the entire time and even appeared to give him a little cross check shove as he took off. In recent years the refs would throw the flag if the defender is even touching on the guys back as he goes diving into the crease. It seemed like every call would favor the offensive player even if the D was barely touching the diving guy. You basically had free will to dive in any direction if you were being pushed at all from behind. Now, with these new rules to consider, we may see more focus on the direction of the dive if the player goes in a direction considered a penalty, instead of the focus being on whether or not the defender pushed the guy before the dive. The refs may be so preoccupied with focusing on the dive direction that they will call less pushes from behind in these situations, as seen on that play.

As for the call: By the current rules I think it is a penalty. It definitely is if the refs missed the push from behind. That inside lax article has a thing on if you dive to tight to the pipe of the goal, which the furman player did, then it is considered "towards the goal mouth" and you get a penalty. However I would hate to see the tactic employed by the goalie exploited in the future. He came completely out of the goal and met the guy just as he was starting his dive and gave the furman guy a solid cross check along with the one the d middie was giving him from behind. If they penalize you for contact with the goalie even if the goalie blatantly steps away from the goal and attempts to initiate contact with you, then there will have to be some sort of rule change. I personally wish the goal counted due to the push from behind and the way the goalie stepped out of the goal to initiate contact. If he stepped in the crease before the dive then obviously no goal.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It is difficult to compare eras due in large part to rule changes in most sports. Basketball is much easier today than it was 25 years ago. I am waiting for double dribbling to be allowed next. You can carry the ball, you can travel with the ball, you can't hand check anymore..... offensive players can keep their shoulders square to the basket....in the old days, you had to keep the defender on your hip. If Isiah Thomas played under the current rules he would have averaged 40 points a game. Michael Jordan would have averaged 50. He averaged 37 when the game was hard. Pete would have averaged 60 points in college. Better training, better nutrition and the ability to watch film would have made those guys much better. An old HS teammate is a former director of player personnel for the Knicks. He was telling me about his nephew over the summer and how the internet has sped of the development of players. The kids don't play as much but it is far more efficient....it had never crossed my mind. Give these kids the old equipment under the old rules and most would have quit a long time ago. I picked up the sport late and played on the defensive end of the field like most guys that picked up the sport late.

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone have an opinion on this scenario:

As a player shoots and dives in crease area away from goal, goalie steps up in crease area and makes contact with player. Whats the call?
1. Goal
2. Goalie interference. ( Pretty sure the rule only says contact with goalie.) disallow goal, give ball to defense or throw a flag?

The irony of that Furman v Duke play (which is almost exactly this scenario) is that last year, without the new dive rules, it would have almost definitely been called a penalty on Duke, and if the Furman guy wasn't in the crease before the dive it would be a goal for Furman, since the Duke defender was on his back the entire time and even appeared to give him a little cross check shove as he took off. In recent years the refs would throw the flag if the defender is even touching on the guys back as he goes diving into the crease. It seemed like every call would favor the offensive player even if the D was barely touching the diving guy. You basically had free will to dive in any direction if you were being pushed at all from behind. Now, with these new rules to consider, we may see more focus on the direction of the dive if the player goes in a direction considered a penalty, instead of the focus being on whether or not the defender pushed the guy before the dive. The refs may be so preoccupied with focusing on the dive direction that they will call less pushes from behind in these situations, as seen on that play.

As for the call: By the current rules I think it is a penalty. It definitely is if the refs missed the push from behind. That inside lax article has a thing on if you dive to tight to the pipe of the goal, which the furman player did, then it is considered "towards the goal mouth" and you get a penalty. However I would hate to see the tactic employed by the goalie exploited in the future. He came completely out of the goal and met the guy just as he was starting his dive and gave the furman guy a solid cross check along with the one the d middie was giving him from behind. If they penalize you for contact with the goalie even if the goalie blatantly steps away from the goal and attempts to initiate contact with you, then there will have to be some sort of rule change. I personally wish the goal counted due to the push from behind and the way the goalie stepped out of the goal to initiate contact. If he stepped in the crease before the dive then obviously no goal.

As a goalie, seems to me that the entire crease is my domain, not the attack man's. If the contact is within the cylinder, you're in my area, penalty on you. Outside that cylinder, contact is contact. My check as a goalie must be as if I was any other defender. Neither play draws a flag if the contact is otherwise legal. If the diving attack man continues forward, despite the contact with the goalie, into the crease area, flag on attack man, regardless of where the contact began.

But this will indeed incentivize goalies to meet a dive at the edge of the crease to be sure that there's contact to draw the flag. That's going to increase the number of collisions and injuries.

But that's what you get when you allow dive plays at all. It may be "exciting" but it's dumb for the sport to do this given the injury issue.

[Antonio114]

That is a good and scary point about there now being incentives for goalies to collide with players, another ironic result of these dive rules which were designed to prevent goalie collisions. I doubt the various committees anticipated that as a result of the rules and I hope there is some sort of change ASAP if that becomes a trend. There is no way they predicted all the potential exploits. I really hope they just get rid of the dive. All this talk of player safety with you not being allowed to hit a guy anymore and then they add something to the game that is known to lead to serious injury. Furthermore I think it is often more entertaining to watch a guy avoid the crease violation rather than jumping right into it. Those two goals that were disallowed in the Maryland Denver final four game a couple years ago were so entertaining to watch because of the crazy things they had to attempt to avoid the crease. It will probably take just one guy blowing out his knee in a game for them to take it out permanently.

[stupefied]

The rules committee should be proactive in reversing their dumb decision rather than wait and react to eventual injuries from it.

They should call a meeting and do it now.

There was a precedent set eliminating the dive for safety reasons and years later the body somehow reintroduces it against all trends when safety measures are being instilled and enforced in all professional sports?????? For what, the infrequent highlight???? The game is alot bigger than a risky gimmick.

Lawyers are lining up

[runrussellrun]

all dumb rules aside, what IS the injury track record regarding the dive? MLL allows it. Who has been hurt?

Was it banned b/c of injuries? Who did Doug Knight ever hurt with a dive?

And....hitting is still allowed. Dukes first goal, the Furman player that "slid" would be benched for his lack of hitting. Later on, though, Duke players were being helped off the turf after scoring or assisting.

Is cross checking STILL the rules committee annual emphasis Ask yourself, why was this ILLEGAL in the rough N tough years...like forever.....but now, it is NEVER called. And the clowns at US Lacrosse certainly understand that the first year volunteer coach will understand the difference in teaching the cross check to a bunch of 12 year olds in eastern Mass. Oopps...whats that, Eastern Massachusettes youth lacrosse LEFT US lacrosse silliness:o

[Typical Lax Dad]

all dumb rules aside, what IS the injury track record regarding the dive? MLL allows it. Who has been hurt?

Was it banned b/c of injuries? Who did Doug Knight ever hurt with a dive?

And....hitting is still allowed. Dukes first goal, the Furman player that "slid" would be benched for his lack of hitting. Later on, though, Duke players were being helped off the turf after scoring or assisting.

Is cross checking STILL the rules committee annual emphasis Ask yourself, why was this ILLEGAL in the rough N tough years...like forever.....but now, it is NEVER called. And the clowns at US Lacrosse certainly understand that the first year volunteer coach will understand the difference in teaching the cross check to a bunch of 12 year olds in eastern Mass. Oopps...whats that, Eastern Massachusettes youth lacrosse LEFT US lacrosse silliness:o

Left because of US Lacrosse or left because of ego?

[runrussellrun]

all dumb rules aside, what IS the injury track record regarding the dive? MLL allows it. Who has been hurt?

Was it banned b/c of injuries? Who did Doug Knight ever hurt with a dive?

And....hitting is still allowed. Dukes first goal, the Furman player that "slid" would be benched for his lack of hitting. Later on, though, Duke players were being helped off the turf after scoring or assisting.

Is cross checking STILL the rules committee annual emphasis Ask yourself, why was this ILLEGAL in the rough N tough years...like forever.....but now, it is NEVER called. And the clowns at US Lacrosse certainly understand that the first year volunteer coach will understand the difference in teaching the cross check to a bunch of 12 year olds in eastern Mass. Oopps...whats that, Eastern Massachusettes youth lacrosse LEFT US lacrosse silliness:o

Left because of US Lacrosse or left because of ego?

Both