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

[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?

Both

OK.....not the first place and won't be the last.

[xxxxxxx]

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

Here is a real injury story from the MLL. In my opinion goalies are at a big risk here.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... dive/50257

[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

Here is a real injury story from the MLL. In my opinion goalies are at a big risk here.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... dive/50257

OK.....one player. One too many, but can I show the cross check (illegal) hit that blew a Duke players knee out, forcing him to miss the championship game....or.
No one is really concerned about player safety. If they did, they would be ranting and raving about enforcing cross checks.....emphasizing it.

oh...wait

[xxxxxxx]

The cross check is a different subject and needs to be addressed, but this thread is about the new rules.

The dive is very difficult to call for refs, as we saw last weekend. I am no rules expert but if you take a play out because its dangerous and then put it back in a few years later because some powerful coaches want it (Tierney) you are going to get blow back. Time will tell and we will get a much bigger sample this weekend, but to insist that this does not put goalies at risk is not being honest. When the first goalie goes down people are going to go nuts and rightfully so. I love excitement in the game but I just don't see this working out well.

[DMac]

russy wrote
(NO ONE played in HS back in the 70's-80's, let alone 2nd or 3rd graders.

This is baloney, russy. The early-mid 60s is when the unwashed masses started picking up lacrosse sticks in much bigger numbers. The HS I went to fielded their first team in '64 (same year my father started the rec league in town and much younger kids started playing) and a whole bunch of HSs began to pick it up, to say nothing of the number who were already playing and had been for quite a few years (Ithaca, Corning E&W, Lafayette, Geneva, Irondequoit, bunch of Cuse schools, and many more).
You like to portray lacrosse as a game played by a bunch of lumbering, clumsy, unskilled athletes back in that era, and you're just flat wrong. Yes, there were people playing the game in college who had never seen a stick until they walked on campus as freshman, and lacrosse coaches recruited football players to play, but lacrosse was nothing like you'd like to lead people it was. Yes, there are more experienced players coming into the game as freshman today, and it's a different game today than it was then, but that old crummy, slow, and boring game is what people in more and more numbers were attracted to once they witnessed a game. It was a great game played by fine athletes, and I don't remember anyone ever questioning why the game was known as the fastest game played on two feet (as they do today). Go ahead and pick out your select videos of less than exciting games in your effort to remind us of how much the game used to suck, but I'll tell you this, the first one I saw in '62 grabbed a hold of me like no other sport ever had and I've been hooked ever since. You need to let people know that there were a whole bunch of people like me who were grabbed by the game and played it because they saw a fast and rough game that took a different and challenging skill set to play when you're telling them how awful YOU THINK the game was back then.

[molo]

High Point found a way to mix in some zone d and drain the clock on o under the new rules tonight.

[DMac]

Shot clock has improved the pace of the game but hasn't really changed it all that much, IMO. Agree, still able to "play the clock", play at different paces. 80 seconds is plenty.
Question: On a penalty the O is given the full 80 seconds. For the first 20 seconds of possession over and back is allowed. When a team gets the ball on man up with the full 80, could they take the ball beyond mid field for the first 20?

[palaxoff]

Dmac

Shot clock has improved the pace of the game but hasn't really changed it all that much, IMO. Agree, still able to "play the clock", play at different paces. 80 seconds is plenty.

I would say the subbing is faster which is a good thing.

I wasn't implying that the guys playing in the 50's-70s weren't good athletes, there just wasn't the numbers of athletes there are today. Sounds like you were lucky enough to live in one of the 3 hot spots for lax at that time, Baltimore, Long Island and Central New York. When I played high school in PA there were only 31 teams ( 1977) no real rec leagues. ( Now there is close to 300 high school teams and probably as many club teams) I can't count the times people would ask me what my stick was. In college there was 3 PA guys and everyone else was from Baltimore, Long Island and Central New York.

I started a topic thinking about this yesterday D1 Lax Athletes Better because of Technology or Talent.

[DMac]

Was directing my comment at russy, palax, he's been a constant over the years with his inaccurate portrayal of what lacrosse used to be and the kind of athletes who played it. A slow boring game played by a bunch of line backers and linemen who didn't know one end of the stick from the other. The entire history of the game is nothing more than glorified exaggerations of the good ol' days according to The Book Of Fatty.

Agree with the subbing, this is a good change, IMO. Subs don't have the advantage of coming in so deep in their own territory either, which I like.

"I started a topic thinking about this yesterday D1 Lax Athletes Better because of Technology or Talent."
My guess would be both, technology has changed the game tremendously. Leather gloves you had to break in and were affected by weather, much stiffer and restricting arm pads, footwear, artificial turfs, and of course the sticks (bags). Kids have access to much better coaching (my father never played lacrosse...intramural at Cortland...not to say he wasn't a super good athlete and coach) and all that goes along with the whole lacrosse scene today. If lacrosse players from the past had all of benefits today's players have, they'd probably be every bit as good as today's players. JMHO.

[runrussellrun]

russy wrote
(NO ONE played in HS back in the 70's-80's, let alone 2nd or 3rd graders.

This is baloney, russy. The early-mid 60s is when the unwashed masses started picking up lacrosse sticks in much bigger numbers. The HS I went to fielded their first team in '64 (same year my father started the rec league in town and much younger kids started playing) and a whole bunch of HSs began to pick it up, to say nothing of the number who were already playing and had been for quite a few years (Ithaca, Corning E&W, Lafayette, Geneva, Irondequoit, bunch of Cuse schools, and many more).
You like to portray lacrosse as a game played by a bunch of lumbering, clumsy, unskilled athletes back in that era, and you're just flat wrong. Yes, there were people playing the game in college who had never seen a stick until they walked on campus as freshman, and lacrosse coaches recruited football players to play, but lacrosse was nothing like you'd like to lead people it was. Yes, there are more experienced players coming into the game as freshman today, and it's a different game today than it was then, but that old crummy, slow, and boring game is what people in more and more numbers were attracted to once they witnessed a game. It was a great game played by fine athletes, and I don't remember anyone ever questioning why the game was known as the fastest game played on two feet (as they do today). Go ahead and pick out your select videos of less than exciting games in your effort to remind us of how much the game used to suck, but I'll tell you this, the first one I saw in '62 grabbed a hold of me like no other sport ever had and I've been hooked ever since. You need to let people know that there were a whole bunch of people like me who were grabbed by the game and played it because they saw a fast and rough game that took a different and challenging skill set to play when you're telling them how awful YOU THINK the game was back then.

Never wrote any of what you think I wrote, or implied. Lacrosse has always been a sport of finesse AND great athletes. The stick skills, beyond a few dozen folks, was "sucky" as compared to today. Just like golf, if you play "FUNdraisers" a few times a year, mostly chemically inhibited, you ain't gonna be good at golf. You just aren't. Same for lacrosse.

Great, your hometown had a youth program. Are you really denying the growth of the game in this country? Or the world? (team Uganda !!)

I could expound, but Brett Kavanaugh's RICH kid high school didn't have a lacrosse team until the late 1980's. No one in Monkey county did. (public) .

Sorry, but I am calling out my contemporaries that call for.....yearn for.........the way the game was played, like it was much more skilled. More hitting too. THEY are saying today's game sucks.

Fix the sticks. (women's girls game has grown, all with shallow pockets. Sure, you can do a toe drag with today's womens' sticks, but could you even ten years ago when the womens/girls game exploded? The womens/girls participation exploded well before the offset stick. Cradling sure is easier, but is catching any easier, with the shallow pocket?

Growth happened because, just like what happened to you in 1962, boys and girls had lacrosse "grab a hold" and have been hooked ever since. Because it's an awesome sport. With awesome people (mostly).

Why did W&L employ the armidillo? Because the Generals had inferior athletes, or less experienced (skilled) players.

[runrussellrun]

Was directing my comment at russy, palax, he's been a constant over the years with his inaccurate portrayal of what lacrosse used to be and the kind of athletes who played it. A slow boring game played by a bunch of line backers and linemen who didn't know one end of the stick from the other. The entire history of the game is nothing more than glorified exaggerations of the good ol' days according to The Book Of Fatty.

Agree with the subbing, this is a good change, IMO. Subs don't have the advantage of coming in so deep in their own territory either, which I like.

"I started a topic thinking about this yesterday D1 Lax Athletes Better because of Technology or Talent."
My guess would be both, technology has changed the game tremendously. Leather gloves you had to break in and were affected by weather, much stiffer and restricting arm pads, footwear, artificial turfs, and of course the sticks (bags). Kids have access to much better coaching (my father never played lacrosse...intramural at Cortland...not to say he wasn't a super good athlete and coach) and all that goes along with the whole lacrosse scene today. If lacrosse players from the past had all of benefits today's players have, they'd probably be every bit as good as today's players. JMHO.

That's funny, when I played in HIGH school and college, the palms were cut out. Just like the "pros" use. Can't find it now, but there's a picture of Terps Wingate Pritchett holding his stick, hands completely out of the gloves.

[runrussellrun]

Was directing my comment at russy, palax, he's been a constant over the years with his inaccurate portrayal of what lacrosse used to be and the kind of athletes who played it. A slow boring game played by a bunch of line backers and linemen who didn't know one end of the stick from the other. The entire history of the game is nothing more than glorified exaggerations of the good ol' days according to The Book Of Fatty.

Agree with the subbing, this is a good change, IMO. Subs don't have the advantage of coming in so deep in their own territory either, which I like.

"I started a topic thinking about this yesterday D1 Lax Athletes Better because of Technology or Talent."
My guess would be both, technology has changed the game tremendously. Leather gloves you had to break in and were affected by weather, much stiffer and restricting arm pads, footwear, artificial turfs, and of course the sticks (bags). Kids have access to much better coaching (my father never played lacrosse...intramural at Cortland...not to say he wasn't a super good athlete and coach) and all that goes along with the whole lacrosse scene today. If lacrosse players from the past had all of benefits today's players have, they'd probably be every bit as good as today's players. JMHO.

But, they didn't. That is my point. ANd, of course, you are correct, they would be just as good as today's players.

[PicLax]

Early season observation on the 80 second shot clock. Seems to be brining parity to the league by evening out time of possession. Better skilled teams that in the past have been able to control tempo of the game and dictate offensive play are no longer able to do so. Almost seems like the 80 second clock is broken down into three segments. Twenty seconds to clear, 30 seconds to work a good play, and 30 seconds of 'hurry up time' (even though 30 seconds is still quite a bit of time). Defensively, if a team is able to ride well and take up most of the 20 second clearing time, plays extended defense to prevent the offense from setting up a good play for 30 seconds, then packs it in during the final 30 seconds to prevent a good shot, they will succeed. While I am in favor of more action and a quicker tempo of lacrosse, the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences are a greater parity between the teams, perhaps to an extent where there will be quite a few more upsets than in the past, as well as a decrease in offensive flair and beauty in well-crafted, well-executed offensive plays and offensive performance.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Was directing my comment at russy, palax, he's been a constant over the years with his inaccurate portrayal of what lacrosse used to be and the kind of athletes who played it. A slow boring game played by a bunch of line backers and linemen who didn't know one end of the stick from the other. The entire history of the game is nothing more than glorified exaggerations of the good ol' days according to The Book Of Fatty.

Agree with the subbing, this is a good change, IMO. Subs don't have the advantage of coming in so deep in their own territory either, which I like.

"I started a topic thinking about this yesterday D1 Lax Athletes Better because of Technology or Talent."
My guess would be both, technology has changed the game tremendously. Leather gloves you had to break in and were affected by weather, much stiffer and restricting arm pads, footwear, artificial turfs, and of course the sticks (bags). Kids have access to much better coaching (my father never played lacrosse...intramural at Cortland...not to say he wasn't a super good athlete and coach) and all that goes along with the whole lacrosse scene today. If lacrosse players from the past had all of benefits today's players have, they'd probably be every bit as good as today's players. JMHO.

That's funny, when I played in HIGH school and college, the palms were cut out. Just like the "pros" use. Can't find it now, but there's a picture of Terps Wingate Pritchett holding his stick, hands completely out of the gloves.

Not everyone played with their palms completely cut out..... some did and some didn't. Today's gloves make a world of difference. The stick won't rotate in your glove when checked as the gloves are that "grippy".....In the old days, stick on stick and the ball was on the ground 80%- 90% of the time......

[runrussellrun]

Early season observation on the 80 second shot clock. Seems to be brining parity to the league by evening out time of possession. Better skilled teams that in the past have been able to control tempo of the game and dictate offensive play are no longer able to do so. Almost seems like the 80 second clock is broken down into three segments. Twenty seconds to clear, 30 seconds to work a good play, and 30 seconds of 'hurry up time' (even though 30 seconds is still quite a bit of time). Defensively, if a team is able to ride well and take up most of the 20 second clearing time, plays extended defense to prevent the offense from setting up a good play for 30 seconds, then packs it in during the final 30 seconds to prevent a good shot, they will succeed. While I am in favor of more action and a quicker tempo of lacrosse, the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences are a greater parity between the teams, perhaps to an extent where there will be quite a few more upsets than in the past, as well as a decrease in offensive flair and beauty in well-crafted, well-executed offensive plays and offensive performance.

Is that what you are really seeing, a DECREASE in offensive flair? This guy thinks having a big assist percentage matters (NCAA champs are usually top 5, certainly top 10, in this stat ) Pretty decent percentage so far. Penn State had 11 assists on its 17 goals. 65%
That's pretty lacrosse. HIGH point had four helpers in its fourth quarter run on Duke. sweet.

[DMac]

russy wrote
(NO ONE played in HS back in the 70's-80's, let alone 2nd or 3rd graders.

This is baloney, russy. The early-mid 60s is when the unwashed masses started picking up lacrosse sticks in much bigger numbers. The HS I went to fielded their first team in '64 (same year my father started the rec league in town and much younger kids started playing) and a whole bunch of HSs began to pick it up, to say nothing of the number who were already playing and had been for quite a few years (Ithaca, Corning E&W, Lafayette, Geneva, Irondequoit, bunch of Cuse schools, and many more).
You like to portray lacrosse as a game played by a bunch of lumbering, clumsy, unskilled athletes back in that era, and you're just flat wrong. Yes, there were people playing the game in college who had never seen a stick until they walked on campus as freshman, and lacrosse coaches recruited football players to play, but lacrosse was nothing like you'd like to lead people it was. Yes, there are more experienced players coming into the game as freshman today, and it's a different game today than it was then, but that old crummy, slow, and boring game is what people in more and more numbers were attracted to once they witnessed a game. It was a great game played by fine athletes, and I don't remember anyone ever questioning why the game was known as the fastest game played on two feet (as they do today). Go ahead and pick out your select videos of less than exciting games in your effort to remind us of how much the game used to suck, but I'll tell you this, the first one I saw in '62 grabbed a hold of me like no other sport ever had and I've been hooked ever since. You need to let people know that there were a whole bunch of people like me who were grabbed by the game and played it because they saw a fast and rough game that took a different and challenging skill set to play when you're telling them how awful YOU THINK the game was back then.

Never wrote any of what you think I wrote, or implied. I'm not just making this up, russy, but I don't have the benefit of LP to go back and quote you on it. You've been consistent over the years in criticizing those who bring up past lacrosse as glorifying the good ol' days and the game not being played by the caliber athlete of today. Lacrosse has always been a sport of finesse AND great athletes.Agree. The stick skills, beyond a few dozen folks, was "sucky" as compared to today.Ya think that might be because of the sticks themselves? I do. Just like golf, if you play "FUNdraisers" a few times a year, mostly chemically inhibited, you ain't gonna be good at golf. You just aren't. Same for lacrosse.

Great, your hometown had a youth program. Are you really denying the growth of the game in this country? Or the world? (team Uganda !!) Don't even know why you ask that, never suggested or insinuated any such thing.

I could expound, but Brett Kavanaugh's RICH kid high school didn't have a lacrosse team until the late 1980's. No one in Monkey county did. (public) .

Sorry, but I am calling out my contemporaries that call for.....yearn for.........the way the game was played, like it was much more skilled. No one has said this that I know of. More hitting too. It is undeniable that there was. THEY are saying today's game sucks. Don't think so. Changed, yes, sucks, no.

Fix the sticks. (women's girls game has grown, all with shallow pockets. Which is why it's such BS when people say it's the new and improved sticks that are the main reason for the growth of the game. Sure, you can do a toe drag with today's womens' sticks, but could you even ten years ago when the womens/girls game exploded? The womens/girls participation exploded well before the offset stick. Cradling sure is easier, but is catching any easier, with the shallow pocket? Probably no easier than ten years ago but easier than it was in the 60s when girls were using wooden sticks that could double for tennis rackets.

Growth happened because, just like what happened to you in 1962, boys and girls had lacrosse "grab a hold" and have been hooked ever since. Because it's an awesome sport. With awesome people (mostly). Indeed.

Why did W&L employ the armidillo? Because the Generals had inferior athletes, or less experienced (skilled) players.

[runrussellrun]

DMAC, count the number of times a goal scorer or assist maker got knocked down. We can do this exercise in earnest, or just romantacize how much hitting there was. (done this before, prove me wrong )

Lots of championships on youtube.

Count em. hits or attempts. "lots of hitting" says the announcers. Not really, lots of missed GB's and stumbling/tripping
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYwrowUELY8

compare to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwKLLn-8qv4

get back to us. Different, same, in terms of HITTING

[DMac]

Don't have to watch any YouTube videos, russy, played in plenty of games in the 60s and 70s, I know there was more hitting. Coaches coached to make sure that attackman paid a price when he came near the crease, and if the hit was maybe a second late there was no flag thrown. Was viewed much more as the way the game was played. What look like clean hits in today's game but still draw a flag wouldn't have in the days of yore. There is absolutely no denying that the game has been made "safer" for today's lacrosse player. In the same breath you'll tell me the the old game wasn't a rougher game, you'll tell me it's no more difficult for a D man to dislodge the ball from an O man's stick and give me an example of one guy who is exceptionally proficient at it. Neither statement is true.

[DMac]

Asked this question earlier but it's way back there and buried, so I'll ask it again.
Penalty is called (one minute in the box variety), the O is given a new 80 seconds. In the first 20 seconds of possession (after a save or TO) players can go over and back. When the team gets a new 80 on the clock on the penalty in their own end, could they take the ball beyond the mid field line for the first 20 sec of that possession?

[runrussellrun]

Don't have to watch any YouTube videos, russy, played in plenty of games in the 60s and 70s, I know there was more hitting. Coaches coached to make sure that attackman paid a price when he came near the crease, and if the hit was maybe a second late there was no flag thrown. Was viewed much more as the way the game was played. What look like clean hits in today's game but still draw a flag wouldn't have in the days of yore. There is absolutely no denying that the game has been made "safer" for today's lacrosse player. In the same breath you'll tell me the the old game wasn't a rougher game, you'll tell me it's no more difficult for a D man to dislodge the ball from an O man's stick and give me an example of one guy who is exceptionally proficient at it. Neither statement is true.

THE SAME. Same roughness. Plenty of hitting in todays game.

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