2021 Tournament

[Laxxal22]

It would never be on ESPN/ESPN 2, or even ESPNU. The general interest/viewership for that would be absolutely minuscule. WatchESPN would definitely make sense (Lynchburg-W&L was on WatchESPN early in the 2020 season), but I assume the contract just doesn’t exist. I don’t mind that the NCAA broadcasts it, I just wish they did a better job.

What is the general interest/viewership for the Taft high school game tonight on ESPNU? Surely lower than that of a D2 or D3 final four or championship game? Alas the Taft game is sponsored by Geico.

The interest in the high school game is probably considerably higher than D2/D3. I'm pretty sure I've heard Terry Foy say in the past that the recruiting and high school coverage drives the most site traffic on Inside Lacrosse. "Stars of tomorrow" is an easier sell to casual fans than "guys who probably could've gone D1" of today.

Also, Geico is a huge advertiser. I don't know much about how TV deals work, but I imagine the Geico tournament is structured in a way that benefits the network more than what the NCAA will put together for the D3 final

[Oldbarndog]

Karma for hanging a 30 spot?

What the hell are you talking about - 3rd line guys in at half - What would you prefer "Monkey in the middle" keep-away?? Save us you stupid posts

Check the game sheet. Less than half the roster saw the field.

Oops. Gonna bite the big shite sammich on that one. Forgot about the roster limits. 1st post was tongue and cheek. No disrespect to Coach Berkman and not looking to ruffle " gull" feathers. And, no never had my players close out lopsided games like that. Did use my 2 second half TO's for our opponent's benefit. Hopefully the NCAA will find a way to address the situation, the AQ needs serious tweaking.

[SouthernLaxGenius]

Not to be a debbie downer... But what other D2/D3 sports does ESPN put on their networks?

Other than football (which is king ) I cant think of another one off the top of my head

[LarumVictoia]

Ridiculous call by ref in that situation

what should they have done? no call?
offside?

there has to be a call. what's the call?

No there doesn't... A "no call" would have been the right move. The refs chose to hang onto their flags plenty of times during the game. The offensive player ran into the D-man as he ran down the midline - The D-man has as much right to that space as the attackman if he gets there first. The D-man didn't lower his shoulder. There could be an argument made that the D-man lifted the stick , but as mentioned, the O-player initiated the contact which caused him to fall/flop. Point is, the ref should not have handed them a fast break on on a silver platter and then allow the play to resume before the whistle. at that point in the game when arguments can me made both ways.

imo the call had to be made. the running restart with a 10-15 yd headstart was game changing.

To quote Jamie Munro on the game (One of the more knowledgeable guys in Lacrosse) - "Refs ruin a game yet again....."

[wgdsr]

Ridiculous call by ref in that situation

what should they have done? no call?
offside?

there has to be a call. what's the call?

No there doesn't... A "no call" would have been the right move. The refs chose to hang onto their flags plenty of times during the game. The offensive player ran into the D-man as he ran down the midline - The D-man has as much right to that space as the attackman if he gets there first. The D-man didn't lower his shoulder. There could be an argument made that the D-man lifted the stick , but as mentioned, the O-player initiated the contact which caused him to fall/flop. Point is, the ref should not have handed them a fast break on on a silver platter and then allow the play to resume before the whistle. at that point in the game when arguments can me made both ways.

imo the call had to be made. the running restart with a 10-15 yd headstart was game changing.

To quote Jamie Munro on the game (One of the more knowledgeable guys in Lacrosse) - "Refs ruin a game yet again....."

yeah, i didn't like the restart. it often happens that other plays directly made, as in this situation, give them the opening. you can't give them the opening.

[smoova]

... Jamie Munro ... (One of the more knowledgeable guys in Lacrosse)

[richard]

Felice wasn’t pushed either.

[ah23]

Hopefully the NCAA will find a way to address the situation, the AQ needs serious tweaking.

Don't get your hopes up.

[kramerica.inc]

Ridiculous call by ref in that situation

what should they have done? no call?
offside?

there has to be a call. what's the call?

No there doesn't... A "no call" would have been the right move. The refs chose to hang onto their flags plenty of times during the game. The offensive player ran into the D-man as he ran down the midline - The D-man has as much right to that space as the attackman if he gets there first. The D-man didn't lower his shoulder. There could be an argument made that the D-man lifted the stick , but as mentioned, the O-player initiated the contact which caused him to fall/flop. Point is, the ref should not have handed them a fast break on on a silver platter and then allow the play to resume before the whistle. at that point in the game when arguments can me made both ways.

imo the call had to be made. the running restart with a 10-15 yd headstart was game changing.

The interference call was right. Not a smart play by that SU defenseman. The running restart was a bad call.
Does SU play a sliding defense or just leave its defenders alone to fend for themselves? The lack of adjustments by the SU staff were headscratching at times.

[Turnandrake]

Win either faceoff in OT game over.

[Dlaxva5]

Now that a few days have passed, I’d love to see some actual analysis of the game. Sad to see that with two great teams a lot of the posts were about blaming the referees and/or clock operator and about one play. No, that call did not “cost Salisbury the game”. Yes, I’m an RIT fan and was at the game. Ton of respect for both teams, coaches, and players. Getting a couple things out of the way:

1. No, the clock operator didn’t delay the clock on the restart at the end of the 4th. The clock stopped at 18.4. Started with the restart and RIT scored with 12.1. Easy to hear the whistles on the replay.
2. The interference call was “unique” and yes is rarely called – not because referees ignore it. It rarely every happens – a player with the ball running 2-3 feet from the midfield line where an attack can reach out and check him and a defensive player impeding the attack. So those out there who don’t want a call to be made - there is an RIT player pushed over midfield. The entire play happened 10 feet from the referee. And that player could have tried to check the Salisbury player. And you think no call should be made??? I’m of the belief that a no-call can also “cost a team the game’. Any call or no call is equal. This was not an offsides behind the play in a 30-5 game. If no call is made, not sure how a referee would answer to that.

Now for my thoughts:

1. Clearly the Salisbury defender at midfield treated it like a ground ball/over and back situation – box out and impede the RIT attack. With Salisbury possession, this is clearly a moving screen/interference. He uses his stick to block the RIT player and lift his stick. No way you can look the other way. If the referee did, they’d probably not be doing a championship game again. You can watch it again and see the Salisbury player use his stick.
2. With the new rule change Salisbury could have called time out before the restart. New timeout rule in 2021 allows for defensive timeouts with any dead ball. No, they didn’t call it when they were trying to run out the clock, but after the turnover, with the dead ball, they could have stopped the break. So please stop complaining about a quick whistle. The RIT player looks at the referee and starts running with the referee’s whistle and arm. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this interpretation.
3. I wondered why it was a 3 and 2 fast break at the end. Watching again, when the whistle blows the left defender for Salisbury runs off the field to sub instead of sprinting back. Not sure why as that meant only two long sticks back on defense.
4. The Salisbury attack at midfield who is 5 feet from the RIT player could have run back to play defense. Instead, he walks to midfield and a player 20 yards behind him is sprinting to try to catch up. – think of what Chris Gray did this year for UNC.
5. Watch Salisbury trying to run out the clock, 4 RIT players are chasing, then realize they need to split up to find other players. One long-stick ran about 80 yards without stopping. Chasing the player with the ball from the lower left side all the way around the goal and then following the pass. When the pass was made up to the midfield he could have stopped. He didn’t and that caused the double team which pushed the Salisbury player to midfield for the call.
6. Two different styles of play. RIT 15 goals – 9 assists, Salisbury 14 goals – 6 assists. Two 70 goal scorers go a combined 5 for 23 with 0 assists. Give credit to RIT for how they played those two and how they played off ball. Salisbury players were amazing to watch and with their size and strength it looked like they might score on every shot.
7. Face offs – The fact the Salisbury was only 17-32 on face-offs was huge. And Salisbury won the second overtime face-off only to lose the ball on great plays the RIT LSM. Give credit to RIT FOGOs.
8. And an amazing play on the game winner. Salisbury D is not goal side. The cutter was in front of the net when the pass was made to the open side. Frozen rope. Great timing, great pass, great catch and shot.

As I said, I’d love to read some analysis and thoughts on the game, the offensive sets, defense, goalies, etc. Please don’t take away from both teams and all the phenomenal plays and players by claiming that one call was the difference. It was not.

Replay available:
https://www.ncaa.com/video/lacrosse-men ... ull-replay

[Cheeseandcrackers]

Dlaxva5 I agree on your analysis of the play at the end of regulation. Once the RIT attackman fell across the midfield line, the ref had to call something. His choices were RIT offside/play on or interference on SU defender/blow it dead. Play on probably lets SU run out the clock, but watching the play it's pretty clear the SU defender interfered with the attackman. The restart looks just like thousands of restarts before it. The RIT guy races to pick up the ball, hesitates and looks at ref, then floors it. Good officiating and smart play by RIT. Congrats on the 'ship!

[D3 Fan]

DlaxVA5,

First off, congrats on the WELL EARNED title!!! Great team, love watching them play and glad to see them win the big one. I thought they were going to do it in 2013 but good to see them finally join the ranks of those called champions. [Bear in mind I'm a lifelong Salisbury fan so this is very tough for me to say!!!]

Great summary on everything that happened! RIT earned the win, hands down. The Gulls were offensively too isolationist at times and we knew all year if they did that, they'd flirt with trouble. Even if the game is tied at 14 on a unique sequence of events...well we still had to play OT and RIT outperformed the Gulls in the extra time. So, it's unfortunate for the Gulls but in the end, I honestly felt the better team won the game. Heartbreaking, never-to-forget-loss for one while the other has a forever memory but that's the way it goes sometimes. As a sidebar, I still feel bad for the 2005 Midd Panthers...controlled the title game against Salisbury, lead 10-8 with 7 or 8 minutes to play...lost 11-10 on an amazing Gull goal with just a few seconds to play. Win some, lose some.

My only game thoughts...did Berkman know he had a timeout and was he allowing the play (pre-flag) to run out as long as possible to dwindle as much clock before using it or did he forget he had one? Second, when the Salisbury player started heading towards midfield, it seemed he also had the option to somewhat run into the middle of the field and somewhat towards the goal. Had he done that, the penalty scenario never would have occurred and even if he were stripped of the ball, it's likely a scrum would have occurred (killing a few seconds) and all Gull players would realize it's do or die and be fighting to the death to get the ball or cover any moving RIT players. Hindsight is always 20-20 and it's easy for me to say this from my couch several days later than real-time when everything went down.

Now, I am curious...the 2006 OT loss to Cortland seemed to really shake Berkman up. Wondering how this one impacted him. Literally, IMHO, he was about to win the title where I felt RIT outperformed the Gulls for large stretches of the game and just seemed to be the better team but it seemed (as the Gulls always do) they find a way to win even when they aren't controlling the flow the way they had hoped. I'm sure this is a really bitter pill to swallow.

Congrats again and best wishes next year! Maybe we'll meet for Round 3 next Memorial Day weekend.

[jusreLaxin]

I was hoping to here more input from some of the Salisbury regulars. I agree that you shouldn't blame the loss of the game on a call. Congratulations to RIT for being the better team. It was a size versus skill game, in a game which the team that played the most lacrosse won. RIT was more fun to watch.

[Gullible]

RIT won the NC, but I don't think the better team won. I was impressed with RIT's FOGO and their ride. I do agree that it would have helped if the Gulls would have played more team ball. I thought Armstrong and Melton were looking to move the ball and they consistently got good looks off feeds when they were in the mix and handled the ball. Moroney is a natural finisher and was hot - Why not continue to exploit? When I read comments about how they feel that clearly the better team won, it makes me chuckle a bit. The Gulls were wearing RIT down and had them on the ropes in the 2nd half (on what was certainly "not" the Gulls best shooting day). I think they tried to start playing a little too conservatively when they'd get a two goal advantage in the second half. Do I think the interference call cost SU the game, yes and whether the call was correct or not, you're lying to yourself if you say other wise. I also think if Berkman would have called the timeout, that would have been it. To ignore the call and fast start may be the politically correct thing to say, but it ignores the tradition in sports to hold the flags in the waning seconds in competitive games unless it's some egregious act (and please do not try to paint that interference call as such - Compare it to the non-call when Jackson Woodward got body-slammed at mid field).

Everyone loves to hate the Gulls - This is nothing new especially this year with the 5th years returning- There was a lot gleefulness on the forum after they dropped their first game, and folks love to push buttons when they lose. RIT played a a very good game and won hats off to them, but don't kid yourself and confuse entertaining style of play with who is or isn't the better team. Water under the bridge now, but RIT should feel very fortunate that they won that game.

[bighoss74]

"The better team lost" so they weren't better.....

[FannOLax]

... I also think if Berkman would have called the timeout, that would have been it. ...

Everyone loves to hate the Gulls - This is nothing new especially this year with the 5th years returning- There was a lot gleefulness on the forum after they dropped their first game, and folks love to push buttons when they lose. RIT played a a very good game and won hats off to them, but don't kid yourself and confuse entertaining style of play with who is or isn't the better team. Water under the bridge now, but RIT should feel very fortunate that they won that game.

If there's one thing that everyone seems to agree on, it's that a timeout early in the Gulls' last regulation possession almost certainly would have resulted in another Salisbury national championship.

If there was glee after Salisbury's loss to Lynchburg, it probably sprung from a sense of relief that every other D3 team felt at being shown that the Gulls were not invincible although pre-season their roster looked so formidable. The Gulls are clearly the gold standard of D3 lacrosse. That inspires envy and resentment, sure, but also tons of respect. As a neutral, I have a lot of respect for the Gulls, and no hatred at all. Sunday's game was a terrific contest, and I agree that RIT should feel fortunate to have won; in a game of fine margins, one timeout not taken...

[WhiteCarrera]

When people ask me to explain lacrosse, I make all the normal basketball and hockey comparisons, but then I always explain that, "In lacrosse, the wrong team never wins!"

It's not like soccer where a dominant team can lose 0-1 on a fluke. It's not football where a single play can be to a 14 point swing. Lacrosse is different - goals only count as one, there's usually a lot of them, and we don't have ties. Any one goal lacrosse game is a game between two pretty equal teams, and somebody's going to win. Even if the penultimate goal is a fluke, in lacrosse that doesn't make the game a fluke, and I don't think it should be argued that the "wrong team won" or that "the better team lost".

[Cheeseandcrackers]

Between Berkman and his assistants it's inconceivable for me to think they did not know they had a time out. The issue is if/when to call it. The best time would have been before the guy with the ball crossed the restraining line as he ran away from the goal. That sets up a legitimate shot at the goal on the re-start which changes how RIT can play it. However, calling time out in that situation is not a "no brainer". Downsides of calling time out for SU include: It lets RIT get the people in the game they want (potentially including a more athletic goalie), it lets RIT rest the guys who are going to stay in, and, most importantly, it lets RIT set up the double team/shut off on the restart.

[MVPiccoli]

Watching the video stream real time, I didn't understand the foul or the restart. In the replay, #35's action of bodying the RIT attackman and checking his stick to prevent him from checking Armstong was warranted IMO. I can't say I've ever seen Berkman tactically lose a situation like that with the timeout in hand, but it also looked like Armstrong would have run it out if the long pole just stood still. Berkman just doesn't seem to make those types of mistakes, if you can call it that. But hey, it happens. The 2OT goal was incredible. A work of hustle, timing, skill and guts.

I'm a Cabrini homer. During the preseason I looked at the Gulls roster and thought no one would get within 10 goals of them. After the Drexel scrimmage I thought it might be a 12 goal margin. I assumed the revenge tour against my Cavs would be severe. It was. The size and athleticism of the Gulls roster was such a contrast.

In 2003, we played Salisbury in the tournament after beating Widener in the pig-tail. The only team they lost to that year was Lynchburg. We watched to tape on the bus ride down. Psychologically, Colf was trying to get us to see them as something other than invincible. We lost a million to one. Josh Bergey, Andy Murray, Eric Martin, Cory O'Neil, Jeff Bigas...SO. MUCH. TALENT. ...our goalie stood on his head too. A different skill set on the Cabrini roster in 2021, but we were vanquished in a similar fashion.

Anyway. This championship game was a beauty. And RIT was deserving. They played without fear. Chippy at times. A great slugfest. I felt that the Gulls played a lot of hero ball. I'm so used to seeing that big little game on the wing. I feel like they weren't moving off ball much. When Cabrini won it all in 2019 our alumni (almost all were present) and extended families experienced so much joy. I hope the RIT community was/is able to enjoy that too. Congrats to RIT!