Rule Changes for ‘22 season

[wlaxphan20]

No it was the fouling rule.

The draw will be a nightmare for the officials.

Perhaps the rules are to frustrate the officials to get rid of the draw entirely

We really can't stand to lose more officials in this game

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Think about it though--if this trend of making lacrosse supposedly "more palatable for the masses" and turning it into basketball on a field with sticks, there's no place for the stick check. I like the stick check. I enjoy the stick drop/slam/fling celebrations. I hope it never goes away. I'm just apprehensive about the way some of the post NCAA brands of lacrosse are adopting this "six chicks" Olympic brand. I hope it never happens myself.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

No it was the fouling rule.

The draw will be a nightmare for the officials.

Perhaps the rules are to frustrate the officials to get rid of the draw entirely

We really can't stand to lose more officials in this game

You said it. There's a shortage as it is.

[wlaxphan20]

Think about it though--if this trend of making lacrosse supposedly "more palatable for the masses" and turning it into basketball on a field with sticks, there's no place for the stick check. I like the stick check. I enjoy the stick drop/slam/fling celebrations. I hope it never goes away. I'm just apprehensive about the way some of the post NCAA brands of lacrosse are adopting this "six chicks" Olympic brand. I hope it never happens myself.

The stick check is much more integral than giving the players a reason to celebrate. It was actually just put in place in 2016. If you played or were involved in the sport before the post-goal stick check existed, then you know the drama surrounding illegal pockets and coaches asking for stick checks made the post-goal stick check a welcomed rule.

The closest thing I can liken the stick check to is checking for foreign substances on pitchers. Were a lot of them using substances before? yeah. Were a lot more players running around with illegal pockets before the post-goal stick check existed & yanking on strings after they scored in case the other coach called for a stick check? yeah. Whereas foreign substances gave a huge advantage to the defense, illegal pockets do that for the offense. It's significantly much harder to dislodge the ball from an illegal pocket with a stick check. It's also more difficult to play good defense/slide/double team/pressure to get the attacker to bobble the ball or make a mistake if the ball stays in the pocket regardless.

I know the MLB putting a new rule in mid-season hasn't helped make the sport more "palatable", but rules that serve to ensure the fairness of the game come before "appeasing the masses".

There are things NCAA lacrosse chooses to take from the international game, but there are also many things they choose not to. Stick specifications at the international level are completely different. I doubt most of the sticks in the college game today would be legal internationally, and the NCAA, instead of following the international game, went the opposite direction and legalized mesh, because it was better for the college game.

I also firmly do not believe that the goal is to turn the sport in to "basketball on a field with sticks". If that version of the sport is what gets into the olympics and gives lacrosse any kind of international visibility outside of its own world cup, I think it can be a good thing. And I don't think the NCAA or any lacrosse sponsoring schools will be rushing to turn their version of lacrosse into the sixes one simply because of the sheer cost alone. Then the high school and youth programs would have to change. I just don't see it happening. I think the collegiate game and sixes can coexist, not within the NCAA, but just as variations on the same sport.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Think about it though--if this trend of making lacrosse supposedly "more palatable for the masses" and turning it into basketball on a field with sticks, there's no place for the stick check. I like the stick check. I enjoy the stick drop/slam/fling celebrations. I hope it never goes away. I'm just apprehensive about the way some of the post NCAA brands of lacrosse are adopting this "six chicks" Olympic brand. I hope it never happens myself.

The stick check is much more integral than giving the players a reason to celebrate. It was actually just put in place in 2016. If you played or were involved in the sport before the post-goal stick check existed, then you know the drama surrounding illegal pockets and coaches asking for stick checks made the post-goal stick check a welcomed rule.

I'm aware.

The closest thing I can liken the stick check to is checking for foreign substances on pitchers. Were a lot of them using substances before? yeah. Were a lot more players running around with illegal pockets before the post-goal stick check existed & yanking on strings after they scored in case the other coach called for a stick check? yeah. Whereas foreign substances gave a huge advantage to the defense, illegal pockets do that for the offense. It's significantly much harder to dislodge the ball from an illegal pocket with a stick check. It's also more difficult to play good defense/slide/double team/pressure to get the attacker to bobble the ball or make a mistake if the ball stays in the pocket regardless.

Great comparison.

I also firmly do not believe that the goal is to turn the sport in to "basketball on a field with sticks". If that version of the sport is what gets into the olympics and gives lacrosse any kind of international visibility outside of its own world cup, I think it can be a good thing. And I don't think the NCAA or any lacrosse sponsoring schools will be rushing to turn their version of lacrosse into the sixes one simply because of the sheer cost alone. Then the high school and youth programs would have to change. I just don't see it happening. I think the collegiate game and sixes can coexist, not within the NCAA, but just as variations on the same sport.

I was paraphrasing Larry:

I'm not interested in watching a Lacrosse game turn into a Basketball game. If I want to watch Bball, I will watch Bball players.

He was referring to the "six chicks" version of the game but I borrowed and added because I just hope that brand never invades the college ranks. I don't disagree with anything you said wlaxphan. I hope you're right about the future of the game. Sometimes I get a little worried reading some of the hype outsurrounding these new versions and talk of how the game has to change to make it more palatable for the masses, and the Olympics.

[seacoaster]

I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.

Gotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.

Sorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.

Great post Bart. Agreed. My guess is this is a coaches' change, so they can stem momentum and see their offense and defenses in quarters rather than a half. I always wanted my offense near me in the second half. Maybe coaches want more proximity to both ends during the game. Either way, I like 30/30.

[wlaxphan20]

I was paraphrasing Larry:

I'm not interested in watching a Lacrosse game turn into a Basketball game. If I want to watch Bball, I will watch Bball players.

He was referring to the "six chicks" version of the game but I borrowed and added because I just hope that brand never invades the college ranks. I don't disagree with anything you said wlaxphan. I hope you're right about the future of the game. Sometimes I get a little worried reading some of the hype outsurrounding these new versions and talk of how the game has to change to make it more palatable for the masses, and the Olympics.

Gotcha, I didn't see Larry's post about basketball. I really just think, logistically, women's lacrosse as it is is too established to do something as drastic as reduce the size of the field by more than half as well as the rosters. The fall out and time it would take to implement that would be costly, which makes me less nervous about changes like that to the sport. Box and field lacrosse have been able to coexist, hopefully sixes can do the same. At least, this is what I keep telling myself.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I really just think, logistically, women's lacrosse as it is is too established to do something as drastic as reduce the size of the field by more than half as well as the rosters. The fall out and time it would take to implement that would be costly, which makes me less nervous about changes like that to the sport.

That's reassuring.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

One person I read on social media said they weren't happy at all about the elimination of the pregame stick check. I'm guessing they think that will give more room for players to make their pockets illegal. If players aren't typically inside the 30, and they often clear, would that be an advantage? It would make it more difficult to cause turnovers on the ride.

[wlaxphan20]

One person I read on social media said they weren't happy at all about the elimination of the pregame stick check. I'm guessing they think that will give more room for players to make their pockets illegal. If players aren't typically inside the 30, and they often clear, would that be an advantage? It would make it more difficult to cause turnovers on the ride.

Yes it would! It just happens at a disproportionate amount compared to the scrutiny of the attackers and midfielders pockets, especially with goalie clears being an option. The players are so conditioned to the pregame stick check, it all runs very smoothly. All the official has to do is drop the ball in (they shouldn't be pressing it down). It probably takes an average of 1.5-3 seconds/player. Even for teams with the biggest rosters like Syracuse and Northwestern who carry almost 50 girls, the pregame stick check would take about 2.5-3 mins and that's being generous.

As I'm typing this though I am remembering how one could simply tighten the strings for the pregame stick check, and un-tighten them for the game (before the post-gaol stick check), which may also be why they thought it was a little redundant to have both. If a coach wants to question a defenders stick, she has that option - even though they will now be penalized more heavily for it if they are wrong.

The length and width checks that they randomly did never really caught anything.

The stick check I would like to see is the draw stick.

And I missed this earlier but I agree on the draw stick. Length and width of the head for the same reason they have it in the men's game - if the head is so narrow the ball gets stuck it's an unfair advantage.

The randomly selecting 8 sticks to check in depth for proper stringing, length, etc. never really did much and I think that could be eliminated or instead used to just check any stick that could be used to take the draw.



I realize there are other more significant rule changes that actually will change the flow of the game, but this was one of the ones that puzzled me the most

[Brownlax]

I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.

Gotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.

Sorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

[Dr. Tact]

I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.

Gotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.

Sorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

It also allows teams to keep their best players in longer. D told me that the 15 minute range was where the coaches wanted to get subs in for starters to break. Quarters may solve that problem. Great for starters, not so much for subs.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

I like this perspective on one of the benefits of going to quarters.

[Lurker]

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

As a HS girls coach I like quarters for the same reason. Now give girls/women the same number of time-outs as boys/men!

Having come from the boys side, I always thought it was ridculous that boys had more time-outs AND quarter breaks.

[seacoaster]

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

I like this perspective on one of the benefits of going to quarters.

Interesting, and this is something on which reasonable people can disagree -- but this is exactly why I don't like it, and I am really doubtful it will be a benefit to anyone other than a coach trying to control a downslide. Almost every sport I watch is overcoached (and men's lacrosse is among the worst examples of this disease). The 30 minute halves made crucial the coaching pre-game, at the half, and in the flow of play. Time outs are available; now we have added what are, in effect, two additional time outs. Not a good change from this fan's perspective.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.

I like this perspective on one of the benefits of going to quarters.

Interesting, and this is something on which reasonable people can disagree -- but this is exactly why I don't like it, and I am really doubtful it will be a benefit to anyone other than a coach trying to control a downslide. Almost every sport I watch is overcoached (and men's lacrosse is among the worst examples of this disease). The 30 minute halves made crucial the coaching pre-game, at the half, and in the flow of play. Time outs are available; now we have added what are, in effect, two additional time outs. Not a good change from this fan's perspective.

Your opinion on this carries more weight as you have been a coach. So I defer in that respect.

The cynical side of me realizes this is also two more opportunities for the networks to peddle more beer, pretzels and Chevy Nova's.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

A few folks weighed in on the new rules on another social media platform. I thought their comments were interesting:

“I hope that there are not a lot of clock issues with the stoppage/resetting of the possession clock and not the game clock. I do not like the elimination of pregame stick checks at all. I like the draw change.”

“The false start of the defender on an 8m needs to be addressed.”

“Official’s take and this is the first time I’m seeing these mods… Timing changes affect length of game & not game itself. Good, BUT game is currently too long, would love to see GK clears after goals instead w/extra team TO. Won’t happen because too much invested in the draw…This will be an issue for at least 2 years D1 - D3 as officials can’t ramp up that fast and coaches and players can’t adjust that fast either - huge inconsistency. Problem continues 2B that the *elders* are afraid to make all the changes at once so it’s death by a thousand cuts.”

“You cannot have situations when two of the three possible clocks (game, shot, penalty) are stopped while the third is running. Mark my words: there will be an ENORMOUS IMBROGLIO at an NCAA Tournament game when someone forgets to stop one of the clocks or let’s one run errantly.”

“As an official, I do not like the shot clock change. We have a lot of issues already with resetting of possession clock. In the understaffed, non-D1 world, this will be an issue as we have to train people on the fly many times. Will be a challenge to manage.”

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Members of the rules committee think fewer stoppages during games can be achieved through these modifications:

The game clock will continue running, while the possession clock would stop or reset, during the following:
Fouls committed below goal line extended.
Fouls committed above goal line extended more than 8 meters from the goal circle.
Alternate possession.
The possession clock will reset to 60 seconds if 59 or fewer seconds remain on the possession clock if the offense retains possession of the ball after a save by the goalkeeper and rebound or if a shot hits the piping on the goal. If more than 59 seconds remain on the possession clock, no reset is necessary.

This is just a lot of extra work for the time keepers and officials. I'll bet they lose more time stopping the game to figure out all the new mishegas timing rules than ever before. And for what?

Make the game more efficient? Why don't they just be honest, they want a neat and tidy 2 hr time so they can package it for TV. I see no need to speed things any more.

Which is hypocritical because the NCAA allotted 2-1/2 hour time slots for the men’s games this past tournament.
I'm in complete agreement with Bart’s assessment.

The game will be played in four 15-minute quarters instead of two 30-minute halves. Play will resume after two minutes, and teams would switch directions after each quarter.

There was no outcry to make this rule change.

Pregame stick checks will be eliminated.

This just makes it easier to cheat.

Coaches will no longer be able to request stick checks during their team's timeout.
Coaches can request stick checks at any point during halftime; during the five-minute or three-minute rest time before an overtime period; before the start of the draw before the official's hands are on the drawers' sticks; and in between quarters.
If the first stick check request is unsuccessful, the team will lose possession of the ball. If a second stick check request is unsuccessful, the team will lose a timeout. A team would have to have a timeout remaining to request a second stick check if the first stick check resulted in a legal ruling.

This is a decent addition. In watching for the last 7-8 years, I’ve never seen a stick check nab an illegal stick. I wonder if that ridiculous call for a stick check by Jenny Levy with 1.3 seconds left in the semi vs BC didn’t provide some of the impetus for this. Talk about slowing down a game for nothing (read: nonsense).

Dangerous contact cards

The panel approved a mandatory card when a player's stick makes contact with another player's neck. Also, when a player is behind an opponent, cross-checking to the shoulders and back also would be punishable with a card.

This was good addition, but we’ll see how easy it is for the officials to enforce. They miss a lot as it is. Not that I’m faulting them. They have to keep their eyes watching a lot of things at once. Not an easy job.

On the whole, the committee should have left well enough alone. None of these changes are going to greatly improve the game.

[Dr. Tact]

Coaches requesting stick checks at a prescribed time (half time) lets those who want to cheat tighten their strings as they walk off the field. Time out checks allowed a team to possibly catch a cheater. Dumb rule

[8meterPA]

Coaches requesting stick checks at a prescribed time (half time) lets those who want to cheat tighten their strings as they walk off the field. Time out checks allowed a team to possibly catch a cheater. Dumb rule

it's almost as if they are encouraging a game that is closer and closer to the boy's game. eliminate stick checks thus deep pockets, allow mesh pockets, specialized draw sticks, quarters instead of halves, 60 second shot clocks....

They can't consistently enforce existing rules and they have an obvious shortfall of experienced, qualified refs...yet they keep changing rules every year. The pace of change in the past 3 years is amazing compared to the previous 10 years.