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

[Typical Lax Dad]

I would like to know which coaches suggested it come back and then when they were writing the rules and had to put in 16 A.R's (Accurate Rulings) on how to enforce it...someone did not say, we must be fools if we think the officials will ever get this accurate...oh wait, maybe that was the goal all along to put the officials on trial...AGAIN. UFB.

I thought we wanted to take subjectivity out of the games, hence the shot clock. Now every crease call is a "judgment call" and it comes into play far more than the stall call ever did...... More sloppy play is what I have seen so far but I guess it is exciting if you like a lot of turnovers.

As compared to what? Can't move, so what better time to check 5 random Div I teams TO's, at this point of the season. Five years back.

And....are you NOT seeing more aggressive attempts at taking the ball away? What I foresaw, is the shotclock rewarded the obvious. Tough to get into an offensive rhythm when getting chased to midfield.....oops, guess what, you got 20 seconds to get a shot off. Who's sitting back in zones?

exactly. shot clock is awesomer.....the dive is idiotic.

Yes. The clock is an extra defender. Is the increase in turnovers all caused turnovers? 20 second clear and 10 man ride means more turnovers. Also more pressure sustained to eat into the shot clock. Has shot clock changed risk reward?

As for zone, um High Point

How is the 30 second to touch it in the box really any more....or less ..... expediant when it comes to clearance the ball?

Watch the games and you tell me. If you are suggesting there is no difference, why have the clock then? I thought you intimated that the game looks different this year? Maybe I misinterpreted your comments?

I interpreted your comments to mean that TO's are higher (or failed clearances) because of the 20 second rule. Off the top of the head, not seeing the difference of not having 10 more seconds to travel another 20 yards. Perhaps coaches decided to really ride with 10 , 1 vs 1, instead of zone. That, and a return to the shorter box, makes the pace of play more funnerer. At least that's the perception.

Amazing, the 10 man ride was just invented this year and turnovers are up! WOW. Why didn't I think of that.......BTW, I believe I am on record indicating that the shorter box and 20 second clear will be more impactful this season..... duh. Let's see midway through the season if CTs as a % of total turnovers have increased or decreased compared to 2018..... Too early to tell.

[runrussellrun]

As of write now, (2019 season so far) 13 teams in Div. I are averaging 20 turnovers (TO) a game. Including one ranked team (Cornell )

Not one team averaged 20 TO's for the season last year. Specifically, Yale avg. 12.8 TO's for the 2018 championship season. So far, after playing two games, Yale is avg. 19 per game. WOW.......that is 7 more, per game.

Maryland had the fewest TO's last season, avg. 9.83 a game. This year, 5 games in, Terps are avg. 15 TO's a game. (5 games in last year, MD avg 10)

A big increase, so far, in number of TO's. Strong correlation between an increase in the TO number and decrease in clearing %.

Inversely, does the 80 seconds bring forth the parity that has been there for a few years, or did the "old guard" benefit from longer time of possessions?

[Typical Lax Dad]

As of write now, (2019 season so far) 13 teams in Div. I are averaging 20 turnovers (TO) a game. Including one ranked team (Cornell )

Not one team averaged 20 TO's for the season last year. Specifically, Yale avg. 12.8 TO's for the 2018 championship season. So far, after playing two games, Yale is avg. 19 per game. WOW.......that is 7 more, per game.

Maryland had the fewest TO's last season, avg. 9.83 a game. This year, 5 games in, Terps are avg. 15 TO's a game. (5 games in last year, MD avg 10)

A big increase, so far, in number of TO's. Strong correlation between an increase in the TO number and decrease in clearing %.

Inversely, does the 80 seconds bring forth the parity that has been there for a few years, or did the "old guard" benefit from longer time of possessions?

Um, the time pressure wasn't the same in 2018. Apples and bread fruit..... I already looked at those stats..... its too early to tell if the CTs are caused by defensive pressure or clock pressure. If CT as a percentage of opposing teams TO is down or the same, what say you? All of a sudden teams forgot how to clear? What does the 20 second clock and the box have to do what that.... what the diff? right? Less time adds more pressure. I had a professor in college that always talked about adding the element to measure performance on exams...... its common sense.

[DMac]

What percent of last year's TOs came after the shot clock was put on?
Would bet the time and pressure elements are part of that picture too.
I don't know why 20 sec to get it across mid field v 30 sec to get it in the box should be such a big deal, doesn't seem to me as if it should affect clearing all that much.

[calourie]

Seems to me the time constraint of 20 seconds vs. 30 seconds is the difference maker. A failed clear was and continues to be more often than not predicated on the clearing team making one mistake, often self inflicted (bad pass, unseen smart positioning or unforeseen smart anticipation by a defender, unawareness of remaining time on the clock, etc.). Having less time to correct those mistakes, when a majority (greater than 50%) of them have always occurred on the defensive end of the field should correspondingly lead to a lowering of clearing percentage, which seems to be what has happened.

[DMac]

I'd bet the shorter box plays a role in that too. Can't send a guy in wide open half way down the field anymore (I like the shorter box).

[runrussellrun]

What percent of last year's TOs came after the shot clock was put on?
Would bet the time and pressure elements are part of that picture too.
I don't know why 20 sec to get it across mid field v 30 sec to get it in the box should be such a big deal, doesn't seem to me as if it should affect clearing all that much.

Lacrosse is still in the statistical dark ages. CTO's have only been tracked for a few years. The "timer on' call was never tracked. Anywhere. Impossible to discuss percentages. Did Denver score 2 goals in the 7 "timer on" shot clocks ? Or, was it 2 of 4 ?
And, this year, full 80 second possession "violations" aren't tracked. Anywhere.

Before time constraints on clearances, and then time constraints (10 seconds every line , I think , was the first ) what is the change in %? Certainly, the horn factored in. especially if a change of possession happened in a teams defensive half of the field. HORN. Full sub. 9 long poles. Then it was 6. Then 4.

I may have dysmorphia when looking at 2019's game flow.....but to me, it just looks better.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What percent of last year's TOs came after the shot clock was put on?
Would bet the time and pressure elements are part of that picture too.
I don't know why 20 sec to get it across mid field v 30 sec to get it in the box should be such a big deal, doesn't seem to me as if it should affect clearing all that much.

Lacrosse is still in the statistical dark ages. CTO's have only been tracked for a few years. The "timer on' call was never tracked. Anywhere. Impossible to discuss percentages. Did Denver score 2 goals in the 7 "timer on" shot clocks ? Or, was it 2 of 4 ?
And, this year, full 80 second possession "violations" aren't tracked. Anywhere.

Before time constraints on clearances, and then time constraints (10 seconds every line , I think , was the first ) what is the change in %? Certainly, the horn factored in. especially if a change of possession happened in a teams defensive half of the field. HORN. Full sub. 9 long poles. Then it was 6. Then 4.

I may have dysmorphia when looking at 2019's game flow.....but to me, it just looks better.

Lets just compare this season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers to last season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers, the enlightened period, and see what the data shows. In about two weeks, we should have a large enough sample size.....no need for a regression analysis, just back of the envelope and whether it seems to meet the eyeball test.....

[runrussellrun]

What percent of last year's TOs came after the shot clock was put on?
Would bet the time and pressure elements are part of that picture too.
I don't know why 20 sec to get it across mid field v 30 sec to get it in the box should be such a big deal, doesn't seem to me as if it should affect clearing all that much.

Lacrosse is still in the statistical dark ages. CTO's have only been tracked for a few years. The "timer on' call was never tracked. Anywhere. Impossible to discuss percentages. Did Denver score 2 goals in the 7 "timer on" shot clocks ? Or, was it 2 of 4 ?
And, this year, full 80 second possession "violations" aren't tracked. Anywhere.

Before time constraints on clearances, and then time constraints (10 seconds every line , I think , was the first ) what is the change in %? Certainly, the horn factored in. especially if a change of possession happened in a teams defensive half of the field. HORN. Full sub. 9 long poles. Then it was 6. Then 4.

I may have dysmorphia when looking at 2019's game flow.....but to me, it just looks better.

Lets just compare this season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers to last season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers, the enlightened period, and see what the data shows. In about two weeks, we should have a large enough sample size.....no need for a regression analysis, just back of the envelope and whether it seems to meet the eyeball test.....

Assuming the CTO's are accounted for.....accurately.

Is it too much....what is done ? Don't track just shots, but results. IE: GU, means goal/untouched. Shooter was not touched by defense. Could be called GTR goal, time in room. Preference. Others like MD. No the free state, but that a shot missed (M) the net, b/d the defense (D) put pressure on the shooter. SD (save/defense) GAU goal, assisted, untouched. but, you can't have any S&M shots

[Typical Lax Dad]

What percent of last year's TOs came after the shot clock was put on?
Would bet the time and pressure elements are part of that picture too.
I don't know why 20 sec to get it across mid field v 30 sec to get it in the box should be such a big deal, doesn't seem to me as if it should affect clearing all that much.

Lacrosse is still in the statistical dark ages. CTO's have only been tracked for a few years. The "timer on' call was never tracked. Anywhere. Impossible to discuss percentages. Did Denver score 2 goals in the 7 "timer on" shot clocks ? Or, was it 2 of 4 ?
And, this year, full 80 second possession "violations" aren't tracked. Anywhere.

Before time constraints on clearances, and then time constraints (10 seconds every line , I think , was the first ) what is the change in %? Certainly, the horn factored in. especially if a change of possession happened in a teams defensive half of the field. HORN. Full sub. 9 long poles. Then it was 6. Then 4.

I may have dysmorphia when looking at 2019's game flow.....but to me, it just looks better.

Lets just compare this season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers to last season's percentage of CT to the opponents total turnovers, the enlightened period, and see what the data shows. In about two weeks, we should have a large enough sample size.....no need for a regression analysis, just back of the envelope and whether it seems to meet the eyeball test.....

Assuming the CTO's are accounted for.....accurately.

Sort of like if we are tracking climate change "accurately".

[runrussellrun]

So, a shooter, from say 5 yards out, gets off a slow shot, on net though, that is an easy save for the goalie, as a result of good defensive pressure, is that a turnover, a caused turnover......or counted as a shot and save? How about if the same scenario happens when just passing adjacent and your teammate catches the slow pass? Just a TO"?

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, a shooter, from say 5 yards out, gets off a slow shot, on net though, that is an easy save for the goalie, as a result of good defensive pressure, is that a turnover, a caused turnover......or counted as a shot and save? How about if the same scenario happens when just passing adjacent and your teammate catches the slow pass? Just a TO"?

No..... it is not just a TO.... it is just statistically irrelevant over the course of a season.

[wgdsr]

As of write now, (2019 season so far) 13 teams in Div. I are averaging 20 turnovers (TO) a game. Including one ranked team (Cornell )
Not one team averaged 20 TO's for the season last year. Specifically, Yale avg. 12.8 TO's for the 2018 championship season. So far, after playing two games, Yale is avg. 19 per game. WOW.......that is 7 more, per game.
Maryland had the fewest TO's last season, avg. 9.83 a game. This year, 5 games in, Terps are avg. 15 TO's a game. (5 games in last year, MD avg 10)
A big increase, so far, in number of TO's. Strong correlation between an increase in the TO number and decrease in clearing %.
Inversely, does the 80 seconds bring forth the parity that has been there for a few years, or did the "old guard" benefit from longer time of possessions?

Um the time pressure wasn't the same in 2018. Apples and bread fruit..... I already looked at those stats..... its too early to tell if the CTs are caused by defensive pressure or clock pressure. If CT as a percentage of opposing teams TO is down or the same, what say you? All of a sudden teams forgot how to clear? What does the 20 second clock and the box have to do what that.... what the diff? right? Less time adds more pressure. I had a professor in college that always talked about adding the element to measure performance on exams...... its common sense.

Seems to me the time constraint of 20 seconds vs. 30 seconds is the difference maker. A failed clear was and continues to be more often than not predicated on the clearing team making one mistake, often self inflicted (bad pass, unseen smart positioning or unforeseen smart anticipation by a defender, unawareness of remaining time on the clock, etc.). Having less time to correct those mistakes, when a majority (greater than 50%) of them have always occurred on the defensive end of the field should correspondingly lead to a lowering of clearing percentage, which seems to be what has happened.

it's both. when it was 30, teams figured it wasn't worth the effort to ride, and more important to not get beat downfield, and just as importantly to get the designated personnel on.
now --- because of the increased time pressure (20 to get over), it's worth it to some of these coaches to actually ride. so chicken/egg,

there's a number of things as a uva fan i'd be doing differently if i were them, or that you could be critical of the 'hoos so far. but riding isn't one of them.
they've cleared the ball suboptimally and need to clean that up, mostly as a result of poor goalie outlets though that's not all of it... but they've been riding like champs all year (small sample size).
it got them a number of goals against p'ton, and instead of 2 and 2 they are 1 and 3 or oh and 4 without it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

As of write now, (2019 season so far) 13 teams in Div. I are averaging 20 turnovers (TO) a game. Including one ranked team (Cornell )
Not one team averaged 20 TO's for the season last year. Specifically, Yale avg. 12.8 TO's for the 2018 championship season. So far, after playing two games, Yale is avg. 19 per game. WOW.......that is 7 more, per game.
Maryland had the fewest TO's last season, avg. 9.83 a game. This year, 5 games in, Terps are avg. 15 TO's a game. (5 games in last year, MD avg 10)
A big increase, so far, in number of TO's. Strong correlation between an increase in the TO number and decrease in clearing %.
Inversely, does the 80 seconds bring forth the parity that has been there for a few years, or did the "old guard" benefit from longer time of possessions?

Um the time pressure wasn't the same in 2018. Apples and bread fruit..... I already looked at those stats..... its too early to tell if the CTs are caused by defensive pressure or clock pressure. If CT as a percentage of opposing teams TO is down or the same, what say you? All of a sudden teams forgot how to clear? What does the 20 second clock and the box have to do what that.... what the diff? right? Less time adds more pressure. I had a professor in college that always talked about adding the element to measure performance on exams...... its common sense.

Seems to me the time constraint of 20 seconds vs. 30 seconds is the difference maker. A failed clear was and continues to be more often than not predicated on the clearing team making one mistake, often self inflicted (bad pass, unseen smart positioning or unforeseen smart anticipation by a defender, unawareness of remaining time on the clock, etc.). Having less time to correct those mistakes, when a majority (greater than 50%) of them have always occurred on the defensive end of the field should correspondingly lead to a lowering of clearing percentage, which seems to be what has happened.

it's both. when it was 30, teams figured it wasn't worth the effort to ride, and more important to not get beat downfield, and just as importantly to get the designated personnel on.
now --- because of the increased time pressure (20 to get over), it's worth it to some of these coaches to actually ride. so chicken/egg,

there's a number of things as a uva fan i'd be doing differently if i were them, or that you could be critical of the 'hoos so far. but riding isn't one of them.
they've cleared the ball suboptimally and need to clean that up, mostly as a result of poor goalie outlets though that's not all of it... but they've been riding like champs all year (small sample size).
it got them a number of goals against p'ton, and instead of 2 and 2 they are 1 and 3 or oh and 4 without it.

Yes......its not like coaches woke up this year and said "we are going to ride and extend pressure for the hell of it". Figuring out the 10 man ride took time last year for teams to break down. Now you have even less time and then when you do clear the clock is ticking....If the ball is behind the goal with under 10, a forced shot or pass is coming....... the clock is a great defender.

[youthathletics]

As of write now, (2019 season so far) 13 teams in Div. I are averaging 20 turnovers (TO) a game. Including one ranked team (Cornell )
Not one team averaged 20 TO's for the season last year. Specifically, Yale avg. 12.8 TO's for the 2018 championship season. So far, after playing two games, Yale is avg. 19 per game. WOW.......that is 7 more, per game.
Maryland had the fewest TO's last season, avg. 9.83 a game. This year, 5 games in, Terps are avg. 15 TO's a game. (5 games in last year, MD avg 10)
A big increase, so far, in number of TO's. Strong correlation between an increase in the TO number and decrease in clearing %.
Inversely, does the 80 seconds bring forth the parity that has been there for a few years, or did the "old guard" benefit from longer time of possessions?

Um the time pressure wasn't the same in 2018. Apples and bread fruit..... I already looked at those stats..... its too early to tell if the CTs are caused by defensive pressure or clock pressure. If CT as a percentage of opposing teams TO is down or the same, what say you? All of a sudden teams forgot how to clear? What does the 20 second clock and the box have to do what that.... what the diff? right? Less time adds more pressure. I had a professor in college that always talked about adding the element to measure performance on exams...... its common sense.

Seems to me the time constraint of 20 seconds vs. 30 seconds is the difference maker. A failed clear was and continues to be more often than not predicated on the clearing team making one mistake, often self inflicted (bad pass, unseen smart positioning or unforeseen smart anticipation by a defender, unawareness of remaining time on the clock, etc.). Having less time to correct those mistakes, when a majority (greater than 50%) of them have always occurred on the defensive end of the field should correspondingly lead to a lowering of clearing percentage, which seems to be what has happened.

it's both. when it was 30, teams figured it wasn't worth the effort to ride, and more important to not get beat downfield, and just as importantly to get the designated personnel on.
now --- because of the increased time pressure (20 to get over), it's worth it to some of these coaches to actually ride. so chicken/egg,

there's a number of things as a uva fan i'd be doing differently if i were them, or that you could be critical of the 'hoos so far. but riding isn't one of them.
they've cleared the ball suboptimally and need to clean that up, mostly as a result of poor goalie outlets though that's not all of it... but they've been riding like champs all year (small sample size).
it got them a number of goals against p'ton, and instead of 2 and 2 they are 1 and 3 or oh and 4 without it.

Winna' winna' chicken dinna'

[runrussellrun]

So, a shooter, from say 5 yards out, gets off a slow shot, on net though, that is an easy save for the goalie, as a result of good defensive pressure, is that a turnover, a caused turnover......or counted as a shot and save? How about if the same scenario happens when just passing adjacent and your teammate catches the slow pass? Just a TO"?

No..... it is not just a TO.... it is just statistically irrelevant over the course of a season.

Lax stats matter ......which ones are relevant ? FInal score NOT a stat.

[faircornell]

This is a long discussion, so this may have been addressed. I'm of the opinion that more turnovers are potentially good for the game in 2 ways:

1) More turnovers make the game more interesting to watch. If you look at some of the vintage games posted on this board and the internet, turnovers used to be quite common.

2) As the season progresses, teams with better skill improvement will be rewarded. As is often mentioned in discussions here and on laxpower, stick technology is incredibly forgiving. The time pressure helps reduce the forgiving nature of the modern sticks.

Great analysis by the poster who introduced the topic.

[reLAX]

I like the idea of speeding up the game and am pretty indifferent to the dive. Should be an interesting season.

I’m not too sure you’d be indifferent to the dive if you were a goalie parent. It’s dangerous. Goalies will strategically come out to cause a penalty, inviting injury. If someone takes out the goalie and they get a serious injury as a result, a 2 minute penalty on the player initiating the dive will not make the goalie “less injured”.
Is it even a possibility to make a rule change eliminating the dive after the season has begun?

[CU77]

There is usually at least a 2-year process to change a rule. I don't see a change happening without a large number of coaches demanding it. Currently: not a peep. Maybe a high-profile serious injury would concentrate minds more quickly.

[reLAX]

There is usually at least a 2-year process to change a rule. I don't see a change happening without a large number of coaches demanding it. Currently: not a peep. Maybe a high-profile serious injury would concentrate minds more quickly.

Thanks for the info. I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that. Blown ACL, a concussion... all for a highlight play of the week... doesn’t sound too smart...