Olympics - rule changes in lacrosse here

[cltlax]

Soccer has not had to change for inclusion in the Olympics. Not sure what is all that different with lacrosse?

[MDlaxfan76]

These rules look good to me for youth leagues up to 5th grade. Smaller field means you can get more fields in less space. No 7 year old needs to learn the skills with a long pole. Stopping after every goal to lineup for a FO is a waste of time. Fewer players means more touches for every kid. Once you get to middle school, shift to "real" lacrosse.

I agree with that generally, though I think they're overdoing the reduction in players and/or they should run the field. In the indoor 'fast break' style that my son played in the winter, there were 5 plus a goalie, but all 5 ran the field. I think they could play either 6v6 or 7v7, with goalies (or other player) back, enough total field room to make that not crowded, but shorter field.

The game is fast. On the other hand, goalies get beaten up with very high scores and a lot of bruises. My son loved it, but I saw other good tenders really struggle with the volume. If played all the time, goalies would wear out. I don't think the change of possession on missed shots is a great idea. On goals scored, sure.

My feeling about the Olympics though, would be to not go so far.

If roster size is truly such an issue (really is it?) then may reduce to 8v8, with goalie, 2D, 3M, 2A, with slightly smaller field and immediate change of possession on a goal, but not on a missed shot. 60 second clock. Two long poles max. Bring no more than 18 players.

The game would closely resemble the full field game we play, with similar strategies but be faster overall.

I think that set-up would also be useful to play in the middle school level.

The pushback might be that the different game set-ups would call for different field sizes, whereas what we have in North America now with field games is one size field all ages. Except the very youngest kids, some of the time going 2 games on one field sideways.

[InDeoSperamus]

Roster size is just about funding to increase participation among the countries.
Will be interesting to see what this ultimately looks like, but something is better than nothing and I think they have some good lacrosse people involved so it shouldn't be a mess.

[steel_hop]

Roster size is just about funding to increase participation among the countries.
Will be interesting to see what this ultimately looks like, but something is better than nothing and I think they have some good lacrosse people involved so it shouldn't be a mess.

I don't think they have good lacrosse people involved at all. At least not on the men's side. How the FIL is a guy that has limited lax playing but is the CEO is beyond me. Let's not point out that he is such a whiz at getting sports or promoting sports in the Olympics that it his primary sport was eliminated from the Olympics - Wrestling for 2020. Also on the committee are two marketers. There isn't a single rep from the men's college side of the game.

If this flows down to college, high school and youth - this will surely result in less numbers of participants. The biggest issue at the youth level in expanding areas is coaches not players. So if you reduce roster size, you have to increase teams to keep the same numbers. But, if you don't have coaches, then there are no teams and no kids won't want to play.

[steel_hop]

These rules look good to me for youth leagues up to 5th grade. Smaller field means you can get more fields in less space. No 7 year old needs to learn the skills with a long pole. Stopping after every goal to lineup for a FO is a waste of time. Fewer players means more touches for every kid. Once you get to middle school, shift to "real" lacrosse.

They generally do that already. At least where I am from.

[oldbartman]

OK for youth lacrosse. One aspect they've done to some degree already is "eliminate violent collisions" If they take what little hitting they allow now away, we may as well play team badminton. Squad size is a joke as is the 8 minute quarters and limited faceoffs. Let the Olympics and FIL keep the game they are proposing. I like what we have now.

[faircornell]

I don't know if it's good or bad. Having seen this format in several settings, I'd note the following:

The 6's format allows more countries to complete, and makes the game easier to slot into an Olympic scheduling format. As noted above, you need a really agile and resilient keeper. Also, with the smaller field and limited roster, speed and conditioning are really important. Young legs may be more important than veteran field experience.

[MDlaxfan76]

These rules look good to me for youth leagues up to 5th grade. Smaller field means you can get more fields in less space. No 7 year old needs to learn the skills with a long pole. Stopping after every goal to lineup for a FO is a waste of time. Fewer players means more touches for every kid. Once you get to middle school, shift to "real" lacrosse.

They generally do that already. At least where I am from.

Gee, at what ages? Around Baltimore we were playing full team play and process certainly by age 8. Sometimes on a bit smaller fields, basically whatever we could get for rec leagues, but full team size. Even for the in-league games.

I agree that the challenge we always had was # of coaches. On the other hand, in my league we often had 3 coaches per rec team all of whom had played college ball. Always 2.

However, when I visited a buddy who started a league in a part of NY without one (eventually 1200 kids) he had me 'guest coach' a bunch of youngsters. Most of his coaches had never played the game. They were playing much as is described in these rules and it indeed was lots of action, lots of touches, and the coaches were able to distribute...but much less coaching of tactics etc. Which was just fine for that age, as they mostly needed stick work and spacing.

I can see its virtues up to say age 10, or maybe 12, then kids need to start learning the full game.

Again, I could see some reduction in roster size, but this seems to trivialize the game. Perhaps take it down to 8v8, enabling a smaller field. I'm also ok with the immediate change in possession off of goals scored. Shot clock, but not so sure about change of possession on shots missed. 10 or 12 mins, not 8.

If I'm not mistaken, 42 countries fielded teams at the World Games last summer in Israel. (my son was coaching the New Zealand team). It's not as if countries won't show up for the Olympics!

[bmorelax]

Just look at what Rugby did for inclusion to the Olympics. Instead of pushing for the 15 man/side - 40 minute/half, They decided to go with Rugby 7's.
Seven minute halves / seven men on the field. The games are quick and exciting.
It was a big hit in the Olympics (Figi won the Gold) and the World Championship was held in CA last year with lots of TV coverage.
This could be the blueprint of what they are looking to do with Lax for the Olympics.

[NoLeft]

The main reason to stay out of the IOC and Olympics is the rampant and pervasive corruption in those bodies...Don't foul the Creator's Game.

[DMac]

OK for youth lacrosse. One aspect they've done to some degree already is "eliminate violent collisions" If they take what little hitting they allow now away, we may as well play team badminton. Squad size is a joke as is the 8 minute quarters and limited faceoffs. Let the Olympics and FIL keep the game they are proposing. I like what we have now.

+1,000
Can call their new game, klax....kinda lacrosse but it aint.

[HooDat]

Lacrosse has its Olympics in the World Games, no need to concern themselves with such nonsense. The world is not ready for lacrosse in the Olympics as there just aren't enough competitive teams in the world to compete with the big three or four.
Anyone care to predict who would win Gold, Silver, and Bronze in the upcoming Olympics...and the next one? Might be some differing opinions about what color the medal, but I doubt much differing in which teams would bring home the medals. I doubt there's much real interest in the world, including countries that are playing lacrosse, to bring lacrosse to the games.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone would want to agree to bastardize the sport just so it can be an Olympic sport - no corruption there, right?.....

[MDlaxfan76]

Just look at what Rugby did for inclusion to the Olympics. Instead of pushing for the 15 man/side - 40 minute/half, They decided to go with Rugby 7's.
Seven minute halves / seven men on the field. The games are quick and exciting.
It was a big hit in the Olympics (Figi won the Gold) and the World Championship was held in CA last year with lots of TV coverage.
This could be the blueprint of what they are looking to do with Lax for the Olympics.

Except that Rugby 7's has been played since the 1880's. that's 18 not 19.

And has had World Games since 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_sevens

And it's the same game, just much more spacing. Same size field so lots more room to get by and score. Short games, yes.

Again,
I think 8v8 instead of 10v10, shorter field, and immediate change of possession would be plenty to have a version of lacrosse that very closely resembles our current field game, but would be a much faster game. Way faster than the current international version.
20 man roster.

[xxxxxxx]

I saw this morning that the Olympics are adding Break Dancing as a sport, yes Break Dancing. Based on that fact alone lacrosse should immediately withdraw their application to the Olympics out of respect of the game.

[Mr3Putt]

The Olympics & lacrosse is good conversation. But, as far as competition Its US vs Canada, that’s the ball game. College lacrosse is the pinnacle of the sport. Nothing has changed in 50 years.