NCAA Tournament

[Dr. Tact]

Haha. Now we have the Hopkins brigade dredging up stuff from months ago. Actually that proves that this incident will live on for some time.

I don't remember the goal you mention from earlier in the year, but if it was as you describe it, then, yeah, that too was bad sportsmanship. I guess I can see why you are a little biased as to the BC -- Loyola incident. But you do see that you are being hypocritical, right? If one was bad sportsmanship, then the other one was as well.

And, sigh, your question has been answered multiple times.

Loyola was not aggressively defending or swinging sticks. They were simply guarding the player with the ball. They were only defending at all because BC was continuing to attack. And even if Loyola had been applying strong pressure (they weren't), that still doesn't excuse BC's going to goal. BC should have simply stayed outside until the clock ran out.

Ok, If you want something more recent, Katie Detwiler scored with 9 seconds left in the NCAA tourney game against MSM to make it 17-5. People score goals late all the time. And why was Katie in a 16-5 game in the first place?

And I'm not being hypocritical. I do think it's bad sportsmanship. My post said I didn't think Belle should have scored there.

Good points. Can't say I like the lateness of the Det. goal and the lack of game situational awareness/fair play.

However, at any other time, a defender driving the full field and scoring is pretty sweet . Only the 2nd goal of her career.

[Bart]

Once the card was issued with about a minute to go, BC was going to be man up the rest of the way. The shot clock was off. No reason to go to goal. Absolutely no excuse for doing so. Textbook bad sportsmanship.

For most of the last minute (after the card), BC simply passed the ball around well outside the 12. Only once did they pass/run the ball into the critical scoring area and that was well behind the goal, close to the end line. And they left the CSA almost immediately. In the last minute, Loyola occasionally directly engaged, but generally only applied light pressure. Loyola never applied the type of intense pressure you’d see if a team was down by one goal and was desperately trying to get the ball back.

Up until the last ten seconds, the play from both teams was pretty much routine end-of-already-decided-game fare. The only time BC entered the 8 was with about ten seconds to go. Why didn’t BC simply continue to play the same way (pass the ball around outside) for the last ten seconds?

Rewatching now, you see a powwow between North, Medjid, and Smith when the clock was stopped for the card. In retrospect, it sure seems they plotted their last second crime there.

I did get a chuckle from the fact that yesterday afternoon one of the BC posters said “Two more obvious FU goals yesterday. One at the end of BC/Loyola and one at the end of NU/Syracuse. Both as blatant as you can get,” but a few hours later was singing an entirely different tune.

In terms of the other examples cited (I’m only familiar with a few), I think there is a big difference between goals scored when the shot clock is on and those that are scored after it’s off. I would imagine the rules committee discussed the implications of a shot clock on end of game play in blowout or otherwise already decided games. My view is that it is OK to shoot before the shot clock expires in the last minutes of a game regardless of the score. (Whether subs should be in at that point is another issue. Yes, in my book.) I don’t think good sportsmanship calls for a team to simply hold the ball for 90 secs and then roll it into the corner. In basketball teams still shoot when the shot clock is on. Seems pretty similar in lacrosse.

As to the examples of goals scored when the shot clock was off, yeah, those sure seem to be examples of bad sportsmanship. But that Loyola (or other teams) may have scored last second goals in similar circumstances doesn’t justify what BC did. Two wrongs don’t make a right, or excuse the second wrong. Bad sportsmanship is bad sportsmanship.

Don't agree they were giving light pressure. They were trying to get the ball back. How many of the other three yellow cards were the Loyola defenders pressuring out between the 12 and the 30? How many times did they do that during the game when North had the ball between the 12 and the 30 when they were women down? They fouled 2x that far out. Same kid on the same player. What do you think would have happened if they had just dropped back into their normal man down zone? We don't know because they did not do that. There were two choices made here and both led to the late goal. One by AWW and one by JA. One, imo, one was worse than the other but both led to the goal imo. There was no need to shoot.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Yup, in these kind of cases the clique unites and perpetuates the image of uppityness and better than thou the world of wlax has earned. It's once again on full display here.
Fact of the matter is this was a gorgeous goal which probably doesn't happen if the Loyola D just backs off and lets BC just toss the ball around to run the clock out but that's not what happened. The view from the high horses is apparently different than the view from the low grounds of the unwashed masses. So goes it in the wlax world (not from all but from plenty).

The manicured wine and cheese set, as it were.

[Seacoaster(1)]

What’s “manicured wine”?

[njbill]

Once the card was issued with about a minute to go, BC was going to be man up the rest of the way. The shot clock was off. No reason to go to goal. Absolutely no excuse for doing so. Textbook bad sportsmanship.

For most of the last minute (after the card), BC simply passed the ball around well outside the 12. Only once did they pass/run the ball into the critical scoring area and that was well behind the goal, close to the end line. And they left the CSA almost immediately. In the last minute, Loyola occasionally directly engaged, but generally only applied light pressure. Loyola never applied the type of intense pressure you’d see if a team was down by one goal and was desperately trying to get the ball back.

Up until the last ten seconds, the play from both teams was pretty much routine end-of-already-decided-game fare. The only time BC entered the 8 was with about ten seconds to go. Why didn’t BC simply continue to play the same way (pass the ball around outside) for the last ten seconds?

Rewatching now, you see a powwow between North, Medjid, and Smith when the clock was stopped for the card. In retrospect, it sure seems they plotted their last second crime there.

I did get a chuckle from the fact that yesterday afternoon one of the BC posters said “Two more obvious FU goals yesterday. One at the end of BC/Loyola and one at the end of NU/Syracuse. Both as blatant as you can get,” but a few hours later was singing an entirely different tune.

In terms of the other examples cited (I’m only familiar with a few), I think there is a big difference between goals scored when the shot clock is on and those that are scored after it’s off. I would imagine the rules committee discussed the implications of a shot clock on end of game play in blowout or otherwise already decided games. My view is that it is OK to shoot before the shot clock expires in the last minutes of a game regardless of the score. (Whether subs should be in at that point is another issue. Yes, in my book.) I don’t think good sportsmanship calls for a team to simply hold the ball for 90 secs and then roll it into the corner. In basketball teams still shoot when the shot clock is on. Seems pretty similar in lacrosse.

As to the examples of goals scored when the shot clock was off, yeah, those sure seem to be examples of bad sportsmanship. But that Loyola (or other teams) may have scored last second goals in similar circumstances doesn’t justify what BC did. Two wrongs don’t make a right, or excuse the second wrong. Bad sportsmanship is bad sportsmanship.

Don't agree they were giving light pressure. They were trying to get the ball back. How many of the other three yellow cards were the Loyola defenders pressuring out between the 12 and the 30? How many times did they do that during the game when North had the ball between the 12 and the 30 when they were women down? They fouled 2x that far out. Same kid on the same player. What do you think would have happened if they had just dropped back into their normal man down zone? We don't know because they did not do that. There were two choices made here and both led to the late goal. One by AWW and one by JA. One, imo, one was worse than the other but both led to the goal imo. There was no need to shoot.

I am talking about pressure in the last minute of the game. What they did or didn’t do earlier in the game isn’t really relevant to the last second shot in my view. If you think it is, that’s fine, but that isn’t what I was talking about.

I rewatched the last minute again. Card was at 0:58.7. Ball entered the 8 with about ten secs to go. During the intervening period (from 58.7 to 10), I count about five seconds (eight at most) when Loyola was within a stick’s length of the ball carrier. The only time Loyola really could be said to be aggressively defending was the check towards the body at about 52 secs for which the ref signaled a foul. To my eyes, that is the only serious thing Loyola did to try to get the ball back in the last minute of the game.

What I said was “in the last minute, Loyola occasionally directly engaged, but generally only applied light pressure.” I would call the 5-8 secs “occasionally directly engaging” and the out-of-stick-length defending for the balance of the time “light pressure.”

[Bart]

Once the card was issued with about a minute to go, BC was going to be man up the rest of the way. The shot clock was off. No reason to go to goal. Absolutely no excuse for doing so. Textbook bad sportsmanship.

For most of the last minute (after the card), BC simply passed the ball around well outside the 12. Only once did they pass/run the ball into the critical scoring area and that was well behind the goal, close to the end line. And they left the CSA almost immediately. In the last minute, Loyola occasionally directly engaged, but generally only applied light pressure. Loyola never applied the type of intense pressure you’d see if a team was down by one goal and was desperately trying to get the ball back.

Up until the last ten seconds, the play from both teams was pretty much routine end-of-already-decided-game fare. The only time BC entered the 8 was with about ten seconds to go. Why didn’t BC simply continue to play the same way (pass the ball around outside) for the last ten seconds?

Rewatching now, you see a powwow between North, Medjid, and Smith when the clock was stopped for the card. In retrospect, it sure seems they plotted their last second crime there.

I did get a chuckle from the fact that yesterday afternoon one of the BC posters said “Two more obvious FU goals yesterday. One at the end of BC/Loyola and one at the end of NU/Syracuse. Both as blatant as you can get,” but a few hours later was singing an entirely different tune.

In terms of the other examples cited (I’m only familiar with a few), I think there is a big difference between goals scored when the shot clock is on and those that are scored after it’s off. I would imagine the rules committee discussed the implications of a shot clock on end of game play in blowout or otherwise already decided games. My view is that it is OK to shoot before the shot clock expires in the last minutes of a game regardless of the score. (Whether subs should be in at that point is another issue. Yes, in my book.) I don’t think good sportsmanship calls for a team to simply hold the ball for 90 secs and then roll it into the corner. In basketball teams still shoot when the shot clock is on. Seems pretty similar in lacrosse.

As to the examples of goals scored when the shot clock was off, yeah, those sure seem to be examples of bad sportsmanship. But that Loyola (or other teams) may have scored last second goals in similar circumstances doesn’t justify what BC did. Two wrongs don’t make a right, or excuse the second wrong. Bad sportsmanship is bad sportsmanship.

Don't agree they were giving light pressure. They were trying to get the ball back. How many of the other three yellow cards were the Loyola defenders pressuring out between the 12 and the 30? How many times did they do that during the game when North had the ball between the 12 and the 30 when they were women down? They fouled 2x that far out. Same kid on the same player. What do you think would have happened if they had just dropped back into their normal man down zone? We don't know because they did not do that. There were two choices made here and both led to the late goal. One by AWW and one by JA. One, imo, one was worse than the other but both led to the goal imo. There was no need to shoot.

I am talking about pressure in the last minute of the game. What they did or didn’t do earlier in the game isn’t really relevant to the last second shot in my view. If you think it is, that’s fine, but that isn’t what I was talking about.

I rewatched the last minute again. Card was at 0:58.7. Ball entered the 8 with about ten secs to go. During the intervening period (from 58.7 to 10), I count about five seconds (eight at most) when Loyola was within a stick’s length of the ball carrier. The only time Loyola really could be said to be aggressively defending was the check towards the body at about 52 secs for which the ref signaled a foul. To my eyes, that is the only serious thing Loyola did to try to get the ball back in the last minute of the game.

What I said was “in the last minute, Loyola occasionally directly engaged, but generally only applied light pressure.” I would call the 5-8 secs “occasionally directly engaging” and the out-of-stick-length defending for the balance of the time “light pressure.”

we will have to agree to disagree

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Love the fact that someone showed the final minute of the game. Loyola loves to illegal stick check to the hand and body of offensive players. They do it the entire game and then you throw in a yellow card at the end of the game and you are surprised that BC buries a last second goal. Loyola was certainly competing until the final seconds of the game and BC did the same. I'm not a fan of last second goals and probably would have had the BC players just circle the ball but I think in light of the way Loyola was playing I would give BC a break.

[Dr. Tact]

Yup, in these kind of cases the clique unites and perpetuates the image of uppityness and better than thou the world of wlax has earned. It's once again on full display here.
Fact of the matter is this was a gorgeous goal which probably doesn't happen if the Loyola D just backs off and lets BC just toss the ball around to run the clock out but that's not what happened. The view from the high horses is apparently different than the view from the low grounds of the unwashed masses. So goes it in the wlax world (not from all but from plenty).

The manicured wine and cheese set, as it were.

Both of you seem to miss this point. The onus on going/not going to goal is on the offensive team. Teams don't usually wait for the defense to roll over and play dead, sinking into the 8 before they decide to pull back and pass it around to kill the clock....That isn't the case in most end of game situations when the game is not in question. So, the choice to go to goal was purely BC's. (They had been killing the clock until 12 seconds left to go) Whether Loyola was playing hard/soft defense, in the 8 or out, or picking daisies, it doesn't matter, they don't dictate what the opposing team does in that situation. You are trying to blame a team for not rolling over ("if the Loyola D just backs off..."), when the issue is why would they? Just so they signal to BC that its now ok to stop going to goal. They give up? Hell no, many girls were playing their last game. They aren't going to roll over. Its a perspective thing on whether they should have gone for goal. You have yours, I have mine.

For the record, I didn't start calling you or suggesting you were part of a clique/uppity/better than thou/high horse/ or better yet - different view from the low grounds of unwashed masses. You started the petty name calling.

You are entitled to your opinion on whether it is appropriate to keep playing at the high level and add another goal or not.

I guess my proclamations from my high horse while eating my brie and drinking my Willamette Valley pinot is falling on deaf ears.

[DMac]

I'm not missing anything, Doc, as you say it's a matter of perspective, you have yours and I have mine.
From your perspective it's okay for Loyola to play hard til the clock reads zeros but BC not so much (I agree with Bart here in how Loyola was playing D). So be it. The onus is in your eyes, not everyone sees it that way. Heathens vision is different, I guess.
As for the name calling and such, let's not forget it was you who started with the sanctimonious scolding of the twenty, or so, year old competitor and claiming she needs some sportsmanship schooling because she doesn't meet your standards of fair play.
This is a story about the mountain built from a mole hill, it's a classic and comes out at just about this time of year every year.

[Dr. Tact]

I'm not missing anything, Doc, as you say it's a matter of perspective, you have yours and I have mine.
From your perspective it's okay for Loyola to play hard til the clock reads zeros but BC not so much (I agree with Bart here in how Loyola was playing D). So be it. The onus is in your eyes, not everyone sees it that way. Heathens vision is different, I guess.
As for the name calling and such, let's not forget it was you who started with the sanctimonious scolding of the twenty, or so, year old competitor and claiming she needs some sportsmanship schooling because she doesn't meet your standards of fair play.
This is a story about the mountain built from a mole hill, it's a classic and comes out at just about this time of year every year.

OK. Boomer. You have scolded me well. I will go to my room now and reflect upon the misdeed(s) that I committed.


real question, why would you call me a heathen?

[DMac]

You're not the heathen, Doc, it is we who see it differently, and that includes the young competitor who scored the goal.

[Dr. Tact]

As for the name calling and such, let's not forget it was you who started with the sanctimonious scolding of the twenty, or so, year old competitor and claiming she needs some sportsmanship schooling because she doesn't meet your standards of fair play.

Sanctimonious....hmm...holier than thou....Male Karen....bring it all out. I am so far from sanctimonious....but I'll give you that - again the perspective thing. Yes I scolded a tremendous lax player and probably a great gal. I apologize to Miss Smith if I hurt her feelings. I was out of line suggesting she needed a talking to. We have Red/Blue people who cant agree on just about anything, so I guess my morally superior (using all the synonyms) attitude could be wrong in some folks eyes. So are we finished? I have apologized, admitted that you and I think differently.

But what I want to ask is, why did you and ONW feel you had to repeatedly lump myself and anyone else who remotely thinks the same way into a group of haughty elitists, looking down our powdered noses at the unwashed masses? You know nothing about me. You have no idea if I am a surgeon or a construction worker. I am for the little guy in all things fair. No one in my family is elite. We earn what we get. I am morally bound to the way I think and in this case I commented on what I expected was a lax social mores.

[Dr. Tact]

You're not the heathen, Doc, it is we who see it differently, and that includes the young competitor who scored the goal.

Oh Ok. I just thought that you were saying I was ....right, that doesnt go with the message that I am some morally, sanctimonious elite...correct?

[DMac]

Yes, we're all done.

[Dr. Tact]

Yes, we're all done.

Good, now go get yourself a drink and think happy thoughts. I'll toast you with my Bud light seltzer.

[Bart]

I commented on what I expected was a lax social mores.

This is a curious statement. The curious part is who is setting these lax social mores? It certainly is not the college coaching ranks as this type of thing happens all over the place. Twice last week alone in highly visible games. Perhaps the lax social mores has moved on from the old men on a lacrosse forum?

[Dr. Tact]

I commented on what I expected was a lax social mores.

This is a curious statement. The curious part is who is setting these lax social mores? It certainly is not the college coaching ranks as this type of thing happens all over the place. Twice last week alone in highly visible games. Perhaps the lax social mores has moved on from the old men on a lacrosse forum?

Nope not curious at all. I thought that there was a widely understood, certain way you end a game when winning by a large amount. I further thought this had been "handed down" through the years. Thus, my use of the term lax mores. As I have painfully learned, that is not the case and it is wide open to interpretation. In my experience (No one elses), I had always been around teams and coaches that, for the most part (as you can find contrary examples) believed in handling the end game situation or a RUTS situation a certain way. This was stronger in the younger teams through High school. College coaches (and fans) often have different opinions/motivations as to what they think is right and correct. So, I was just stating that I thought it was "social norms that are widely observed within a particular society or culture" = mores. I am more often wrong, and on this one I guess I am too.

Yes, the other games didnt get much talk. UNC blowing out UVA - could there have been a way to not make such a big win? I dont know, but RUTS are hard to avoid and correct, if it should even be corrected. From talking with my D, neither team enjoys a RUTS game. All that can happen is something bad. NU scored in a similar way to BC. I don't like it, but I didn't see it, so I know next to nothing about the why or how.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The view from the high horses is apparently different than the view from the low grounds of the unwashed masses.

Outstanding

[Bart]

I commented on what I expected was a lax social mores.

This is a curious statement. The curious part is who is setting these lax social mores? It certainly is not the college coaching ranks as this type of thing happens all over the place. Twice last week alone in highly visible games. Perhaps the lax social mores has moved on from the old men on a lacrosse forum?

Nope not curious at all. I thought that there was a widely understood, certain way you end a game when winning by a large amount. I further thought this had been "handed down" through the years. Thus, my use of the term lax mores. As I have painfully learned, that is not the case and it is wide open to interpretation. In my experience (No one elses), I had always been around teams and coaches that, for the most part (as you can find contrary examples) believed in handling the end game situation or a RUTS situation a certain way. This was stronger in the younger teams through High school. College coaches (and fans) often have different opinions/motivations as to what they think is right and correct. So, I was just stating that I thought it was "social norms that are widely observed within a particular society or culture" = mores. I am more often wrong, and on this one I guess I am too.

Yes, the other games didnt get much talk. UNC blowing out UVA - could there have been a way to not make such a big win? I dont know, but RUTS are hard to avoid and correct, if it should even be corrected. From talking with my D, neither team enjoys a RUTS game. All that can happen is something bad. NU scored in a similar way to BC. I don't like it, but I didn't see it, so I know next to nothing about the why or how.

Yes. It all relates to what your personal experience is/was. Many of those driving the narrative seem not to really think it is an issue.

[njbill]

I commented on what I expected was a lax social mores.

This is a curious statement. The curious part is who is setting these lax social mores? It certainly is not the college coaching ranks as this type of thing happens all over the place. Twice last week alone in highly visible games. Perhaps the lax social mores has moved on from the old men on a lacrosse forum?

The old men? Haha.

I wouldn't say "all over the place," though it does happen. I think (hope) it is the minority of the time. The ethics are higher in the high school coaching ranks for this sort of thing than college. Pretty rare for a HS team to score a FU goal. Does seem to be more common in college. The more I hear about the ethics of college coaches the more I shudder. Heard a very disturbing story from a current player the other day. Ugh.

I've talked about sportmanship issues with some non-old men. I'm convinced that good sportsmanship is alive and well. Timeless really. At least I hope so.

In tennis if a player gets the benefit of a bad call, he or she will dump the next point to right the wrong. Golfers call rules violations on themselves. That sort of thing doesn't happen in other sports. I wouldn't expect BC to have conceded a goal against Denver after the refs wrongly awarded that side net goal to Boston.