Inside Lacrosse Top 50

[Bart]

I recall a certain member who used to frequent these boards, completely ripping two players, who were playing at the time, and may still be, to such a degree that both their fathers got involved to defend their daughters. There were plenty of negative and slanderous comments made at the time. I don’t recall reading anybody standing up for either of these young women, although I could be wrong. I remember standing up for one of them. My point being, there have been instances of making character criticisms about players here in the past. I may have to go back and research it but if memory serves, I don’t remember reading any protests coming from you when these other players were slandered as to their character—which is fine. But I don’t agree with you insulting momlax to defend Jenner. One does not justify the other; or as they say in other circles—two wrongs don’t make a right. I think people have the right to express their opinions on this public forum without being bullied or intimidated or insulted. Disagreeing with momlax and engaging in a civil debate with her is one thing, but what you’re doing is something else. That’s just my two cents.

Ripping a player’s play on the field and calling her a quitter are two entirely different things. Maybe you don’t see the line there. I do. Some posters denigrate Jenner’s play. I don’t agree with those comments, but criticizing her play on the field is fair game.

I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.

How about if I called North a quitter? How about if I said she quit in the 4th quarter of the NC game? Or how about if I said she is a cheater, that her strength comes from her use of performance enhancing drugs? I haven’t said those things and wouldn’t. I absolutely don’t believe North is a quitter or a cheater or that she uses PEDs. I’m simply writing that to illustrate a point. If I said those things about North, however, you and CO would flip your lids. You’d come down on me like a ton of bricks. And rightly so.

Don’t get tripped up about “opinion.” First, as I said, mom stated these things as facts; there was no qualifying “IMO.” But more importantly, it doesn’t much matter. You’d feel pretty much the same way if I said North is a cheater or a quitter as you would if I said in my opinion she’s a quitter or a cheater.

You don’t like me “insulting” mom? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Defend her as you are doing. Posters get insulted all the time on this board. You insult them. I insult them. You have insulted me. I have insulted you. It’s inherent in participating in an online forum. You have even reported my posts to admin. Just yesterday you reported one of my posts. I think that was below the belt. You don’t. C’est la vie.

I don’t like mom calling Jenner a quitter. Has anyone on this board ever called another player a "quitter"? Not that I recall. First and foremost, she has absolutely no basis for doing so. And she is dead wrong as anyone with two functioning eyes (even one) could see.

Do you think Jenner “quit” in those two games? Or was she just perhaps outplayed for portions of the games? The latter may be a fair comment. The former is dirty pool. I believe the comment was driven by the fact that IL ranked mom’s daughter below Jenner. Classic case of sour grapes. That's my opinion.

Whatever the circumstances were, I don’t agree that people should be bullied or insulted because their opinion isn’t appreciated or is deemed slander or whatever. If they are and I read it—I will report it and let admin rule on what is insulting or deemed a personal attack.

This always interested me. (this is not directed directly to you but your post sparked this incoherent string of consciousness) So denigrating a player isn't a personal attack. Saying a player have given up, is clumsy isn't a personal attack. These comments are directly attributed to a player with a name and number. These are definitely personal. Anyone who has ever stepped on the field and received some of these comments can not help but feel a little bit personally.

Now you make an "attack" on an anonymous poster using a pseudoname, like I am, and that is personal? Why? I have no idea who that person is. We do not have a FanLax roster giving names, hometowns and stats. There is no FanLax bio telling us who your parents are. There is nothing "personal" about it inho. How anyone here takes anything personally is beyond me.

Seems to me if you are going to take anything here personally...don't post. You have that option. The players whom are critiqued or attacked or denigrated or what ever you want to call it do not have that option.

This site is created to speak about lacrosse and part of that is critiquing coaches, games and yet players. Don't for a minute think that some of those players don't read it and probably take it as a personal affront.

Am I pure in this regard? Probably not, I must have in my time here made some comment about a player that was less than kind I do not remember all my posts. So people can go ahead and post what they want, that is their call.....just save those crocodile tears when your anonymous pseudoname is maligned.

[Dr. Tact]

This always interested me. (this is not directed directly to you but your post sparked this incoherent string of consciousness) So denigrating a player isn't a personal attack. Saying a player have given up, is clumsy isn't a personal attack. These comments are directly attributed to a player with a name and number. These are definitely personal. Anyone who has ever stepped on the field and received some of these comments can not help but feel a little bit personally.

Now you make an "attack" on an anonymous poster using a pseudoname, like I am, and that is personal? Why? I have no idea who that person is. We do not have a FanLax roster giving names, hometowns and stats. There is no FanLax bio telling us who your parents are. There is nothing "personal" about it inho. How anyone here takes anything personally is beyond me.

Seems to me if you are going to take anything here personally...don't post. You have that option. The players whom are critiqued or attacked or denigrated or what ever you want to call it do not have that option.

This site is created to speak about lacrosse and part of that is critiquing coaches, games and yet players. Don't for a minute think that some of those players don't read it and probably take it as a personal affront.

Am I pure in this regard? Probably not, I must have in my time here made some comment about a player that was less than kind I do not remember all my posts. So people can go ahead and post what they want, that is their call.....just save those crocodile tears when your anonymous pseudoname is maligned.

This is well said. I too should watch what I say. My comments on the player we have discussed might be perceived as denigrating. I should censor myself. I think the player in question is the best at what she does. I just had an issue with the ranking. I will try to be better at not getting caught up in the criticism. I know I would take the comments roughly if directed at my princess.

And I don't have the ability to be anonymous, anymore, so if I do cross a line, people know who I am.

[njbill]

The father of one of the players used the word “denigrate”. Whether that constitutes slander or insult or whatever—the player’s father used that word. The other player who was trashed was slandered. I’m not going to exhume that post just to prove my point.

Whatever the circumstances were, I don’t agree that people should be bullied or insulted because their opinion isn’t appreciated or is deemed slander or whatever. If they are and I read it—I will report it and let admin rule on what is insulting or deemed a personal attack.

Well, it was you who "exhumed" the subject matter of those posts earlier today. Perhaps you now regret that, which would be a good thing.

So you agree mom shouldn't be bullying Jenner? That would also be a good thing. BTW, you didn't answer my question: do you think Jenner "quit" in those two games?

Come on ONW. Man up. You bully and insult posters at times. You are trying to bully me by reporting my posts. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. You don't like what I say about mom's posts. You say I've bullied and insulted her. Fine, you've expressed your view. You don't like me. I don't like you. Everybody knows that. It seems we've reached the point of diminishing returns. Perhaps it's time to move on.

[GratefulRed]

Good stuff. BC defense and 2-way midfield are perennially underrated but will be the quiet foundation for another run. Offensive balance and depth of scoring will have to extend to the midfield where new faces like SA will emerge.

i don't know if BC has it in them this year. Good team on paper still..but i think they take a step back. They have made championship weekend how many times in a row now? It is not easy to continue a streak like that. I just dont think they have the offense to overcome that

On paper, BC has as many guns on offense as anyone else. Remember--NU and NC graduated a lot of firepower in '22. Who else that made the Final 4, or even the Elite 8 for that matter, can be considered head and shoulders over the Eagles on offense? Plus--and this seems to be overlooked in your comments--BC has an excellent aggressive defensive strategy. Couple that with their certainly capable offensive core and they'll be back to championship weekend for the 6th year in a row. And who knows—they may even finally snag that elusive ACC Conference Championship they have coveted for lo these many years.

Re: BC -- Is there going to be a legitimate goalie competition this year between Hall and Dolce?

One of the reasons this year will be fun is the question marks:

How does UNC adapt to the loss to graduation of so many excellent and productive players?

How does NU recover from the greatest collapse many of us have ever seen, along with the loss of a good many excellent players?

What (and how good) is BC's offense in the post-North era?

How does Loyola manage its losses to graduation, particularly the departures of Rosenzweig, Kluegel and Fiedler?

Will Maryland seize the day; a lot of signs that this is a year it could win it all.

Can Syracuse play enough good defense, and resolve its goaltending issues, to get to the Final Four?

Agreed, these are the questions. Probably more questions than answers below:

BC -- goalies Hall and Dolce seem to be pushing each other in the right direction so far. Balanced offensive approach could make them even tougher to stop. Agreed that making it back to the final 4 defies the odds, but I think they will.

UNC -- Another glance at the roster and I don't feel too sorry for them. A few new faces (watch #18 M Rich) and well-rounded first years (White, K Harden, Mottice) could provide enough balance to test most teams but I don't think it will be enough.

SU -- Legit positional concerns aside, I don't see how they will have enough in the tank after a that regular season schedule to make a serious run.

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

Maryland -- not overwhelming offensive firepower, but who cares? They won't have to score many goals. Could be their year.

[ultravisitor]

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

I feel like many people are overlooking the fact that not only does NU have a very strong addition to their offense in Hailey Rhatigan, but they're also adding Molly Laliberty in goal. Sure, she played Division III, but she was IWLCA's Division III goalie of the year in 2021 and 2022. Her experience in playing back to back national championship games in 2021 and 2022 means she's battle tested. As long as she can handle the transition to Division I--and why wouldn't she be able to if younger kids can handle the transition from high school to Division I?--then Northwestern should be fine.

Laliberty apparently also got offers from UNC and Hopkins, so she can't be all that terrible for NU to have gotten for their roster.

[Laxfan500]

I recall a certain member who used to frequent these boards, completely ripping two players, who were playing at the time, and may still be, to such a degree that both their fathers got involved to defend their daughters. There were plenty of negative and slanderous comments made at the time. I don’t recall reading anybody standing up for either of these young women, although I could be wrong. I remember standing up for one of them. My point being, there have been instances of making character criticisms about players here in the past. I may have to go back and research it but if memory serves, I don’t remember reading any protests coming from you when these other players were slandered as to their character—which is fine. But I don’t agree with you insulting momlax to defend Jenner. One does not justify the other; or as they say in other circles—two wrongs don’t make a right. I think people have the right to express their opinions on this public forum without being bullied or intimidated or insulted. Disagreeing with momlax and engaging in a civil debate with her is one thing, but what you’re doing is something else. That’s just my two cents.

Ripping a player’s play on the field and calling her a quitter are two entirely different things. Maybe you don’t see the line there. I do. Some posters denigrate Jenner’s play. I don’t agree with those comments, but criticizing her play on the field is fair game.

I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.

How about if I called North a quitter? How about if I said she quit in the 4th quarter of the NC game? Or how about if I said she is a cheater, that her strength comes from her use of performance enhancing drugs? I haven’t said those things and wouldn’t. I absolutely don’t believe North is a quitter or a cheater or that she uses PEDs. I’m simply writing that to illustrate a point. If I said those things about North, however, you and CO would flip your lids. You’d come down on me like a ton of bricks. And rightly so.

Don’t get tripped up about “opinion.” First, as I said, mom stated these things as facts; there was no qualifying “IMO.” But more importantly, it doesn’t much matter. You’d feel pretty much the same way if I said North is a cheater or a quitter as you would if I said in my opinion she’s a quitter or a cheater.

You don’t like me “insulting” mom? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Defend her as you are doing. Posters get insulted all the time on this board. You insult them. I insult them. You have insulted me. I have insulted you. It’s inherent in participating in an online forum. You have even reported my posts to admin. Just yesterday you reported one of my posts. I think that was below the belt. You don’t. C’est la vie.

I don’t like mom calling Jenner a quitter. Has anyone on this board ever called another player a "quitter"? Not that I recall. First and foremost, she has absolutely no basis for doing so. And she is dead wrong as anyone with two functioning eyes (even one) could see.

Do you think Jenner “quit” in those two games? Or was she just perhaps outplayed for portions of the games? The latter may be a fair comment. The former is dirty pool. I believe the comment was driven by the fact that IL ranked mom’s daughter below Jenner. Classic case of sour grapes. That's my opinion.

Whatever the circumstances were, I don’t agree that people should be bullied or insulted because their opinion isn’t appreciated or is deemed slander or whatever. If they are and I read it—I will report it and let admin rule on what is insulting or deemed a personal attack.

This always interested me. (this is not directed directly to you but your post sparked this incoherent string of consciousness) So denigrating a player isn't a personal attack. Saying a player have given up, is clumsy isn't a personal attack. These comments are directly attributed to a player with a name and number. These are definitely personal. Anyone who has ever stepped on the field and received some of these comments can not help but feel a little bit personally.

Now you make an "attack" on an anonymous poster using a pseudoname, like I am, and that is personal? Why? I have no idea who that person is. We do not have a FanLax roster giving names, hometowns and stats. There is no FanLax bio telling us who your parents are. There is nothing "personal" about it inho. How anyone here takes anything personally is beyond me.

Seems to me if you are going to take anything here personally...don't post. You have that option. The players whom are critiqued or attacked or denigrated or what ever you want to call it do not have that option.

This site is created to speak about lacrosse and part of that is critiquing coaches, games and yet players. Don't for a minute think that some of those players don't read it and probably take it as a personal affront.

Am I pure in this regard? Probably not, I must have in my time here made some comment about a player that was less than kind I do not remember all my posts. So people can go ahead and post what they want, that is their call.....just save those crocodile tears when your anonymous pseudoname is maligned.

^^^Agree 100%

[Dr. Tact]

How does Loyola manage its losses to graduation, particularly the departures of Rosenzweig, Kluegel and Fiedler?

They will be OK. I would suggest still a top 10 team (my optimistic side coming out for its yearly visit), but with less proven players and less scoring options. The returning team will have one star Attack and one star Middie. Other starters will need to step up.

Defense and Goalie are the strength of the 2023 Hounds. That will help them stay in tight games with top 5 teams....

They may need a couple of players to grow into the shoes of 4, 13 and 24. Watch for the Aussie #22. She was 2nd leading scorer as a Frosh.

[Bart]

How does Loyola manage its losses to graduation, particularly the departures of Rosenzweig, Kluegel and Fiedler?

They will be OK. I would suggest still a top 10 team (my optimistic side coming out for its yearly visit), but with less proven players and less scoring options. The returning team will have one star Attack and one star Middie. Other starters will need to step up.

Defense and Goalie are the strength of the 2023 Hounds. That will help them stay in tight games with top 5 teams....

They may need a couple of players to grow into the shoes of 4, 13 and 24. Watch for the Aussie #22. She was 2nd leading scorer as a Frosh.

If I remember correctly….didn’t 22 have a good showing at the World Championships this past summer?

[Dr. Tact]

How does Loyola manage its losses to graduation, particularly the departures of Rosenzweig, Kluegel and Fiedler?

They will be OK. I would suggest still a top 10 team (my optimistic side coming out for its yearly visit), but with less proven players and less scoring options. The returning team will have one star Attack and one star Middie. Other starters will need to step up.

Defense and Goalie are the strength of the 2023 Hounds. That will help them stay in tight games with top 5 teams....

They may need a couple of players to grow into the shoes of 4, 13 and 24. Watch for the Aussie #22. She was 2nd leading scorer as a Frosh.

If I remember correctly….didn’t 22 have a good showing at the World Championships this past summer?

Yes, she did. She will step into LR's role and be a huge contributor. She could be a +100 points scorer, but that also depends on the supporting cast. She had a plethora of options and was not the focus of the defense last year (2022). When she is, how will that affect the big numbers she had as a freshman?

[Can Opener]

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.”
* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]
* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.”
* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022)
* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.”
* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551
* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.”
* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022]
* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.”

[wlaxphan20]

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.”
* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]
* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.”
* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022)
* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.”
* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551
* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.”
* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022]
* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.”

I might be dead wrong here, but FWIW I think when njb said “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players character” he was talking about LGL, who ONW was referring to in his post.

[lax410]

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

I feel like many people are overlooking the fact that not only does NU have a very strong addition to their offense in Hailey Rhatigan, but they're also adding Molly Laliberty in goal. Sure, she played Division III, but she was IWLCA's Division III goalie of the year in 2021 and 2022. Her experience in playing back to back national championship games in 2021 and 2022 means she's battle tested. As long as she can handle the transition to Division I--and why wouldn't she be able to if younger kids can handle the transition from high school to Division I?--then Northwestern should be fine.

Laliberty apparently also got offers from UNC and Hopkins, so she can't be all that terrible for NU to have gotten for their roster.

Watched Laliberty play last year. She is excellent. Excited to see her play this year.

[wlaxphan20]

Good stuff. BC defense and 2-way midfield are perennially underrated but will be the quiet foundation for another run. Offensive balance and depth of scoring will have to extend to the midfield where new faces like SA will emerge.

i don't know if BC has it in them this year. Good team on paper still..but i think they take a step back. They have made championship weekend how many times in a row now? It is not easy to continue a streak like that. I just dont think they have the offense to overcome that

On paper, BC has as many guns on offense as anyone else. Remember--NU and NC graduated a lot of firepower in '22. Who else that made the Final 4, or even the Elite 8 for that matter, can be considered head and shoulders over the Eagles on offense? Plus--and this seems to be overlooked in your comments--BC has an excellent aggressive defensive strategy. Couple that with their certainly capable offensive core and they'll be back to championship weekend for the 6th year in a row. And who knows—they may even finally snag that elusive ACC Conference Championship they have coveted for lo these many years.

Re: BC -- Is there going to be a legitimate goalie competition this year between Hall and Dolce?

One of the reasons this year will be fun is the question marks:

How does UNC adapt to the loss to graduation of so many excellent and productive players?

How does NU recover from the greatest collapse many of us have ever seen, along with the loss of a good many excellent players?

What (and how good) is BC's offense in the post-North era?

How does Loyola manage its losses to graduation, particularly the departures of Rosenzweig, Kluegel and Fiedler?

Will Maryland seize the day; a lot of signs that this is a year it could win it all.

Can Syracuse play enough good defense, and resolve its goaltending issues, to get to the Final Four?

I may attempt at answering these later when I am not on a my phone, but overall, a lot of big names have graduated and I’m really excited to see what these kids do with that opportunity.

And thanks for posting that article about the UNC NU semi-final. I can’t remember enjoying a USALaxMag article more. It was a really unique way to recount the game. Would have loved a follow-up at Athletes Unlimited, also. Lots of opponents from that semi final suddenly were teammates.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.”
* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]
* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.”
* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022)
* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.”
* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551
* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.”
* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022]
* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.”

Outstanding, CO. Absolutely top shelf job exposing hypocrisy and double standards.



(I've said it before and I'll say it again--"I want to be Can Opener when I grow up."

[Laxfan500]

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.”
* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]
* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.”
* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022)
* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.”
* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551
* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.”
* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022]
* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.”

Outstanding, CO. Absolutely top shelf job exposing hypocrisy and double standards.



(I've said it before and I'll say it again--"I want to be Can Opener when I grow up."

***As was said previously doesn't OWN have his own thread so that he isn't posting on other threads? Im confused.***

Also its hard to get this through a few peoples heads but North was and is a ball hog (see AU & last US exhibition game) and several of her team mates are glad she graduated. Sorry if you can't or dont believe this but Im friendly with several BC parents and this is the opinion. I guess they must be lying to me.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

***As was said previously doesn't OWN have his own thread so that he isn't posting on other threads? Im confused.***

This should clear up any confusion. As was previously stated: https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=383750#p383750

Also its hard to get this through a few peoples heads but North was and is a ball hog (see AU & last US exhibition game) and several of her team mates are glad she graduated. Sorry if you can't or dont believe this but Im friendly with several BC parents and this is the opinion. I guess they must be lying to me.

I don't doubt what you are stating here though I don't agree with the wording. I saw a very interesting thing on Twitter that leads me to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire (as far as some of the BC parents go). Undeniably so. Saw it my own backyard, so to speak.

However--that is not what is at issue here. If you read CO's excellent, well researched post, you'll get the essence of what got this whole back and forth started earlier in this thread regarding momlax's comments.

[njbill]

I'm so honored. You keep a separate file of all my posts and pore over them from time to time. I'm almost verklempt.

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Exactly. Criticizing a player about play on the field is OK (notwithstanding your 1950s sexist views), but a false claim that she quit is wrong. Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. No, they don't. Give some examples of players "quitting." It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops. That's not what mom was talking about. She specifically said she was not talking about the end of the games. Go read her posts.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” If you are going to jump into a conversation, read the posts. My comment was about the two instances ONW brought up. You are going off in another direction, confusing or conflating criticisms of play on the field with criticisms of character. Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.” This was absolutely correct.
Refers to the end of BC Loyola game. The reference was to Jen Adams. Stand by this 100%. Go back and read what other posters wrote about this at the time if you think I'm out to lunch.

* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” Referring to what a poster on this board said. Don't like it? Do your own homework and then take it up with him or her. And BTW, the comment certainly has a ring of truth to it. I've seen a similar thing with other players/teams a number of times. [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]

* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.” How many times have we been through this? I made the comment before Tumi retired and before Scane got hurt. I stand by my opinion at the time. You disagree. We'll never know what would have happened.

* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022) For the umpteenth time, you are referring to the wrong goal.

* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.” Oh, gee. My feelings are hurt. I thought that was a pretty clever name. BTW, you do know some athletes have had the nickname "Hurricane," right? Even you have, more or less, acknowledged she dominates the ball. You even got your stop watch out last summer and proved my point. If we did a twitter poll asking if North hogs the ball at times, I'll bet 75% would vote "yes."

* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551 Baseless? Huh. Try "indisputable." The more time a player takes in executing their shot the more time a defender has to get in position. Pretty elementary. And in any event, how is that criticism? It's just an observation.

* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.” Well, the screeching certainly was irrational. You say "clearly she was shouting instructions." Just what were the instructions? As I said, yelling names made some sense. Screeching made made no sense and was, to me, irrational. I have never heard another player do that.

* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022] I and about a million other fans think this.
If you enjoyed her excessive celebrations, as you might have since she played for the team you root for, that's fine. As I have said, she definitely toned things down over the past couple of years. I imagine she got spoken to.

* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting. She is not a strong redefender. Obviously. Not saying she needs to be at the Sam Apuzzo level, but come on. I have said she does not redefend. I have not said she's a quitter. I don't think she is. Disagree that failing to redefend is akin to quitting. That's your conclusion.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.” Now you are starting to get it, grasshopper.

So let me ask you, CO, are you OK with mom calling Jenner a quitter? Do you think she "quit" in the games in question?

[njbill]

I might be dead wrong here, but FWIW I think when njb said “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players character” he was talking about LGL, who ONW was referring to in his post.

No, you are 100% correct as I point out in my post of a few minutes ago.

[Dr. Tact]

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

I feel like many people are overlooking the fact that not only does NU have a very strong addition to their offense in Hailey Rhatigan, but they're also adding Molly Laliberty in goal. Sure, she played Division III, but she was IWLCA's Division III goalie of the year in 2021 and 2022. Her experience in playing back to back national championship games in 2021 and 2022 means she's battle tested. As long as she can handle the transition to Division I--and why wouldn't she be able to if younger kids can handle the transition from high school to Division I?--then Northwestern should be fine.

Laliberty apparently also got offers from UNC and Hopkins, so she can't be all that terrible for NU to have gotten for their roster.

Watched Laliberty play last year. She is excellent. Excited to see her play this year.

I keep thinking Liberty Biberty....

[Bart]

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

I feel like many people are overlooking the fact that not only does NU have a very strong addition to their offense in Hailey Rhatigan, but they're also adding Molly Laliberty in goal. Sure, she played Division III, but she was IWLCA's Division III goalie of the year in 2021 and 2022. Her experience in playing back to back national championship games in 2021 and 2022 means she's battle tested. As long as she can handle the transition to Division I--and why wouldn't she be able to if younger kids can handle the transition from high school to Division I?--then Northwestern should be fine.

Laliberty apparently also got offers from UNC and Hopkins, so she can't be all that terrible for NU to have gotten for their roster.

Watched Laliberty play last year. She is excellent. Excited to see her play this year.

I keep thinking Liberty Biberty....

Ha. Glad I wasn’t the only one