Who does 60' clock benefit, who does it "harm"?

[cuseman4133]

Big thing is teams can now see how long they have to clear.

https://www.collegecrosse.com/2018/9/11 ... -committee

[runrussellrun]

The Blue Chip teams will benefit most. Things just got tougher for teams hoping to slow down play and pull off an upset.

DocBarrister

And who would be those "blue chip" teams? Teams with awesome goalies will benefit. That would mean almost everyone. So many good goalies out there.
I am at the wait and see mode. 3 of the big 4 sports , the team that was just scored on gets the ball automatically.

[hickorystick]

So what? You're suggesting/insinuating that because the three other sports play their game that way lacrosse should too?
See you later with this kind of finish if the lacrosse world ever adopts your way of thinking...no way the face off should ever be done away with in lacrosse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXAWjncTYV0&t=15s

[HooDat]

except for when it did, right?

I am pretty sure (hopeful) that no one will want to go back down that road....

[hickorystick]

Yes, one would think that would be lesson enough to eliminate any consideration of such thoughts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yep...much better idea. 80 seconds on possession will help a lot. I still think this will hurt teams that are traditionally very patient on offense and who rely on an X type quarterback. Dodging will be even more important as D teams try to force the ball to the 5'th and 6'th O option as clock runs down.

Yep.

[youthathletics]

Yep...much better idea. 80 seconds on possession will help a lot. I still think this will hurt teams that are traditionally very patient on offense and who rely on an X type quarterback. Dodging will be even more important as D teams try to force the ball to the 5'th and 6'th O option as clock runs down.

Yep.

Does it really impact the game that much?

I actually believe if you were to break down the scoring stats by teams, you would likely find that most teams score their goals with lesser O-playing time vs. extended O-Playing time. Teams that traditionally grind it out will score less. all things equal.....obviously. For instance, a team like Navy, that has been a grind you down, chip away the clock team for the last 20+ years, has a <10 g/gm avg. When Navy plays loose, outside the game plan of pre-designed downhill dodging sets, they score more goals. Except when their TO's have gone up over the last year, which is another topic of discussion.

When Navy played teams like Cuse this year (2018) they showed they can adapt, vs Yale and Brown in the 2016 NCAA-payoff bracket. IMO, teams like Navy NEED this clock to force them to change. On the other hand a team like UVA, brings out the best of their opponents...IMO, their problem is they have been too reckless about valuing the ball to the point their offensive players hand out to dry their goalie and defenders. It almost looked like UVA sacrificed the past two years to set in stone a new UVA and their defensive side suffered as a result.

A team like Princeton with #22 working from behind, I do not see any reason to be concerned unless we see Zone-D's become the standard when the ball goes behind.....and that is where this could backfire and get ugly quick.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yep...much better idea. 80 seconds on possession will help a lot. I still think this will hurt teams that are traditionally very patient on offense and who rely on an X type quarterback. Dodging will be even more important as D teams try to force the ball to the 5'th and 6'th O option as clock runs down.

Yep.

Does it really impact the game that much?

I actually believe if you were to break down the scoring stats by teams, you would likely find that most teams score their goals with lesser O-playing time vs. extended O-Playing time. Teams that traditionally grind it out will score less. all things equal.....obviously. For instance, a team like Navy, that has been a grind you down, chip away the clock team for the last 20+ years, has a <10 g/gm avg. When Navy plays loose, outside the game plan of pre-designed downhill dodging sets, they score more goals. Except when their TO's have gone up over the last year, which is another topic of discussion.

When Navy played teams like Cuse this year (2018) they showed they can adapt, vs Yale and Brown in the 2016 NCAA-payoff bracket. IMO, teams like Navy NEED this clock to force them to change. On the other hand a team like UVA, brings out the best of their opponents...IMO, their problem is they have been too reckless about valuing the ball to the point their offensive players hand out to dry their goalie and defenders. It almost looked like UVA sacrificed the past two years to set in stone a new UVA and their defensive side suffered as a result.

A team like Princeton with #22 working from behind, I do not see any reason to be concerned unless we see Zone-D's become the standard when the ball goes behind.....and that is where this could backfire and get ugly quick.

Yes on zone defenses. A clock is good for Princeton. The shorter the better. Less time to play defense and less reliance on winning the face off. The pace of play is already quick. What's good for Princeton isn't necessarily what is good for the game. I don't like rules forcing a style of play. All college football teams should go no huddle like Oregon and TCU. It looks fun.... huddles are used to make subs. It’s a waste of time like subbing off SSDMs for o middies.

[runrussellrun]

So what? You're suggesting/insinuating that because the three other sports play their game that way lacrosse should too?
See you later with this kind of finish if the lacrosse world ever adopts your way of thinking...no way the face off should ever be done away with in lacrosse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXAWjncTYV0&t=15s

When did I ever say to eliminate faceoffs? The shotclock is a perverse way of alternating possessions.
Maryland won 80% of the faceoffs in the championship game, losing 9-3 . Probably would have won 14-8 if a shot clock was in place.

Anything to take the game out of the refs hands.

Speaking of refs, did anyone else notice that US Lacrosse just made the cross check hold LEGAL for youth players. ( Hands "shoulder width" apart What the heck, )
The NCAA should man up and just eliminate the "hold" by the cross check technical penalty .

[DMac]

runrussellrun wrote
3 of the big 4 sports , the team that was just scored on gets the ball automatically.

I think it's pretty easy to see where one could see this as suggesting that lacrosse go to this way too inasmuch as 3 of the big 4 sports do it that way. No, you didn't say do away with the face off but then what does the way 3 of the big 4 sports have to do with anything?
Loyola actually lost about a combined 83% of the face offs in the two games on Memorial Day week-end, but that suffocating defense held their opponents to a total of eight goals. I'm not thinking a shot clock would have changed much, that D was just shutting everything down (very impressive performance...was there).
As for the cross checking, it seems to me as if that's a natural next step in the game. Fix the sticks and you can then get rid of the cross check again, but that aint gonna happen.

[runrussellrun]

My goodness, the whining that envelopes the take away check and the VERY passive, yet effective, poke check is amazing.

"...it's just to hard to hold that stick straight out, you can't take the ball away either... waaaa"

Than any Defender who creates 40 plus CTO's should then be a first team AA. Well, Foster Huggins (Loyola/ 50 +) was , but the next Div. I CTO leader (with 41) Craig Chick only got honorable mention?

[DMac]

To recognize that it is much more difficult for the pole to dislodge the ball in the sick hold stick era of lacrosse is not whining, it's just the facts, ma'am.

[HooDat]

The NCAA should man up and just eliminate the "hold" by the cross check technical penalty .

As for the cross checking, it seems to me as if that's a natural next step in the game. Fix the sticks and you can then get rid of the cross check again

elimination of off-set in particular (but also requiring straight sidewalls) would make the hold unimportant.

Yes, I recognize that take-away checks do still exists - but that is NOT where the crosscheck comes into play vis-a-vis the hold rules. When sticks were sticks and men were men, very few players had the craddling skills to dodge through a defender (let alone a double team! )

[runrussellrun]

So what? You're suggesting/insinuating that because the three other sports play their game that way lacrosse should too?
See you later with this kind of finish if the lacrosse world ever adopts your way of thinking...no way the face off should ever be done away with in lacrosse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXAWjncTYV0&t=15s

Just watched it, the passer and shooter in the final second go ahead goal untouched by any long poles. Same with the scorer on the tying goal. Untouched.

As the best defenseman in Div I screamed in our freshman faces , "use your F*#c$ing STICK "

[DMac]

Yup, easy to say now but Staats lured the defender to come and double team leaving Ward enough room to catch and shoot, and Donohue's goal was just the result of a perfect pass and shot. Was chaotic on the field at that point, D men's heads were on a swivel and Cuse cashed in on that. (Mind you, earlier in the season Duke came in and spanked Cuse harder than they had been spanked in 35 yrs....payback is a complain.)
The purpose of the post was not about checks and D, it was about why doing away with the face off should never be as much as even a consideration.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So what? You're suggesting/insinuating that because the three other sports play their game that way lacrosse should too?
See you later with this kind of finish if the lacrosse world ever adopts your way of thinking...no way the face off should ever be done away with in lacrosse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXAWjncTYV0&t=15s

Just watched it, the passer and shooter in the final second go ahead goal untouched by any long poles. Same with the scorer on the tying goal. Untouched.

As the best defenseman in Div I screamed in our freshman faces , "use your F*#c$ing STICK "

Staats chicken winged the defenders stick....a savvy box move. The other goal was just poor technique. It happens.

[runrussellrun]

Yup, easy to say now but Staats lured the defender to come and double team leaving Ward enough room to catch and shoot, and Donohue's goal was just the result of a perfect pass and shot. Was chaotic on the field at that point, D men's heads were on a swivel and Cuse cashed in on that. (Mind you, earlier in the season Duke came in and spanked Cuse harder than they had been spanked in 35 yrs....payback is a complain.)
The purpose of the post was not about checks and D, it was about why doing away with the face off should never be as much as even a consideration.

I would NEVER want to see the faceoff go away. NEVER.

Ironic, though, that the above video shows the importance of timely wins when the team winning in the last second has a whinney coach that wanted faceoff changes.

Regarding getting the ball back, if you LOSE the face off, you are GETTING the ball back automatically when the clock expires. How people think that doesn't benefit , what they view as "lesser" teams, is beyond me. You wouldn't want the ball in that stud Sacred Hearts middies stick? (blueblood "know it alls" IE: former LP pollsters have NO idea who I am talking about )

Sacred Heart has a mens' lacrosse team, says Hopkins fans

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, easy to say now but Staats lured the defender to come and double team leaving Ward enough room to catch and shoot, and Donohue's goal was just the result of a perfect pass and shot. Was chaotic on the field at that point, D men's heads were on a swivel and Cuse cashed in on that. (Mind you, earlier in the season Duke came in and spanked Cuse harder than they had been spanked in 35 yrs....payback is a complain.)
The purpose of the post was not about checks and D, it was about why doing away with the face off should never be as much as even a consideration.

I would NEVER want to see the faceoff go away. NEVER.

Ironic, though, that the above video shows the importance of timely wins when the team winning in the last second has a whinney coach that wanted faceoff changes.

Regarding getting the ball back, if you LOSE the face off, you are GETTING the ball back automatically when the clock expires. How people think that doesn't benefit , what they view as "lesser" teams, is beyond me. You wouldn't want the ball in that stud Sacred Hearts middies stick? (blueblood "know it alls" IE: former LP pollsters have NO idea who I am talking about )

Sacred Heart has a mens' lacrosse team, says Hopkins fans

He is a good player. I believe his brother may be headed there also.

[palaxoff]

Here is another aspect of the 80 second count that might not have been considered in the process that I am going to say harm. The officials. Coaches wanted to take the decision of the stall out of the refs hands, they probably didn't consider what the effect on officiating the game would be. Some preliminary comments from guys doing alumni and intra team scrimmages is is its a lot more running and clock watching. Considering that most officials are 40 to 60, on the field the whole game with no rest, and probably doing close to twice as many up and downs the fields there is the potential for missed calls at the end of a game.

[xxxxxxx]

I was at an alumni game on Friday and I didn't see one dive and felt the clock didn't make much difference. I know it was the first time but the operators were having trouble. A couple of times the ball was actually cleared before the clock was started, however I am sure they will figure that out.

It is a long time and teams should have no problem setting up and taking a good shot. I also see it taking some (not all) of the pressure off the FOGO's as teams won't be able to hold the ball for 2 or 3 minutes with a couple of bad shots. From the limited actions I saw it looks good to me.