NEW RULE PROPOSALS

[laxfan22]

I don’t know. Seems like it’s more a Jenny levy response. Load up on insane athletes and spread the girls on offense. No need to be concerned about a well coached defense like Denver? Instead give every advantage to the offense to go 1v1 as much as possible.

[LaxDadMax]

And you know who doesn’t support the rule changes? Two of the top coaches in the game, BC’s Acacia Walker and Northwestern’s Kelly Amonte. Look at their instagram posts and see the likes and commentary. Amonte’s entire coaching tree, which is vast, is against this.
Why am I starting to think this is more about underfunded programs (like Davidson, whose coach leads the committee and program has maybe 4 funded scholarships out of 12 available, having to dole out less money.

Davidson may not use their entire scholarship cap, but they fund a lot more than 4 equivalent scholarships.

What makes Davidson unique is that they don't allow stacking of scholarship $$, meaning many girls will get more need-based financial aid than they would have if they accepted scholarship $$.

[lax410]

Of course safety is BS. it doesn’t even pass the test of common sense that defenders will be forced to use sticks more often and will be sliding from longer distances.

(except the ridiculous assertion that less players equals overall less injuries which is so offensive it doesn’t deserve a response).

And without actual evidence or data, it’s remarkably paternalistic. Just trust us. It’ll be “safer” and “better”. Not a great look for a women’s sport run by women.

[Laxfan212]

What makes Davidson unique is that they don't allow stacking of scholarship $$, meaning many girls will get more need-based financial aid than they would have if they accepted scholarship $$.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard that a policy that disallows stacking being any kind of advantage financially for athletes. Whether an athlete accepts athletic scholarship money isn’t usually the straw that breaks the camel’s back on whether an athlete would qualify for need-based aid.

[LaxDadMax]

What makes Davidson unique is that they don't allow stacking of scholarship $$, meaning many girls will get more need-based financial aid than they would have if they accepted scholarship $$.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard that a policy that disallows stacking being any kind of advantage financially for athletes. Whether an athlete accepts athletic scholarship money isn’t usually the straw that breaks the camel’s back on whether an athlete would qualify for need-based aid.

it's a good policy for athletic programs because it makes the general fund support student athletes first.

An Example, using round numbers.

Let's say tuition is $80k per year and the EFC is $30k then need based aid would be $50k. Meaning the student and family pay $30k

Now is that student earns a $15k athletic grant, EFC would then go to $45k, bringing down aid to $35k. Student and family still pay $30k.

This is common on schools with huge endowments who promise to fund full cost of tuition. Besides Davidson, this is very common in most Patriot League schools as well

[laxagainsthumanity]

If you want to bring up AU... that league is extremely physical, markedly stepped up from college. They have athletes that can handle it (both dole it out safely and take it) so it's largely a non-issue to them, but it's certainly not less physical than the college game. Besides, AU plays such a different format and draws from such a limited player pool that you can't translate any conclusions from that league directly to the college game (which is probably why nobody else on this forum has brought it up). That league is designed to showcase individual talent and reward individual accomplishments. Not the same thing. Also, does anyone actually prefer watching AU over college??

There have been so many rule changes in the past 10+ years. The game looks very different. And it's GREAT. It's a better version of what we allowed athletes to play in the past. Maybe it's ok to keep things the same for a little while and enjoy it, instead of completely destroying and reconstructing it.

[user1020]

If you want to bring up AU... that league is extremely physical, markedly stepped up from college. They have athletes that can handle it (both dole it out safely and take it) so it's largely a non-issue to them, but it's certainly not less physical than the college game. Besides, AU plays such a different format and draws from such a limited player pool that you can't translate any conclusions from that league directly to the college game (which is probably why nobody else on this forum has brought it up). That league is designed to showcase individual talent and reward individual accomplishments. Not the same thing. Also, does anyone actually prefer watching AU over college??

There have been so many rule changes in the past 10+ years. The game looks very different. And it's GREAT. It's a better version of what we allowed athletes to play in the past. Maybe it's ok to keep things the same for a little while and enjoy it, instead of completely destroying and reconstructing it.

College is so much better than AU. I think we need to take a break from constant rule changes every 2 years and let the newer rules of the past 5 years take shape and then we can see what rules truly need to be changed

[Laxfan212]

What makes Davidson unique is that they don't allow stacking of scholarship $$, meaning many girls will get more need-based financial aid than they would have if they accepted scholarship $$.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard that a policy that disallows stacking being any kind of advantage financially for athletes. Whether an athlete accepts athletic scholarship money isn’t usually the straw that breaks the camel’s back on whether an athlete would qualify for need-based aid.

it's a good policy for athletic programs because it makes the general fund support student athletes first.

An Example, using round numbers.

Let's say tuition is $80k per year and the EFC is $30k then need based aid would be $50k. Meaning the student and family pay $30k

Now is that student earns a $15k athletic grant, EFC would then go to $45k, bringing down aid to $35k. Student and family still pay $30k.

This is common on schools with huge endowments who promise to fund full cost of tuition. Besides Davidson, this is very common in most Patriot League schools as well

I thought you meant the school doesn’t allow an athlete to combine athletic money and need-based money at all (plus merit aid). Makes sense that they’d reduce need based aid to take into account athletic $. Given what you mentioned re endowments, it sounds like you might be also considering merit aid. I think most schools do allow stacking but with some limits and rules, to encourage/force athletes to use the academic money before athletic money.

[Laxfan456]

The definition of cross-check should be cleaned up before taking a player off the field to “improve safety”

Women’s Rule Book:
Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick to hit, push or displace an opponent.

Men’s Rule Book:
Cross-Check: A player may not check an opponent with that part of the handle of the crosse that is between the hands, either by thrusting it or by holding it extended from the body.

Some officials do not call cross-checks because they say the attacker “initiates” the contact by driving to cage. The definition should be changed to the men’s definition to specify that players cannot use this part of their stick either by thrusting it or holding it extended from their bodies. This would remove ambiguity from the rule and would allow for more consistent calls of dangerous stick to body contact.

I do not see the off-ball players impeding the officials’ ability to make this call in the current game and don’t think that removing players from the field will solve this or other problems.

[laxagainsthumanity]

The definition of cross-check should be cleaned up before taking a player off the field to “improve safety”

Women’s Rule Book:
Cross Check: Initiating stick-to-body contact and using the shaft of the stick to hit, push or displace an opponent.

Men’s Rule Book:
Cross-Check: A player may not check an opponent with that part of the handle of the crosse that is between the hands, either by thrusting it or by holding it extended from the body.

Some officials do not call cross-checks because they say the attacker “initiates” the contact by driving to cage. The definition should be changed to the men’s definition to specify that players cannot use this part of their stick either by thrusting it or holding it extended from their bodies. This would remove ambiguity from the rule and would allow for more consistent calls of dangerous stick to body contact.

I do not see the off-ball players impeding the officials’ ability to make this call in the current game and don’t think that removing players from the field will solve this or other problems.

+1. There has always been a huge disparity between how that rule is written and how it's called. The Officials Association doesn't even try to hide this - they'll talk about holding the stick horizontal which isn't even part of the rule. The game couldn't be played with the rule as it's written and there's a ton of gray area. Totally sets officials up for failure.

[urgettingwhatuaxed4]

Why not make the field 11v11? They have already screwed the 20's and 21's with the Covid year, let's reduce their playing opportunities even more by reducing the number of players on the field. This has not been a great experience for those players. Glad the others got their sixth and seventh years in.

[laxfan22]

Don’t forget the 22s! They were the ones that didn’t get a recruit year at all - and had less roster spots available (but yeah the other years too)

[cltlax]

Really hoping cooler heads prevail and this proposal gets shot down. I wish folks could just leave well enough alone. Not sure any other college sports have seen such major rule changes in such a short amount of time.

[laxfan22]

I’m not sure it’s a cooler head scenario. I’ve legit seen almost no support for the proposal (maybe I missed it). I just get the vibe these things are railroaded through with no real discussion or consideration. Hope I’m wrong.

[Dasher]

Less than two weeks until the vote on this ridiculous new set of rules. Is there any question this shouldn't pass? It's hard to find that many people for this other than two buddy coaches in North Carolina. Tell me this won't happen again. I'm nervous they will pass this through and muck up the game.

[lax410]

Who knows. There was a Today show segment floating around about safety issues in women’s lacrosse. Want to say I saw it this week? So it doesn’t seem they’ve given up yet.

[laxfan22]

My concern is that it turns into a rubber stamp. Is there even an opportunity for coaches to advocate? Who makes the decisions? It’s all a mystery.

[iloovzelax]

During my D’s recent international trip, coach told them it was a done deal. Feels like the end of the two way middie, at least in most cases.

[user1020]

Horrible choice for women’s lax if they carry forward. Shows that the committee cares little about opportunities for the young women that actually play the game & that advocacy and voicing your opinion holds 0 weight even if you are some of the most well respected coaches in the sport. The women’s game is nearly perfect how it is right now IMO and if this passes I will be insalely frustrated. I will have a huge lack of respect to the women’s lax committee if this passes and not because I hate the change, but because of their lack of commitment to their own players.

[RollTheCrease]

I hope they do not adopt many of these new rules. I like the women’s game as it is today. Much more so than the men’s game. I agree with penalties for embellishment and I like they will give the advantage to the goal scorer when a foul occurs simultaneously with the goal.

I am not a fan of stopping the game to issue 1 minute penalties for every tripping or illegal pick type call. Refs struggle today to keep up with the game and what one ref calls a 1 minute penalty in one game could be much different by a ref in another game. And how many 5 minute red cards will we see now from trigger happy refs. Providing teams with lengthy player up advantages will make the game worse.

I’m not convinced moving to 6v6 will create more opportunities for more players to get on the field as the committee suggests. The game will turn into having the bigger and faster players on the field, so get ready to see teams made up of speedy athletic 5’8” and taller players. These proposed changes will not only take a player off the field it could very well change what type of player gets recruited; thus, limiting even more opportunities for women in the sport.

I’m also not convinced the proposed rule changes will bring the improved safety the committee believes will happen. At least not to a level to justify taking a player off the field and opportunities away from women athletes.