Possible face-off changes

[molo]

IL says that some tweaks to face-off rules may be under consideration. One would result in a shot clock of 60 instead of 80 seconds following a face-off win. The second would eliminate the clamp.

[Typical Lax Dad]

IL says that some tweaks to face-off rules may be under consideration. One would result in a shot clock of 60 instead of 80 seconds following a face-off win. The second would eliminate the clamp.

PLL influence. Next the field will be shortened along with the game.

[FOGO_Daze]

PLL is ruining lacrosse, so NCAA has to follow suit.

This is stupid. The fast break score off a face off is a game changer and exciting.

Leave lacrosse alone. Stop the madness

[DebitLaxPlayable]

I really wonder what the purpose is with these constant tweaks to faceoff rules. Has there been a period of more than a couple years without some big rule change regarding faceoffs?

If you don’t want there to be an advantage, then ban the faceoff or ban FOGOs (I’ve heard suggestions including the facing off player needing to be on the field during the preceeding goal/stoppage in play). No matter what rule tweak they make it, there’s going to be guys who specialize and dominate. Either accept it and let it be, or ban it completely

Banning the clamp will just make the guy who can consistently swipe faster win. It won’t do sh*t for competitiveness or watchability, just like banning holding the ball in the back of the stick, banning moto grip, banning knee down, etc.

Just seems like unnecessary constant over-regulation

[xxxxxxx]

Here we go again every two years the genius rules crew has to mess with face offs, read Scott Marr is behind it. Funny I don’t remember him complaining about face offs when he had TD, What a joke.

No other sport messes with rules like lacrosse, every committee feels like they need to leave their mark. Please stop, go coach your team.

[Laxxal22]

I'm cool with the shot clock tweak but flat out hate getting rid of the clamp. I wish the rules committee would do something useful and pass a rule that they only meet once every seven years. The college game is in a really good place right now. The constant tweaking of a select few that affects so many is awful.

[Henpecked]

Here we go again every two years the genius rules crew has to mess with face offs, read Scott Marr is behind it. Funny I don’t remember him complaining about face offs when he had TD, What a joke.

No other sport messes with rules like lacrosse, every committee feels like they need to leave their mark. Please stop, go coach your team.

Agree completely. There is nothing wrong with the current rules. Following the PLL is a joke. This past year most PLL teams would lose faceoffs on purpose rather than win and attempt to get off a decent shot within 32 seconds. The brilliance of Rabil in giving an advantage to the losing faceoff team. SMH

[10stone5]

I really wonder what the purpose is with these constant tweaks to faceoff rules. Has there been a period of more than a couple years without some big rule change regarding faceoffs?

If you don’t want there to be an advantage, then ban the faceoff or ban FOGOs (I’ve heard suggestions including the facing off player needing to be on the field during the preceeding goal/stoppage in play). No matter what rule tweak they make it, there’s going to be guys who specialize and dominate. Either accept it and let it be, or ban it completely

Banning the clamp will just make the guy who can consistently swipe faster win. It won’t do sh*t for competitiveness or watchability, just like banning holding the ball in the back of the stick, banning moto grip, banning knee down, etc.

Just seems like unnecessary constant over-regulation

+1,000

[youthathletics]

PLL is ruining lacrosse, so NCAA has to follow suit.

This is stupid. The fast break score off a face off is a game changer and exciting.

Leave lacrosse alone. Stop the madness

Fast breaks take longer than 60 seconds?

[10stone5]

This year top faceoff guy, 65%
last year, 68%
true, Sisselberger dominated in 2021 but that was mostly in conference game
Ierlan in 2019 really did dominate

still nothing really to tweak.

[gmen1986]

I'm cool with the shot clock tweak but flat out hate getting rid of the clamp. I wish the rules committee would do something useful and pass a rule that they only meet once every seven years. The college game is in a really good place right now. The constant tweaking of a select few that affects so many is awful.

the shot clock makes sense, 60 and 60 is good. i feel the PLL-ization of college lacrosse is short sighted and trying to please the wrong crowd. PLL looked sloppy and unorganized with the 52 and 32 shot clocks. the old saying of 'be quick but don't hurry" sums up college lacrosse best, its high paced, and clean. PLL is just fast loose and sloppy.

The faceoff change is iffy. I see what they are doing as they want the ball out in the open and the 6 middies for the faceoff battling for the ball, rather than 2 guys holding each others stick for 30 seconds. love the faceoff tho, I'd hate to see the make it take aspect get taken away.

[Laxdad3]

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it…those of us who played back in the dark ages remember the NCAA tried to take away the faceoff in 1979. It was a disaster…it was the start of mass substitution, o and d specialist, the stall and more. It took years to fix. Even SI saw fit to comment…


https://vault.si.com/vault/1979/04/16/f ... ontroversy

The previous comment was correct, unintended consequences will arise from every stupid tweak. No clamp, the rakers will dominate, no motor grip…well you know.

The scariest words in lacrosse…”we are from the Rules Committee and are here to make the game better”. For the love of the game, leave the faceoff alone!!!


PS…I love the 7 year idea for the rules committee…maybe every 10 would be better.

Laxdad3

[youthathletics]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

[RumorMill]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

Your statement sounds contradictory to itself. You want to neutralize it, i.e. no “make it take it” yet not get rid of the Faceoff? So what would your vision of the Faceoff be? All 6 guys run around and only the team that didn’t just score gets the ball?

[youthathletics]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

Your statement sounds contradictory to itself. You want to neutralize it, i.e. no “make it take it” yet not get rid of the Faceoff? So what would your vision of the Faceoff be? All 6 guys run around and only the team that didn’t just score gets the ball?

I am agreeing with the rule committee tinkering to make it harder for one person to dominate another in a 1v1 contest. Might as well settle games with brave heart if there’s no advantage at the faceoff dot, right? Tongue in cheek, but point is something along the lines of the womens game and hockey is what I’d be happy with. Still, allows for two to fight it out in a controlled situation, without clear advantage.
I

[RumorMill]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

Your statement sounds contradictory to itself. You want to neutralize it, i.e. no “make it take it” yet not get rid of the Faceoff? So what would your vision of the Faceoff be? All 6 guys run around and only the team that didn’t just score gets the ball?

I am agreeing with the rule committee tinkering to make it harder for one person to dominate another in a 1v1 contest. Might as well settle games with brave heart if there’s no advantage at the faceoff dot, right? Tongue in cheek, but point is something along the lines of the womens game and hockey is what I’d be happy with. Still, allows for two to fight it out in a controlled situation, without clear advantage.
I

I understand what you’re saying (I think). You can’t use hockey as an example, they tend to try and win FO backwards, no fast break, etc. also have super dominant FO players in hockey. Quick stat check from last year. Denver women 61.6% draw control, Northwestern women 57% draw control. Notre Dame men 47% FO wins, UVA men 54% FO win.

[Laxdad3]

Good for them. Anything to neutralize the make it take it advantage that only a handful of teams have…coincidentally many of those same teams are competing on memorial weekend. In the end, it is better for the game to ‘simplify’ the faceoff event. And No, not advocating to get rid of it.

Your statement sounds contradictory to itself. You want to neutralize it, i.e. no “make it take it” yet not get rid of the Faceoff? So what would your vision of the Faceoff be? All 6 guys run around and only the team that didn’t just score gets the ball?

I am agreeing with the rule committee tinkering to make it harder for one person to dominate another in a 1v1 contest. Might as well settle games with brave heart if there’s no advantage at the faceoff dot, right? Tongue in cheek, but point is something along the lines of the womens game and hockey is what I’d be happy with. Still, allows for two to fight it out in a controlled situation, without clear advantage.
I

I understand what you’re saying (I think). You can’t use hockey as an example, they tend to try and win FO backwards, no fast break, etc. also have super dominant FO players in hockey. Quick stat check from last year. Denver women 61.6% draw control, Northwestern women 57% draw control. Notre Dame men 47% FO wins, UVA men 54% FO win.

The “dominate” player and “30 second” scrum arguments just don’t hold water. Most schools are in the 40-50% range for faceoff wins…pretty even across the board. You are confusing “going on a run” and winning several in a row with domination. It is no different than scoring several goals in a row. If you don’t want someone to dominate, then ban left handed attack men or a super hot goalie. A 54% win rate is not domination, it is parity.

As for the scrum argument, the average faceoff last less than 10 seconds, very few faceoffs in a game ever last more than 15 seconds at the dot. The NCAA is trying to fix issues that don’t exist.

The ability to go on a run and mount a comeback is one of the unique aspects of lacrosse. The addition of the shot clock helped even more, a team can lose a FO, hold on D and quickly be back in the game. These constant tweaks to the FO are useless.

Laxdad3

[RumorMill]

Laxdad3, I think we are in agreement.

[Laxbuck]

Elite clampers get paid well. College coaches would rather spend that money on players who are on the field all of the time. Proposal was supported by a significant majority of D1 coaches

[D3hero]

the faceoff will be removed from the game within the next 5 years