Tweak the College Rules

[Typical Lax Dad]

Isn't that what happened in this year's NC game?
I think if you were to do a little research on the face off you'd find that face off wins are not as big an indicator of which team is going to win a game as you think it is. There are tons of examples in the lax world of one team dominating the face off game but walked away with the L. Have gone over this many times, a good example is the NC 2012 Greyhounds...4-24 at the X but win the title. Face off meant nothing to the Hounds, they were the better team beyond the X. In this year's Army-Cuse game, Cuse went 17-21 in the face off game, the final score was 10-8 Cuse. By your way of thinking the score should have been 17-4 (just for the record, early on in the game Cuse was 3-0 in the face off battle and Army was up 3-0).
You're over exaggerating how big a part of the game the face off is.....just leave it alone, it's fine the way it is.

Your cherry picking 2 specific examples... you cant tell me that winning face offs does not increase your odds of winning the game. Just silly

If the face off never existed and someone proposed the idea youd think they were a crazy person

A friend's son plays soccer at UVA. He went and watched a UVA lacrosse game and said, man, a team with a guy that can win the ball all the time has a big advantage. He wouldn't know a FOGO if he fell over one..... He thought it was a odd way to play. I have found that the most puzzling aspect of a lacrosse game for novices is the face off. Most don't think it seems "right"..... That is usually when one team is constantly controlling the face-off. I like the face-off but the equipment has changed it....However, it is better today than it was 4-5 years ago.

[DMac]

Isn't that what happened in this year's NC game?
I think if you were to do a little research on the face off you'd find that face off wins are not as big an indicator of which team is going to win a game as you think it is. There are tons of examples in the lax world of one team dominating the face off game but walked away with the L. Have gone over this many times, a good example is the NC 2012 Greyhounds...4-24 at the X but win the title. Face off meant nothing to the Hounds, they were the better team beyond the X. In this year's Army-Cuse game, Cuse went 17-21 in the face off game, the final score was 10-8 Cuse. By your way of thinking the score should have been 17-4 (just for the record, early on in the game Cuse was 3-0 in the face off battle and Army was up 3-0).
You're over exaggerating how big a part of the game the face off is.....just leave it alone, it's fine the way it is.

Your cherry picking 2 specific examples... you cant tell me that winning face offs does not increase your odds of winning the game. Just silly

If the face off never existed and someone proposed the idea youd think they were a crazy person

You didn't answer my question.
Nope, I'm not cherry picking, I only used those two examples of the many that could be chosen from. The 4-24 for Loyola is actually two games, beat ND 7-5 in the semi and Md 9-3 for the title. They went a combined 4-24 in the two games. A good D and GK will reduce a good FOGO to fairly insignificant.
Am closing in on six decades of either playing in or watching lacrosse games and I find it just silly that anyone would propose there not be a face off in the game.... just crazy, it brings way too much to the game, there are many come from behind victories, including NC games, that never would have happened were it not for the face off.
Sure, winning face offs increases your odds of winning mathematically, but those numbers can be (are) very deceiving. Have done this before but...Team A wins the face off. Team B GK makes the save, successful clear. Team A GK makes the save, successful clear, Team A scores. Face offs 1, goals 1 for Team A. Stats would tell you face offs wins games!!!! Run that senerio out 10 times and you're up 10-0 and you're 10-0 at the X. The reason you're up 10-0 is your GK though, not your FOGO. I'd bet there are a whole lot more times teams don't score when their FOGO gets them possession than when they do, which makes that face off not as significant as many would like you to believe it is (TD's 70+% in the NC game didn't matter). Keep track of how many times a team scores on the face off possession and you might find the face off isn't what wins games, good all around teams is what wins games.

[Can Opener]

Those among us who support the face-off art should not apologize for the fact that winning more face-offs increases your team's chances of winning the game. Of course more possessions helps a team. The real question is whether recruiting or developing a dominant FOGO unfairly influences the outcome of a game. The data suggests that outside of TD, there really isn't a FOGO with stats so dominant to justify a rules change. Having spent hundreds of hours among FOGOs, I can tell you that this skill is more acquired than innate. Work harder, boys, and you will some day achieve TD/Trevor status.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Those among us who support the face-off art should not apologize for the fact that winning more face-offs increases your team's chances of winning the game. Of course more possessions helps a team. The real question is whether recruiting or developing a dominant FOGO unfairly influences the outcome of a game. The data suggests that outside of TD, there really isn't a FOGO with stats so dominant to justify a rules change. Having spent hundreds of hours among FOGOs, I can tell you that this skill is more acquired than innate. Work harder, boys, and you will some day achieve TD/Trevor status.

What was your position on the shot clock?

[xxxxxxx]

After watching a ton of lacrosse games I have a theory that the two most important stats in the game are save percentage and shooting percentage. If you look at most box scores the team that shoots it better almost always wins, and the best way to keep a team from shooting well is a great goalie. Face offs matter but with the shot clock they matter a lot less, and can be offset with great shooting and goaltending.

[Typical Lax Dad]

After watching a ton of lacrosse games I have a theory that the two most important stats in the game are save percentage and shooting percentage. If you look at most box scores the team that shoots it better almost always wins, and the best way to keep a team from shooting well is a great goalie. Face offs matter but with the shot clock they matter a lot less, and can be offset with great shooting and goaltending.

I agree. A great FOGO is a luxury but an opposing team can over come it but it is better to have one. I don't like the impact that the equipment changes have had on the face-off. That is what is driving the tweaking. Disallow the withholding and it will clean it up and make it more fan friendly. You don't see the women in a scrum like that.

[RumorMill]

No disrespect to the women's game or players in any way, shape or form... but referencing their game and/or rules as it applies to the men's game is extremely disconcerting.

Regarding "withholding", there is a withholding penalty for the fogo if he actually "withholds" the ball. They are given a fraction of time to find an exit. They are not allowed to "withhold" the ball waiting for an open winger or a "better" exit.

[wgdsr]

No disrespect to the women's game or players in any way, shape or form... but referencing their game and/or rules as it applies to the men's game is extremely disconcerting.

Regarding "withholding", there is a withholding penalty for the fogo if he actually "withholds" the ball. They are given a fraction of time to find an exit. They are not allowed to "withhold" the ball waiting for an open winger or a "better" exit.

yeah, that's the rule. but not the application. mostly because it's not written awesome and referees have taken on an interpretation that is the opposite of what's intended.

[Handoverhamd]

Keep the 80 and the dive.

Remove the offset from the sticks and we will see a lot of problems go away.

It helps with the growth of the game more than anything because it makes sticks easier to produce worldwide. We need a non-offset triangular shape.

We are getting closer to bringing back the game!

[Boomakegga]

Refs should have a red flag and yellow flag. Red is personal. Yellow is technical. This will eliminate the obvious personal foul that the refs seem to often convert to technical (then waived) when a goal is scored after the flag is thrown.

[River Donkey]

Stop changing the rules every year to appease those new to the game. Respect the game and its rules. Stop sacrificing the integrity of the game in interest of growing the game.

[smoova]

Stop changing the rules every year to appease those new to the game. Respect the game and its rules. Stop sacrificing the integrity of the game in interest of growing the game.

This is an interesting post, particularly regarding respecting "the game and its rules." IMHO, the "integrity of the game" was sacrificed when officials became the only participants with an obligation to honor the rules. Cross checking is a good example of a rule that was pretty strictly taught/observed and enforced 30 years ago ("hands together, hands together") and is only called today when someone is nearly decapitated.

Perhaps there'd be fewer calls to change the rules if the ones that have been in the book for decades were actually taught/enforced as they are written.

[DMac]

We need a non-offset triangular shape.

Stop changing the rules every year to appease those new to the game. Respect the game and its rules. Stop sacrificing the integrity of the game in interest of growing the game.

This is an interesting post, particularly regarding respecting "the game and its rules." IMHO, the "integrity of the game" was sacrificed when officials became the only participants with an obligation to honor the rules. Cross checking is a good example of a rule that was pretty strictly taught/observed and enforced 30 years ago ("hands together, hands together") and is only called today when someone is nearly decapitated.

Perhaps there'd be fewer calls to change the rules if the ones that have been in the book for decades were actually taught/enforced as they are written.

Sticks, always the elephant in the room. Too much "grip" for the O led to the acceptance of the cross check...cross checking used to be a real big deal, refs showed no lenience with that call.

[whaley]

My suggestion would be to start each quarter with a FO, but give possession to the team just scored upon the rest of the time (details to be worked out...but certainly no big break in time to allow wholesale subbing...)

Its a compromise. We still have FOs, but only four per game.

There has to be some mechanism for awarding possession after a score. alternatives are 1) a coin flip, 2) a test of skill, 3) award possession to the advantaged team, 4) award possession to the disadvantaged team.

Lax now uses 2) a test of skill, and I think many would agree that it is not a good test of which TEAM has more skill...it tests which team has the best FOGO specialist.

If the goal is to (quickly) find the better team, use 3). Think make it take it for pick up basketball.

If the goal is to encourage close games that are enjoyable to watch, use 4).

I found the following paper helpful. It mentions lacrosse specifically....saying that it is "inefficient" to use a test of skill to award possession and that only hockey and LAX do so....but that there are so few goals in those sports that it really doesn't matter.

Now that we have lots of goals....like basketball...it does matter.

Wittman, Donald (1982). Efficient rules in highway safety and sports activity. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 78-90.

[smoova]

Sticks, always the elephant in the room. Too much "grip" for the O led to the acceptance of the cross check...cross checking used to be a real big deal, refs showed no lenience with that call.

We are in violent agreement.

[River Donkey]

My suggestion would be to start each quarter with a FO, but give possession to the team just scored upon the rest of the time (details to be worked out...but certainly no big break in time to allow wholesale subbing...)

Its a compromise. We still have FOs, but only four per game.

There has to be some mechanism for awarding possession after a score. alternatives are 1) a coin flip, 2) a test of skill, 3) award possession to the advantaged team, 4) award possession to the disadvantaged team.

Lax now uses 2) a test of skill, and I think many would agree that it is not a good test of which TEAM has more skill...it tests which team has the best FOGO specialist.

If the goal is to (quickly) find the better team, use 3). Think make it take it for pick up basketball.

If the goal is to encourage close games that are enjoyable to watch, use 4).

I found the following paper helpful. It mentions lacrosse specifically....saying that it is "inefficient" to use a test of skill to award possession and that only hockey and LAX do so....but that there are so few goals in those sports that it really doesn't matter.

Now that we have lots of goals....like basketball...it does matter.

Wittman, Donald (1982). Efficient rules in highway safety and sports activity. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 78-90.

If you really want to fix faceoffs, take away the pinch. Pinching the ball in the back of your stick is withholding for anyone else on the field. Take away the pinch and it’s a fair 50/50 ground ball.

[DMac]

Tweaked rules lacrosse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcW5Q_M3TDs

[HowieT3]

My suggestions:

1. You only get 60 seconds on a shot clock reset. Starting this year in basketball, you will only get 20 seconds on the reset (the international rule) after an offensive rebound.

2. As someone said in another thread, eliminate the moto grip and you eliminate totally dominant FOGOs. Plus, no more than a 5 count (probably less) and then “withholding” is called.

3. Go back to the Dark Ages on sticks - no offset, no pinch, sidewalls no more than 2” at their widest part. That could also make the manufacturers reevaluate the “whippiness” of the materials they use for the heads.

[palaxoff]

I had no intention to change the face off when I started this thread, still don't, I would like to get rid of wrestling matches. I think a lot of the face off back lash comes from listening to the talking heads excessive yammering about the face off position. Fogo's have value and I don't want to diminish it, but I think they are a bit like kickers in football. They are great to have on the team, but when it comes PT they have little but get a lot of attention.

Since Alex Smith through TD, I think Trevor is the only one with a Championship in last 20 yrs.

[NJlxrdad]

Time limit on face offs, you get 5 or 10 seconds then alternating possession I still thing the quick draw into a fast break is exciting
If your going to keep the dive what about making the crease slightly larger?