Tweak the College Rules

[HowieT3]

The ONLY rule change worth making (I am on the record as being a curmudgeon*) is the sticks. Fix the sticks and every single thing we ALL complain about goes away....

This is absolutely true. Do you think that, if the NCAA/NFHS/USL made offset and pinched sidewalls illegal, we would see legal challenges from manufaturers ala Ping and the USGA's prohibition on square grooves?

That has been not only the ongoing assumption, but I believe it actually happened in the not so distant past

In that case, I doubt we'll ever seen those those changes, but will continue to suffer the parade of rules attempting to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

In a discussion of this I read some time ago, a manufacturer said that making all the present sticks illegal wouldn't be that much of a problem for him because it didn't cost him much to make the new, compliant molds and all the present players at a whatever level(s) adopting the change would all have to buy new sticks. The costs of re-tooling the molding process would be far, far, far outweighed by the income from the increased sales.

Would a suit about the changes be filed? I'm sure someone somewhere will probably file one. Would it be successful? No, because the new specs affect everyone equally and can't be shown to target one specific manufacturer.

You could compare the Ping lawsuit against the USGA to having the NCAA outlaw a specific manufacturer's feature, e.g., let's say a ban on a new material for sticks that gives them twice as much whip Maverik (just to pick one out at random) has patented.

[River Donkey]

I'd like to see the rule where a penalty is released if the defense can clear the ball into the opponents box.

Yes please!!! I keep forgetting to mention that one.

[HooDat]

all the present players at a whatever level(s) adopting the change would all have to buy new sticks. The costs of re-tooling the molding process would be far, far, far outweighed by the income from the increased sales.

this is why I never understood the manufacturer's resistance to a change in spec! It was Warrior leading the charge - was it because they were (at the time) carving out a Lax-Bro brand image and wanted to make the stupid sticks? Did some knucklehead really believe that goofy sticks were the only reason lacrosse was growing?

Maybe now that the "gold rush" is over we can have a reasonable conversation about head specs. Straight Sidewalls and No Offset would speed the game up even more than the shot clock.

I personally don't have a problem with how face-offs are working, but have to imagine that stiff sidewalls would "cure" what ever problems people have with the face-off.

[palaxoff]

Straight Sidewalls and No Offset would speed the game up even more than the shot clock.

Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.

Did some knucklehead really believe that goofy sticks were the only reason lacrosse was growing?

Personally I think all the changes in technology have had some significant impact on the growth, the helmets, gloves and pads are lighter, more comfortable and way cooler then the bucket helmets and bulky gloves we used. As for stick, There is a lot less over cradling, more confidence and eyes up the field instead of watching the sticks at the younger levels. More success leads to more interest and love of hte sport.

[DMac]

But didn't you think those bucket helmets, sticks, gloves and pads were every bit as cool as this generation thinks their stuff is?

[smoova]

Straight Sidewalls and No Offset would speed the game up even more than the shot clock.

Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.

The shot clock makes it more difficult to maintain possession for a long period of time. More possessions causes more transition play. More transition play causes a faster game. Sticks that offer less ball retention make it more difficult to maintain possession for a long period of time ...

[Handoverhamd]

Straight Sidewalls and No Offset would speed the game up even more than the shot clock.

Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.

Well because it would give the defender a 50/50 chance at taking away the ball. Checks would be less violent and defenses would take more risks because of the possible reward. Then as an offense you would have to move the ball more quickly because of the increased ability to put it on the ground.

Go back and watch 2007-2011 lacrosse. It was brutal. Too much ball control and defenses quit throwing checks and pressuring giving teams the ability to really stall the game out.

The shot clock helped because as you heard during playoff weekend it "gave the game back to the players" and that is why everyone feels it was a net positive.

The more ball control a player has the more the game is specialized, and then micromanaged by coaches and the product of that becomes some of the most boring lacrosse possible.

[HooDat]

Straight Sidewalls and No Offset would speed the game up even more than the shot clock.

Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.

The shot clock makes it more difficult to maintain possession for a long period of time. More possessions causes more transition play. More transition play causes a faster game. Sticks that offer less ball retention make it more difficult to maintain possession for a long period of time ...

yep

[Handoverhamd]

quote=palaxoff post_id=62249 time=1561736003 user_id=625
Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.







Well because it would give the defender a 50/50 chance at taking away the ball. Checks would be less violent and defenses would take more risks because of the possible reward. Then as an offense you would have to move the ball more quickly because of the increased ability to put it on the ground.

Go back and watch 2007-2011 lacrosse. It was brutal. Too much ball control and defenses quit throwing checks and pressuring giving teams the ability to really stall the game out.

The shot clock helped because as you heard during playoff weekend it "gave the game back to the players" and that is why everyone feels it was a net positive.

The more ball control a player has the more the game is specialized, and then micromanaged by coaches and the product of that becomes some of the most boring lacrosse possible.
[/quote]

[palaxoff]

Well because it would give the defender a 50/50 chance at taking away the ball. Checks would be less violent and defenses would take more risks because of the possible reward. Then as an offense you would have to move the ball more quickly because of the increased ability to put it on the ground.

Sorry I don't see how having the ball on the carpet more will speed up the game.

I think this is mostly a defenders slant. They seem to forget when the poles from Princeton went titanium, allowed them so much more control of their sticks and ability to throw more athletic and aggressive checks, don't hear anyone calling for the older heavier sticks.

[Matnum PI]

They seem to forget when the poles from Princeton went titanium, allowed them so much more control of their sticks and ability to throw more athletic and aggressive checks.

A bit of an aside but... I don't remember it like this. I remember one player, who later became a CEO of a lacrosse company, having a lighter stick and being all-everything (because of it). Obviously decades later, everybody and their brother has this stick. But the year or two later, was their a transition? (For the record, I think about this often. I feel like this moment was an enormous moment in terms of the sport changing from "Sam or Barney?" to what it is today. A change when lacrosse became lacro$$e.

[HooDat]

Chaos leads to transition - which is fast.

More importantly - the increased probability of a check dislodging the ball means offensive players will not be able to hold the ball as long (and they definitely won't be able to bull dodge through a triple-team). That means that offenses will have to move the ball more and more quickly.

The lower "grip" of heads with no offset and straight sidewalls also happens to facilitate getting the ball in and out of your stick faster. So they (accomplished) players will be ABLE to move the ball more, which is nice since they will have to.

[HooDat]

rinceton went titanium, allowed them so much more control of their sticks

this makes no sense at all to me.

all titanium did was make sticks stronger for the same weight. If you were a defender when the shafts (or whole stick) was wood, you developed pretty beefy forearms...

[Matnum PI]

all titanium did was make sticks stronger for the same weight.

No way. lighter. Especially for the long sticks. What long sticks are doing today vs. decades ago isn't because the players' arms are beefier. It's because these sticks are like feathers. Especially when the ball isn't in the stick.

[runrussellrun]

quote=palaxoff post_id=62249 time=1561736003 user_id=625
Please explain your thinking on how this would speed up game. I can see it for face offs but not sure after that.







Well because it would give the defender a 50/50 chance at taking away the ball. Checks would be less violent and defenses would take more risks because of the possible reward. Then as an offense you would have to move the ball more quickly because of the increased ability to put it on the ground.

Go back and watch 2007-2011 lacrosse. It was brutal. Too much ball control and defenses quit throwing checks and pressuring giving teams the ability to really stall the game out.

The shot clock helped because as you heard during playoff weekend it "gave the game back to the players" and that is why everyone feels it was a net positive.

The more ball control a player has the more the game is specialized, and then micromanaged by coaches and the product of that becomes some of the most boring lacrosse possible.

[/quote]

On what lacrosse planet......and when....... did you evah witness such a CTO percentages?

Attempt to dislodge the ball vs. ball drop (success )(NOT tracked)
ball drop vs defensive team getting ball (CTO-only recently tracked )

I will watch the 1979 championship......after the pain kicker kicks in.....followed by 1989 one. Count those attempts vs CTO's

RIsk reward.......watch the pro game. The D certainly loves to get at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iM-hEZ ... g&index=35

[thatsmell]

Don't disagree with any of this but it is pure offseason bloviating. They are never going to "deescalate" the stick technology. This is like pining for wood or aluminum tennis rackets. Absolutely the move to graphite and ceramic changed tennis but it made it easier for lesser players to play well. That is what manufacturers care about. Same with golf tech, the new balls and stick have rendered obsolete many historic courses. However, they make it easier for hackers to fly it 300 yards, thus increasing the popularity of the game. Equipment rules aren't driven by the performance of the best players. They don't make money selling lax sticks to Pat Spencer, they make it by selling them to 10s of thousands of lesser players. If tricking out the sticks makes it easier for those others to imitate great players and not get frustrated dropping the ball, then there you go. From the manufacturers perspective, as for the D, they got titanium shafts and they will have to pocket that and be happy. The only instance I can think of in the history of sports where some new innovation that made the game easier was subsequently banned because it was distorting the game was the crazy full body swim suits they had in the Olympics 10 or 12 years ago. You are going to have to pry offsets out of their cold, dead hands.

MLB has kept the metal bats out of their game to keep statistics more relevant.

[thatsmell]

I'd like to see the rule where a penalty is released if the defense can clear the ball into the opponents box.

Just wanted to bump this idea so it doesn't get lost again.

With the advent of all the head injury concerns and "points of emphasis" with kids gettignt oo physical, we now have many more full-time major penalties being called.

I say bring back the release of minor penalties!

[HooDat]

all titanium did was make sticks stronger for the same weight.

No way. lighter. Especially for the long sticks. What long sticks are doing today vs. decades ago isn't because the players' arms are beefier {I said the old guys arms got beefy because they were cradling heavier sticks}. It's because these sticks are like feathers. Especially when the ball isn't in the stick.

I gotta disagree on this point. I made the transition from wood all the way to today's current technology. The reason you are seeing long sticks do more is (1) the heads and (2) training. Defenders are simply putting more time into their stick skills because the the new heads it is worth it - it has NOTHING to do with the shaft,

Light as a feather - so what??

[pcowlax]

Don't disagree with any of this but it is pure offseason bloviating. They are never going to "deescalate" the stick technology. This is like pining for wood or aluminum tennis rackets. Absolutely the move to graphite and ceramic changed tennis but it made it easier for lesser players to play well. That is what manufacturers care about. Same with golf tech, the new balls and stick have rendered obsolete many historic courses. However, they make it easier for hackers to fly it 300 yards, thus increasing the popularity of the game. Equipment rules aren't driven by the performance of the best players. They don't make money selling lax sticks to Pat Spencer, they make it by selling them to 10s of thousands of lesser players. If tricking out the sticks makes it easier for those others to imitate great players and not get frustrated dropping the ball, then there you go. From the manufacturers perspective, as for the D, they got titanium shafts and they will have to pocket that and be happy. The only instance I can think of in the history of sports where some new innovation that made the game easier was subsequently banned because it was distorting the game was the crazy full body swim suits they had in the Olympics 10 or 12 years ago. You are going to have to pry offsets out of their cold, dead hands.

MLB has kept the metal bats out of their game to keep statistics more relevant.

That and for safety reasons, there has always been concerns about pitchers being killed by line drives off the metal bats of MLB players. Certainly consistency in MLB stats is more important to them than to lax. People have listed many good reasons why they would like to change the sticks but I don't really think stats have much to do with it. A few crazy games this year aside, I'm not sure how much goals per game have changed over the years, here is the data since 2002, pretty interesting actually, sorry for the terrible format. With the shot clock this was the highest scoring years since 2002 but really by just 1 goal.



Season ^Teams &Games Goals Assists Points Shots Pct. SOG Pct. Goals Att. Pct. Balls TO TO Saves Pct.
2002 55 #13.98 9.79 5.70 15.49 — — *22.25 — *1.43 *4.56 .313 — — — *12.46 .564
2003 #54 14.36 9.28 5.54 14.82 — — 21.33 — 1.29 4.24 .304 — — — 12.05 *.571
2004 #54 14.30 9.32 5.38 14.70 — — 21.29 — 1.23 4.18 .294 — — — 11.97 .564
2005 56 14.24 9.30 5.26 14.56 — — 20.44 — 1.29 4.25 .303 — — — 11.14 .548
2006 56 14.50 #9.09 5.32 14.41 — — #19.99 — 1.18 3.85 .307 — — — 10.90 .547
2007 56 14.57 9.36 5.27 14.63 — — 20.52 — 1.20 4.10 #.292 — — — 11.16 .546
2008 56 14.88 9.09 #5.15 #14.24 — — 20.14 — 1.21 3.94 .307 — — — 11.04 .553
2009 57 15.09 9.35 5.24 14.59 — — 20.27 — #1.14 3.48 .327 *30.75 — — 10.92 .540
2010 58 14.95 10.00 5.77 15.77 34.26 *.292 20.90 *.610 1.30 3.81 .341 30.27 *17.15 7.73 10.90 .522
2011 60 15.02 9.59 5.28 14.87 #34.10 #.281 19.99 .586 1.20 3.79 .317 30.10 16.63 *7.84 #10.40 .523
2012 61 14.98 9.92 5.79 15.71 34.16 .290 20.37 .596 1.20 #3.44 *.348 #29.31 15.46 #7.29 10.46 .513
2013 *63 *15.13 *10.29 *5.86 *16.15 *36.58 .281 21.37 #.584 1.22 3.57 .342 30.55 #15.08 7.42 11.39 #.511

[hooligan88]

Leave college lacrosse alone. With the PLL changes College game would be a joke. College is the pinnacle of this sport and changing it would not do any good.