Maryland 12 Syracuse 11 OT

[LadyLaker]

I don’t agree this is a slamdunk SS call. The camera angle is from the other side high and away giving a perspective that is not necessarily true to what is happening The defender does everything right: leading with her stick and it does look to me she is running at an angle into the attacker.

I’ve played, coached, been a sideline parent, and reffed. The one takeaway I have from all those different roles is you can see something different from all those perspectives.

In the end, if one non-SS call is your reason for the game’s outcome, then who am I to change your mind? As I have always done, I encourage all to take the class and put a whistle in your mouth. Anyone who wishes to do so, I’m happy to help you make that happen bc we need dedicated peeps to put on the stripes!

LL

[DMac]

Okay, let's say it's not a slam dunk. Would you say there's reason to believe that the call might have been blown? #51 sure appears to have held up her shot so as to look out for for the defender's safety. Do wlaxers inadvertently turn their heads to avoid getting hit with the ball when there's no danger of that happening? Sure looks as if the girl in this play thought she might get hit. I get the camera angle stuff but if you had seen the play from the angle we have in the clip would you have called SS?
Welcome back, LL...'bout damn time you showed up.

[LadyLaker]

Well I’ve been known to turn my head reflexively when I didn’t need to, so not sure that can be you’re slam dunk factor.

My opinion is the angle doesn’t prove it conclusively for me. At the same time, I can’t say it isn’t SS. I do give kudos to the defender for doing (from what I can tell) what she can to avoid the SS call...difficult to do in that split second of go or stay decision making.

Looking forward to seeing the whole game. I’m glad lax season is in full swing and some of the regulars made the jump to this forum. Mr. LL & I were in warmer climes but back now and happy to be talking lax!

LL

[wlaxnut]

I don’t agree this is a slamdunk SS call. The camera angle is from the other side high and away giving a perspective that is not necessarily true to what is happening The defender does everything right: leading with her stick and it does look to me she is running at an angle into the attacker.

I’ve played, coached, been a sideline parent, and reffed. The one takeaway I have from all those different roles is you can see something different from all those perspectives.

In the end, if one non-SS call is your reason for the game’s outcome, then who am I to change your mind? As I have always done, I encourage all to take the class and put a whistle in your mouth. Anyone who wishes to do so, I’m happy to help you make that happen bc we need dedicated peeps to put on the stripes!

LL

Interesting—would it matter if the attacker was already in shooting motion, before the defender led with her stick and approached from an angle?

What is your assessment of this replay? From this angle, do you think shooting space should have been called?

[LadyLaker]

The angle,IMO, doesn’t enable me to make a rock solid call. Say the goal is noon and this camera is at 8, if we had the 4 angle it would be easier to make the call from video.

I feel like the shooter had the time (& let’s be honest with these 2 teams) the expertise to amend her shot. But again, the camera angle is not good so I could well be wrong.

This game looks like it was fantastic and the kind of fame where you hate to see 1 team lose bc they are both leaving it all out there. Looking forward to watching it tonite! Clocks and lax forward everyone!
LL

[DMac]

LadyLaker wrote
Well I’ve been known to turn my head reflexively when I didn’t need to, so not sure that can be your slam dunk factor.

You know you're killing me with this one, right LL? If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were setting me up for a comment that would draw a flag from Admin.

[Turtles Lax]

...who suggest this play (regardless of the call...correct or not) cost Da’ Cuse da game, bear in mind they were ‘oh fer’ on free throws for the entire game.

No reason whatsoever to think the Da ‘Cuse player would have scored even with a free throw granted.

Peace, out.

TL

[seacoaster]

No, no. I don't mean to suggest anything like that, and I have a really high regard for Megan Taylor in any event. Just think it was a blown call and -- all due respect to LL -- an obvious one. I love the way Maryland plays the game. Great game, great competitors, 'nuff said.

[wlaxnut]

...who suggest this play (regardless of the call...correct or not) cost Da’ Cuse da game, bear in mind they were ‘oh fer’ on free throws for the entire game.

No reason whatsoever to think the Da ‘Cuse player would have scored even with a free throw granted.

Peace, out.

TL

Syracuse had only three free position attempts "the entire game". And though technically, they were 0 for 3 on the score sheet, they did score off one of the three free position attempts. Though it didn't count as a FP goal, it may as well have. From the highlight— https://youtu.be/YRYHYNpHziw —the clearly designed, and ultimately successful play, had Mary Rahal, not shooting from free position, but passing to Meaghan Tyrrell, who scored, (assist from Rahal) 3 seconds later.

As far as, “No reason whatsoever to think the Da ‘Cuse player would have scored…”

There is good reason to think that "Da ‘Cuse player" i.e. Emily Hawryschuk as the case was, had a decent chance to score. She was certainly the most dangerous Syracuse player to have on the top hash with the game on the line. Through 8 games this season, she leads the team in goals (26), game-winners (2) and FP goals (3). And that deadly laser high fastball shot of hers—(no one on the team is more lethal to have at the top of the fan, except maybe Nicole Levy) makes the Orange chances to score, pretty good odds.

[seacoaster]

Huh, well...wlaxnut has a point.....

[Turtles Lax]

...indeed have an amazing shot (and creativity and quickness), but on her free throw earlier Ms Taylor stopped her.

For the record, it was an exciting and very well played game. Believe they just might meet again.

Peace, out.

TL

[BigRedMachine]

For what it's worth I think the Hawryschuck attempted shot in overtime was a bad no-call. I was at the game and also watched some of it on replay and it fits the classic description of shooting space. But I'm not a ref so what do I know. Maybe if the ball hadn't slipped harmlessly out of her stick toward the goal, looking like an attempted pass, it would have been called otherwise but that's just my likely wrong headed speculation. However, contrary to popular opinion, a free position score at this point was no slam dunk. Hawryschuck's free position percentage this year is a less than stellar 33 (3/9), worse than her non-FP percentage. Furthermore Megan Taylor is really good when she has a clean look at the ball. Out of 23 free position shots this year only 3 have found their way past her. More to the point she stoned Hawryschuck's first FP shot from just left of the center hash mark (some might say preferable to the center hash for a right handed sidewinder) earlier in the game. But beyond the the argument of Hawryschuck's FP efficiency, or lack there of, focusing on this one play gives those not lucky enough to see this game the mistaken impression that Syracuse was somehow swindled out of a win. It's like pulling a single quote out of context from long speech. Yes the "golden goal" aspect of a final shot magnifies the importance but there were several speculative calls in the last three minutes and in overtime, all going Syracuse's way, that may have resulted in this play not being debated at all had they gone the other way.

There are three things I take from this game. First, Syracuse has finally wised up as to how to defend the Terps. In times past they employed what I would call the "havoc" defense. Come out and aggressively attack the offense with double team's. Be very physical with cross checks and attempt to create turnovers by knocking the ball loose. And sometimes employ a face-guard on a selected player. For all their effort all it got them was a plethora of yellow cards and a loose eight meter area exploited by a Terp offense efficiently passing and hitting the open man. The Syracuse defense is still physical but now Mr. Thorpe has adopted the Stony Brook "guard the eight at all costs" scheme. Pack it in, take away the passing lanes and besiege any player cutting into the critical scoring area. This new look defense frustrated the Terps and took them out of their normal rhythm. Eighteen turnovers is a testament to it's efficiency. I don't know if Syracuse uses this full time (this is the first cuse game I've seen this year) but this type of zone defense is all the rage now. It seems like everybody's using it. UNC uses it, Denver out "Stony Brooked" Stony Brook earlier this year, JMU parlayed it into a national championship, Penn has used it for years, Princeton, etc, etc and now Syracuse. Maryland seems to be one of the few teams strictly using the man defense which brings me to point number two.

The Terp's better get comfortable playing against it because they are going to see a steady diet starting this Wednesday with Penn. But not just Maryland, the shot clock era has ushered in this new defensive mentality. Previously if a defense packed it in an opposition could patiently pass the ball looking for opportunities until one presented itself (the Northwestern strategy) or just sit on the ball and force the defense to come out and get you (unless behind by fair amount). Now offenses have to find a way to penetrate without excessive turnovers. It will require good vision and pinpoint passes. Exploiting the inherent weakness (shooting space and three second calls) could be another way.

last, I've been very impressed with the play of Megan Taylor especially in high pressure situations. She was a rock down the stretch against both Carolina and Syracuse. Without her stellar play they lose both games.

[seacoaster]

Good to hear from you BRM. And thanks for these thoughts on the game.