Re: Rule Changes for β22 season
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:39 pm
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
You said it. There's a shortage as it is.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 6:39 pmWe really can't stand to lose more officials in this game
The stick check is much more integral than giving the players a reason to celebrate. It was actually just put in place in 2016. If you played or were involved in the sport before the post-goal stick check existed, then you know the drama surrounding illegal pockets and coaches asking for stick checks made the post-goal stick check a welcomed rule.OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 6:44 pm Think about it though--if this trend of making lacrosse supposedly "more palatable for the masses" and turning it into basketball on a field with sticks, there's no place for the stick check. I like the stick check. I enjoy the stick drop/slam/fling celebrations. I hope it never goes away. I'm just apprehensive about the way some of the post NCAA brands of lacrosse are adopting this "six chicks" Olympic brand. I hope it never happens myself.
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 6:44 pm Think about it though--if this trend of making lacrosse supposedly "more palatable for the masses" and turning it into basketball on a field with sticks, there's no place for the stick check. I like the stick check. I enjoy the stick drop/slam/fling celebrations. I hope it never goes away. I'm just apprehensive about the way some of the post NCAA brands of lacrosse are adopting this "six chicks" Olympic brand. I hope it never happens myself.
I'm aware.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 7:36 pm The stick check is much more integral than giving the players a reason to celebrate. It was actually just put in place in 2016. If you played or were involved in the sport before the post-goal stick check existed, then you know the drama surrounding illegal pockets and coaches asking for stick checks made the post-goal stick check a welcomed rule.
Great comparison.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 7:36 pm The closest thing I can liken the stick check to is checking for foreign substances on pitchers. Were a lot of them using substances before? yeah. Were a lot more players running around with illegal pockets before the post-goal stick check existed & yanking on strings after they scored in case the other coach called for a stick check? yeah. Whereas foreign substances gave a huge advantage to the defense, illegal pockets do that for the offense. It's significantly much harder to dislodge the ball from an illegal pocket with a stick check. It's also more difficult to play good defense/slide/double team/pressure to get the attacker to bobble the ball or make a mistake if the ball stays in the pocket regardless.
I was paraphrasing Larry:wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 7:36 pm I also firmly do not believe that the goal is to turn the sport in to "basketball on a field with sticks". If that version of the sport is what gets into the olympics and gives lacrosse any kind of international visibility outside of its own world cup, I think it can be a good thing. And I don't think the NCAA or any lacrosse sponsoring schools will be rushing to turn their version of lacrosse into the sixes one simply because of the sheer cost alone. Then the high school and youth programs would have to change. I just don't see it happening. I think the collegiate game and sixes can coexist, not within the NCAA, but just as variations on the same sport.
He was referring to the "six chicks" version of the game but I borrowed and added because I just hope that brand never invades the college ranks. I don't disagree with anything you said wlaxphan. I hope you're right about the future of the game. Sometimes I get a little worried reading some of the hype outsurrounding these new versions and talk of how the game has to change to make it more palatable for the masses, and the Olympics.LarryGamLax wrote: βSun Jul 18, 2021 4:05 am
I'm not interested in watching a Lacrosse game turn into a Basketball game. If I want to watch Bball, I will watch Bball players.
Great post Bart. Agreed. My guess is this is a coaches' change, so they can stem momentum and see their offense and defenses in quarters rather than a half. I always wanted my offense near me in the second half. Maybe coaches want more proximity to both ends during the game. Either way, I like 30/30.Bart wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:31 pmSorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.DMac wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:19 pmGotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 4:51 pm I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.
Gotcha, I didn't see Larry's post about basketball. I really just think, logistically, women's lacrosse as it is is too established to do something as drastic as reduce the size of the field by more than half as well as the rosters. The fall out and time it would take to implement that would be costly, which makes me less nervous about changes like that to the sport. Box and field lacrosse have been able to coexist, hopefully sixes can do the same. At least, this is what I keep telling myself.OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 8:23 pm
I was paraphrasing Larry:
He was referring to the "six chicks" version of the game but I borrowed and added because I just hope that brand never invades the college ranks. I don't disagree with anything you said wlaxphan. I hope you're right about the future of the game. Sometimes I get a little worried reading some of the hype outsurrounding these new versions and talk of how the game has to change to make it more palatable for the masses, and the Olympics.LarryGamLax wrote: βSun Jul 18, 2021 4:05 am
I'm not interested in watching a Lacrosse game turn into a Basketball game. If I want to watch Bball, I will watch Bball players.
That's reassuring.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 9:20 pm I really just think, logistically, women's lacrosse as it is is too established to do something as drastic as reduce the size of the field by more than half as well as the rosters. The fall out and time it would take to implement that would be costly, which makes me less nervous about changes like that to the sport.
Yes it would! It just happens at a disproportionate amount compared to the scrutiny of the attackers and midfielders pockets, especially with goalie clears being an option. The players are so conditioned to the pregame stick check, it all runs very smoothly. All the official has to do is drop the ball in (they shouldn't be pressing it down). It probably takes an average of 1.5-3 seconds/player. Even for teams with the biggest rosters like Syracuse and Northwestern who carry almost 50 girls, the pregame stick check would take about 2.5-3 mins and that's being generous.OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βFri Jul 23, 2021 4:14 am One person I read on social media said they weren't happy at all about the elimination of the pregame stick check. I'm guessing they think that will give more room for players to make their pockets illegal. If players aren't typically inside the 30, and they often clear, would that be an advantage? It would make it more difficult to cause turnovers on the ride.
And I missed this earlier but I agree on the draw stick. Length and width of the head for the same reason they have it in the men's game - if the head is so narrow the ball gets stuck it's an unfair advantage.
I'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.Bart wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:31 pmSorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.DMac wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:19 pmGotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 4:51 pm I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.
It also allows teams to keep their best players in longer. D told me that the 15 minute range was where the coaches wanted to get subs in for starters to break. Quarters may solve that problem. Great for starters, not so much for subs.Brownlax wrote: βFri Jul 23, 2021 12:55 pmI'm a big fan of going to quarters. It gives coaches more time to actually coach their players.Bart wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:31 pmSorry DMac, I see it as a huge deal. Just for what you indicate. You are going to play differently at 14 minutes up by one with a minute to go in the quarter than you would up by 1 at the 14 minute mark with 16 minutes left. The 30 minute half is unique and, imo, allows for large momentum swings like wlp20 indicated. This rule just pumps the breaks. I have more than once in watching a men's game seen a team "get out of a quarter" that they were clearly in trouble in only to rebound starting the next quarter. Had they been playing halves the coach would have either had to take a TO, if they had any, or swing the momentum on the field. Sorry, not a fan of this change.DMac wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 5:19 pmGotta figure it will definitely change the way a teams plays whether they're up or down with 1-2 minutes left in the quarter.wlaxphan20 wrote: βThu Jul 22, 2021 4:51 pm I feel like the 30 minute halves gave teams time to build momentum and go on runs, and I'm curious to see if playing quarters changes anything. Of course, the men's game is still a game of momentum swings and runs, and they've always played quarters.
You'll play differently with a minute or two left as opposed to having seventeen or eighteen. Definitely adds two more potential momentum breakers during those breaks. I like the thirty minutes, but not a huge deal changing to quarters.
As a HS girls coach I like quarters for the same reason. Now give girls/women the same number of time-outs as boys/men!
Interesting, and this is something on which reasonable people can disagree -- but this is exactly why I don't like it, and I am really doubtful it will be a benefit to anyone other than a coach trying to control a downslide. Almost every sport I watch is overcoached (and men's lacrosse is among the worst examples of this disease). The 30 minute halves made crucial the coaching pre-game, at the half, and in the flow of play. Time outs are available; now we have added what are, in effect, two additional time outs. Not a good change from this fan's perspective.OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βFri Jul 23, 2021 2:35 pmI like this perspective on one of the benefits of going to quarters.
Your opinion on this carries more weight as you have been a coach. So I defer in that respect.seacoaster wrote: βFri Jul 23, 2021 3:30 pmInteresting, and this is something on which reasonable people can disagree -- but this is exactly why I don't like it, and I am really doubtful it will be a benefit to anyone other than a coach trying to control a downslide. Almost every sport I watch is overcoached (and men's lacrosse is among the worst examples of this disease). The 30 minute halves made crucial the coaching pre-game, at the half, and in the flow of play. Time outs are available; now we have added what are, in effect, two additional time outs. Not a good change from this fan's perspective.OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: βFri Jul 23, 2021 2:35 pmI like this perspective on one of the benefits of going to quarters.
Which is hypocritical because the NCAA allotted 2-1/2 hour time slots for the menβs games this past tournament.
it's almost as if they are encouraging a game that is closer and closer to the boy's game. eliminate stick checks thus deep pockets, allow mesh pockets, specialized draw sticks, quarters instead of halves, 60 second shot clocks....