How is New Shot Clock and Dive Rule going n Fall Ball

[Typical Lax Dad]

Got it. Don't disagree that it is sometimes easier, but again, that comes with "lucky enough" to hit a pipe (and retain possession with a new clock) but I'll take that over the subjectivity of the stall call.

80 seconds is a good amount of time. The 20 second clear is far more disruptive. Turnovers are up but Caused Turnovers are down. The clock is causing TOs is my interpretation. I didn’t mind the old game.

[laxpert]

My shot clock complaint is with half a field and 80 seconds its too easy for the leading team to kill clock in the closing minutes of play. Maybe bring back some version of the "Get it in keep it in" box rule in the last two minutes.

I like the dive but the lack of a definitive goal mouth makes it difficult to adjudicate. On multi use turf fields between football, soccer womens lax there already too many lines that intersect the crease area. Would increased onus on the offensive player to avoid any contact with the GK in the crease area help?

[CU77]

All in all, I'm pretty darn satisfied with what the clock has brought to the game and I think they just need to leave all clock things alone.

Me too, and I was a strong opponent of the shot clock, so much so that I was ready to stop watching lax entirely if it was as bad as I feared it would be.

So, having just agreed with DMac that "they just need to leave all clock things alone", if I was making changes, the one change I would make is to end the clearing clock entirely. Just have the 80 sec shot clock, period. If you want to use 75 sec to get the ball in the opponent's box and then take a shot, fine.

Oh, and the dive rule is an abomination that needs to go ASAP.

[SCLaxAttack]

All in all, I'm pretty darn satisfied with what the clock has brought to the game and I think they just need to leave all clock things alone.

Me too, and I was a strong opponent of the shot clock, so much so that I was ready to stop watching lax entirely if it was as bad as I feared it would be.

So, having just agreed with DMac that "they just need to leave all clock things alone", if I was making changes, the one change I would make is to end the clearing clock entirely. Just have the 80 sec shot clock, period. If you want to use 75 sec to get the ball in the opponent's box and then take a shot, fine.

Oh, and the dive rule is an abomination that needs to go ASAP.

+3

Previous opponent to a shot clock now eating my words? Check.

A single time clock, with no regard to how long to get over mid-field? Check.

Dump the dive. Check.

[wgdsr]

riding, and creating turnovers from it, is one of the most exciting plays in the game. rewards hustle and tenacity. anyone can do it, doesn't take "talent". it had been dormant, which was deflating, but now is finally back.
no idea why anyone would be against that part of the game.

que sera.

[thatsmell]

Given the new shot clock rules, and the ability to really run out a game with that last couple possessions, I think it may be interesting to implement:

Under 2:00- keep it in the box
and
Under 2:00- the shot clock gets turned off.

The shot clock has actually made it easier to kill off a game.

I agree.

I was following the reasoning that the shot clock was implemented to create more possessions and not allow “keep away.”

Look at Towson Loyola. Seeing Stover make a great save for Loyola, only to see Towson retain possession and get a final 80 seconds on the shot clock and spread out across an entire half field and easily run out the clock made me think it would make the end of games a tad more interesting.

[RedFromMI]

BTW, at least some scoreboard controllers have the ability to handle two different reset times on the shot clock. Men's basketball shot clock (NCAA) resets to 20 seconds if time is less than that for a defensive foul of punch/kick of the ball if the ball is to be inbounded instead of a shot taken.

But in particular, the Daktronics 5000 controller has two reset buttons on the shot clock hand control. Don't know what the situation is for other controllers...

[CU77]

I was following the reasoning that the shot clock was implemented to create more possessions and not allow “keep away.”

And that's exactly what it does. You cannot play "keep away" for more than 80 seconds, which is 2.2% of total game time.

Look at Towson Loyola. Seeing Stover make a great save for Loyola, only to see Towson retain possession and get a final 80 seconds

Stover needed to control the rebound, or have his team get the 50-50 ground ball if he couldn't. Don't do those things, and then, yes, you lose the game.

The vast majority of games in all sports do not have an exciting final 80 seconds. IMO, no need to tweak the rules to try to pump it up in lax.

[stupefied]

I was following the reasoning that the shot clock was implemented to create more possessions and not allow “keep away.”

And that's exactly what it does. You cannot play "keep away" for more than 80 seconds, which is 2.2% of total game time.

Look at Towson Loyola. Seeing Stover make a great save for Loyola, only to see Towson retain possession and get a final 80 seconds

Stover needed to control the rebound, or have his team get the 50-50 ground ball if he couldn't. Don't do those things, and then, yes, you lose the game.

The vast majority of games in all sports do not have an exciting final 80 seconds. IMO, no need to tweak the rules to try to pump it up in lax.

Hallelujah. Spot on CU77. Shot clock has indeed created more possessions, trailing team failing to make the needed plays in closing minute is of their own doing. Make a clean save, grab the loose gb, go after the ballcarrier

[reLAX]

I was following the reasoning that the shot clock was implemented to create more possessions and not allow “keep away.”

And that's exactly what it does. You cannot play "keep away" for more than 80 seconds, which is 2.2% of total game time.

Look at Towson Loyola. Seeing Stover make a great save for Loyola, only to see Towson retain possession and get a final 80 seconds

Stover needed to control the rebound, or have his team get the 50-50 ground ball if he couldn't. Don't do those things, and then, yes, you lose the game.

The vast majority of games in all sports do not have an exciting final 80 seconds. IMO, no need to tweak the rules to try to pump it up in lax.

Hallelujah. Spot on CU77. Shot clock has indeed created more possessions, trailing team failing to make the needed plays in closing minute is of their own doing. Make a clean save, grab the loose gb, go after the ballcarrier

Seems easy enough....

[HooDat]

All in all, I'm pretty darn satisfied with what the clock has brought to the game and I think they just need to leave all clock things alone.

Me too, and I was a strong opponent of the shot clock, so much so that I was ready to stop watching lax entirely if it was as bad as I feared it would be.

So, having just agreed with DMac that "they just need to leave all clock things alone", if I was making changes, the one change I would make is to end the clearing clock entirely. Just have the 80 sec shot clock, period. If you want to use 75 sec to get the ball in the opponent's box and then take a shot, fine.

Oh, and the dive rule is an abomination that needs to go ASAP.

+3

Previous opponent to a shot clock now eating my words? Check.

A single time clock, with no regard to how long to get over mid-field? Check.

Dump the dive. Check.

me too!

and CU77 is spot on here:

The vast majority of games in all sports do not have an exciting final 80 seconds. IMO, no need to tweak the rules to try to pump it up in lax.

[thatsmell]

I love the 20 seconds to clear the midfield line. A good ride, pressing on the poles and getting them to turn back and redirect can cause a delay and turnover. Good to see the attackmen riding and middies licking down their men mean something!

[fitzlax]

Dmac,
Thanks for your research. I hope a pint or 2 was involved in the review.

When I come across refs before or after my son's games, I'll ask them about this scenario.

Dmac,
I asked 2 refs yesterday before a game. They both agreed with our understanding of the rule. With a new 80sec clock and possession on the offensive side, it's OK for the ball to cross back to the defensive end. The ball must be in the offensive end when the clock hits 60sec.

[DMac]

I think across the board most folks are pretty pleased with what the shot clock has brought to the game, count me in with that group. I was one who was opposed to the clock but was one who screamed about "fixing the sticks" (which truly still needs addressing, the "hold" these sticks have really is awful, it's just way too much) as the answer to speeding up the game. Eventually you had to succumb to the fact that sticks were never going to be fixed and the clock was the answer and I think the eighty second clock pretty much nailed it (I favored a ninety second clock but the eighty second clock works great). I must say though, I find it kind of comical that the clock has actually made it easier to use the clock to your advantage much earlier in the game than you could with the subjective stall call (which really is what all the screaming was about prior to the clock coming to the game). With a two or three goal lead you can actually go into a stall mode with 5, 6, 7...minutes left in the game whereas before you'd hear a lot of screaming for the stall call to be put on early in that team's possession(s). Damn those unintended consequenses, eh? I'd imagine in the not too distant future we'll see a sixty second clock on the reset (which I'm okay with) but even at that teams might be able to bleed the clock better than they could with the subjective stall call. Any way you look at it the clock has brought the game back much closer to the game that was coined the fastest game on two feet. Think you'll still see more running in the girl's game though, the guys couldn't up with those gals.

[stupefied]

I think across the board most folks are pretty pleased with what the shot clock has brought to the game, count me in with that group. I was one who was opposed to the clock but was one who screamed about "fixing the sticks" (which truly still needs addressing, the "hold" these sticks have really is awful, it's just way too much) as the answer to speeding up the game. Eventually you had to succumb to the fact that sticks were never going to be fixed and the clock was the answer and I think the eighty second clock pretty much nailed it (I favored a ninety second clock but the eighty second clock works great). I must say though, I find it kind of comical that the clock has actually made it easier to use the clock to your advantage much earlier in the game than you could with the subjective stall call (which really is what all the screaming was about prior to the clock coming to the game). With a two or three goal lead you can actually go into a stall mode with 5, 6, 7...minutes left in the game whereas before you'd hear a lot of screaming for the stall call to be put on early in that team's possession(s). Damn those unintended consequenses, eh? I'd imagine in the not too distant future we'll see a sixty second clock on the reset (which I'm okay with) but even at that teams might be able to bleed the clock better than they could with the subjective stall call. Any way you look at it the clock has brought the game back much closer to the game that was coined the fastest game on two feet. Think you'll still see more running in the girl's game though, the guys couldn't up with those gals.
[/quote

A few wont be content until the trailing team in last five minutes is given the ball at every turn to catch up.

Do away with the crease dive , fix the reset. Wish both done today.

Wont be surprised if lowering the shot clock by 5-10 seconds is considered when the rules committee formally meets in a year and a half. Gotta tinker with something other than further increasing injury risk

[HooDat]

I think across the board most folks are pretty pleased with what the shot clock has brought to the game, count me in with that group. I was one who was opposed to the clock but was one who screamed about "fixing the sticks" (which truly still needs addressing, the "hold" these sticks have really is awful, it's just way too much) as the answer to speeding up the game. Eventually you had to succumb to the fact that sticks were never going to be fixed and the clock was the answer and I think the eighty second clock pretty much nailed it (I favored a ninety second clock but the eighty second clock works great). I must say though, I find it kind of comical that the clock has actually made it easier to use the clock to your advantage much earlier in the game than you could with the subjective stall call (which really is what all the screaming was about prior to the clock coming to the game). With a two or three goal lead you can actually go into a stall mode with 5, 6, 7...minutes left in the game whereas before you'd hear a lot of screaming for the stall call to be put on early in that team's possession(s). Damn those unintended consequenses, eh? I'd imagine in the not too distant future we'll see a sixty second clock on the reset (which I'm okay with) but even at that teams might be able to bleed the clock better than they could with the subjective stall call. Any way you look at it the clock has brought the game back much closer to the game that was coined the fastest game on two feet. Think you'll still see more running in the girl's game though, the guys couldn't up with those gals.

agreed on ALL fronts (including the sticks part)

[ABV 8.3%]

Given the new shot clock rules, and the ability to really run out a game with that last couple possessions, I think it may be interesting to implement:

Under 2:00- keep it in the box
and
Under 2:00- the shot clock gets turned off.

The shot clock has actually made it easier to kill off a game.

I agree.

I was following the reasoning that the shot clock was implemented to create more possessions and not allow “keep away.”

Look at Towson Loyola. Seeing Stover make a great save for Loyola, only to see Towson retain possession and get a final 80 seconds on the shot clock and spread out across an entire half field and easily run out the clock made me think it would make the end of games a tad more interesting.

Different opinion here. Princeton had a 3 goal lead, with 2:50 left to go in the game. And, they were man up. Denver hedged and let Princeton burn the clock, instead of pressing out. Almost pulled out a tie, but. Fun ending. Isn't this game all about fun?

[bearlaxfan]

Did see that in the P'ton game, but otherwise have noticed that in games with a, say, 3/4+ goal lead the final few minutes can resemble what the girls' game used to be like. Maybe a 'keep it in the box final 2 mins' could be a 2021 tweak. Other than that, I like the 20/80 A LOT.

[calourie]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... play/54116

Here is some definitive analysis. I think the shot clock has done wonders for the game that I already delighted in. I actually think it increases overall parity because i think it weights more heavily both hustle and determination as a success determining team attribute than has been the case in the past few years. A bit surprisingly this attribute has gained impact not only in the ride but in offensive urgency as well. Hustle and determination can often unsettle even the most talented of teams on offense as the clock runs down which seems to be creating more ground balls and turnovers in favor of a team who is initiating the most resolve. If the more talented is being the mental and physical aggressor it often spells doom for the talent deficient, but on the other hand pure effort is often the only advantage a perennial also-ran has against a more talented, top-notch recruitied team . I may be wrong and one or more of our determined stats analysts can probably put up some numbers that either validate or confirm my view, but until then I am firmly entrenched in the "unexpectedly positive change for the game" camp.

[HooDat]

I did not expect to like the clock, but found I do. And I agree with Dmac's suggestion of a possible a migration to a 60 second restart at some point.