Tweak the College Rules

[DMac]

as you read the articles, for hockey it's top hand strong at the butt end of the stick and weak hand low (closer to blade), as that's how the hockey stick sits. think of a 2 year old who can barely carry around a stick... and does so by grabbing it with one hand at the end, dragging it. he'll do it with his strong hand.
So I did have it wrong, top hand in hockey is the butt end, makes sense, it's the top of the stick when being used. Got it, understood the dragging part. In lacrosse top hand is the nearest to the sick hold, deep pocket. Makes sense too.

it's the opposite of what we call top and bottom hand of course in lacrosse as the stick is "raised" in the air... but as many of the motions are the same.... a righty magically has become a lefty lacrosse player.
Which doesn't explain why the righty little hockey boy who drags his stick across the floor, puts his right hand at the bottom (nearest the blade) of the stick and plays right handed. The dominate hand is on the top (butt end) for a lefty player, but the "weak/lesser" hand is on the top for a righty? Still comes out as pretty crazy in the end (to me).

he doesn't. per the articles, all the canadian hockey players are "lefty". Man, I don't know what I'm missing here, wg, I feel as if I'm saying the same thing. Yes, Canadian hockey players are "lefty". Right handed people with their dominant hand on the butt end. When right handed people play hockey, "righty" their dominant hand is on the bottom of the stick. It's the same kind of person, a right handed person, but each is using his dominant hand differently, no? kids grab it at the butt end with strong hand.... eventually, they earn to use 2 hands and put left hand low.
ciaches teach it, too.
You didn't have to throw this in there, I'm already confused. Thought it was another hockey thing I didn't know about...started to look the word up, but I figured it out.
give your nearest 2 year old a hockey stick or a golf club. they will drag it around with their strong hand.I get this part. They're right handed people, the right is the dominant hand. That dominant hand goes on the butt end when they play hockey which makes them a lefty hockey player. when you see them at xmas or easter, maybe they'll eventually listen to you and use their other hand, too. and their weak hand will go low, unless you correct them. You more mean, change them than correct them, right? Again, the same situation. Right hand dominant kid, naturally grabs the stick by the butt end but he ends up playing hockey righty. His right is still his dominant hand but he's using it on the bottom of the stick while the other natural righty is using his dominant hand on the top of the stick. Two natural right handed people using their dominant hand in a different way, no?

you can actually train about anyone to use their other side for anything. throwing, golf, baseball hitting, whatever. you just have to start them that way.
But this really is a different subject. Also the reason many lefties wrote right handed many years ago...and why some eat right handed too. Their fathers wouldn't tolerate the elbow bumping stuff.

[wgdsr]

i think we're on the same page.

obviously you know many canadians play hockey. a lot of them play lax left handed. on my high school lax team, we had about 7 or 8 guys played left hand dominant. almost all of them (maybe save one) played hockey. and all but two were right handed otherwise.

[DMac]

We had no Canadians or hockey players (no rink around, no HS team) on my HS team, yet quite a number of right handed people played lacrosse left handed. This is when I first noticed this oddity. To further complicate things, a number of these kids had never seen a lacrosse stick until they were in their teens (I never knew what lacrosse was until I was 12) as lacrosse hadn't made to town until then, and none of them dragged a hockey stick when they were 2. Right handed teens picking up a stick for the first time, (a wooden one to boot) and playing left. I knew these kids, had played hoops, dodgeball, baseball, football with them, they were typical righties who did everything else right handed, yet something that requires the feel and rythm of a lacrosse stick they did left. Just made no sense to me. The rest of the typical righties played right handed. So which is the dominant hand on a lacrosse stick? Some of those right handed people used their dominant hand on the bottom of the stick and some of them used their dominant hand on the top of their stick.
I'd bet a lot of the Canadian leftiness (new word) does come from the hockey stick. You really have no choice but to play left if you pick up a lefty stick, and I can see how that transfers to lacrosse. With my group none of that enters the picture though. After all is said and done, I don't think anyone's got it figured out. It's pretty nuts that so many left hand useless (righties) people play lacrosse left...makes no sense.
I play ball right handed (ping pong, left...definite advantage) and I'm a natural righty with a stick. I'm also a half azzed lefty who does a whole lot of things lefty, including writing. There are also quite a number of things that I'm equally comfortable doing with either hand. You would think that this righty ball player would be inclined to pick up a stick left handed, but then again, I've never really figured out which is my dominant hand.
As for your you can teach most folks to do things with either hand...the left handed Bambino wrote right handed. He also went to a Catholic school. Guess he didn't like getting smacked with that ruler, eh?

[Typical Lax Dad]

[*]

We had no Canadians or hockey players (no rink around, no HS team) on my HS team, yet quite a number of right handed people played lacrosse left handed. This is when I first noticed this oddity. To further complicate things, a number of these kids had never seen a lacrosse stick until they were in their teens (I never knew what lacrosse was until I was 12) as lacrosse hadn't made to town until then, and none of them dragged a hockey stick when they were 2. Right handed teens picking up a stick for the first time, (a wooden one to boot) and playing left. I knew these kids, had played hoops, dodgeball, baseball, football with them, they were typical righties who did everything else right handed, yet something that requires the feel and rythm of a lacrosse stick they did left. Just made no sense to me. The rest of the typical righties played right handed. So which is the dominant hand on a lacrosse stick? Some of those right handed people used their dominant hand on the bottom of the stick and some of them used their dominant hand on the top of their stick.
I'd bet a lot of the Canadian leftiness (new word) does come from the hockey stick. You really have no choice but to play left if you pick up a lefty stick, and I can see how that transfers to lacrosse. With my group none of that enters the picture though. After all is said and done, I don't think anyone's got it figured out. It's pretty nuts that so many left hand useless (righties) people play lacrosse left...makes no sense.
I play ball right handed (ping pong, left...definite advantage) and I'm a natural righty with a stick. I'm also a half azzed lefty who does a whole lot of things lefty, including writing. There are also quite a number of things that I'm equally comfortable doing with either hand. You would think that this righty ball player would be inclined to pick up a stick left handed, but then again, I've never really figured out which is my dominant hand.
As for your you can teach most folks to do things with either hand...the left handed Bambino wrote right handed. He also went to a Catholic school. Guess he didn't like getting smacked with that ruler, eh?

I was late to the game. I played lefty but was a natural righty. It just seemed natural!

[Cheeseandcrackers]

When teaching beginners I've noticed a lot of naturally right handed kids want to scoop the ball lefty, but catch/throw righty. I've seen some of the tougher cases get all the way to middle school age with this quirk. One advantage though - they get very adept at switching hands quickly.

[youthathletics]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

[wgdsr]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

this is at least close to being back to where they were a couple years ago. just have an opportunity to land closer to the goal.

the other aspect , i'd assume, is that the tighter confines will still have the jumping into the goalie -- 1 min penalty on the offense be a part of the rule. that part will still be a cluster, and has some people believing this is an unnecessary rule for the potential consequences.
should be easier to officiate than last year, though.

[D2fan]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

this is at least close to being back to where they were a couple years ago. just have an opportunity to land closer to the goal.

the other aspect , i'd assume, is that the tighter confines will still have the jumping into the goalie -- 1 min penalty on the offense be a part of the rule. that part will still be a cluster, and has some people believing this is an unnecessary rule for the potential consequences.
should be easier to officiate than last year, though.

I don't think it makes a difference at all. Now you'll have referees talking about players limbs landing in the crease. I can see it now "Did his hand hit the crease?" or "Well his foot landed inside the mouth".

The biggest problem with the dive last year was the differentiation between a "push from behind" and a "dive". The rules looked to have changed week to week with it. A crease within a crease does not fix that.

[youthathletics]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

this is at least close to being back to where they were a couple years ago. just have an opportunity to land closer to the goal.

the other aspect , i'd assume, is that the tighter confines will still have the jumping into the goalie -- 1 min penalty on the offense be a part of the rule. that part will still be a cluster, and has some people believing this is an unnecessary rule for the potential consequences.
should be easier to officiate than last year, though.

I don't think it makes a difference at all. Now you'll have referees talking about players limbs landing in the crease. I can see it now "Did his hand hit the crease?" or "Well his foot landed inside the mouth".

The biggest problem with the dive last year was the differentiation between a "push from behind" and a "dive". The rules looked to have changed week to week with it. A crease within a crease does not fix that.

I have no idea how how think this will be easier to call wgdsr. Take a look at this twitter feed for more on refs involvement. https://twitter.com/LaxFilmRoom/status/ ... 30294?s=20 Or just go to his home page to view more back and forth.

[wgdsr]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

this is at least close to being back to where they were a couple years ago. just have an opportunity to land closer to the goal.

the other aspect , i'd assume, is that the tighter confines will still have the jumping into the goalie -- 1 min penalty on the offense be a part of the rule. that part will still be a cluster, and has some people believing this is an unnecessary rule for the potential consequences.
should be easier to officiate than last year, though.

I don't think it makes a difference at all. Now you'll have referees talking about players limbs landing in the crease. I can see it now "Did his hand hit the crease?" or "Well his foot landed inside the mouth".

The biggest problem with the dive last year was the differentiation between a "push from behind" and a "dive". The rules looked to have changed week to week with it. A crease within a crease does not fix that.

I have no idea how how think this will be easier to call wgdsr. Take a look at this twitter feed for more on refs involvement. https://twitter.com/LaxFilmRoom/status/ ... 30294?s=20 Or just go to his home page to view more back and forth.

where is the rule written?

[wgdsr]

Well they went ahead and done did it: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Uop4hnUJ-/ The new ice-cream 'goal' shape. Too proud to admit they should have never brought it back....heck, the officials can barely call the current crease line consistently accurate, now the friggen refs have to watch two lines, the space between a goalie and the net, a shooter, the goalie, defender(s), and the ball. It's gonna be a thing of beauty.

this is at least close to being back to where they were a couple years ago. just have an opportunity to land closer to the goal.

the other aspect , i'd assume, is that the tighter confines will still have the jumping into the goalie -- 1 min penalty on the offense be a part of the rule. that part will still be a cluster, and has some people believing this is an unnecessary rule for the potential consequences.
should be easier to officiate than last year, though.

I don't think it makes a difference at all. Now you'll have referees talking about players limbs landing in the crease. I can see it now "Did his hand hit the crease?" or "Well his foot landed inside the mouth".

The biggest problem with the dive last year was the differentiation between a "push from behind" and a "dive". The rules looked to have changed week to week with it. A crease within a crease does not fix that.

how is the first part any different than 2018 - other than there are 2 different lines -- one for takeoff, and one for landing --- versus 1.

how is the second part any different than 2 years ago?

edit -- and what i mean by that is --- 2 years ago you could land in the crease if it was determined you were pushed. if you weren't, then landing in the crease would disallow a goal. last year --- they changed "landing in the crease" to "a direction away from the goalmouth". an abstract idea in many people's minds (and whistles). with the added kicker of a penalty.

now --- it's back to the same rules (unless we see it and it reads differently) as 2 years ago. just your landing spot is tighter to the cage. so there will likely be more contact with the goalie.
will probably keep the goalie-protection-penalty rule.
but again there will be more collisions.

[a fan]

last year --- they changed "landing in the crease" to "a direction away from the goalmouth". an abstract idea in many people's minds (and whistles). with the added kicker of a penalty.

Nothing abstract about it at all. The rule makes zero sense. That's section 21c.

It's mathematically impossible to start outside a circle, land inside a circle, and NOT be closer to the center point of the circle. Only way to land "in a direction away from the goal mouth" from your starting point outside the crease, is to land even further outside the crease.

Apparently no one on the rule committee passed 8th grade geometry. Honestly can't believe they printed that rule, and no one caught the error. They muddied the water even further by writing: "the goal mouth is the area directly in front of the goal cage, including the goal line", as if that fixed the mathematical impossibility they think they are describing.

[Homer]

It's mathematically impossible to start outside a circle, land inside a circle, and NOT be closer to the center point of the circle. Only way to land "in a direction away from the goal mouth" from your starting point outside the crease, is to land even further outside the crease.

Only if you assume that moving closer to a thing means the same as moving "in the direction of" that thing. Which for the most part I don't think is true.

[a fan]

If you want to add the qualifier "only in the direction of", sure. But no matter where a player lands, they are moving in the direction of the goal mouth. If they weren't, they wouldn't land in the crease.

They can ALSO be moving in the direction toward the sideline, for example. But in no case can they start outside the crease, land in the crease, and NOT be moving in a direction toward the goal mouth.

The rule is poorly written, is my point...

[AreaLax]

Goal mouth from yesterday scrimmage at Hofstra . It shows the interior dive circle

[Wheels]

[*]

We had no Canadians or hockey players (no rink around, no HS team) on my HS team, yet quite a number of right handed people played lacrosse left handed. This is when I first noticed this oddity. To further complicate things, a number of these kids had never seen a lacrosse stick until they were in their teens (I never knew what lacrosse was until I was 12) as lacrosse hadn't made to town until then, and none of them dragged a hockey stick when they were 2. Right handed teens picking up a stick for the first time, (a wooden one to boot) and playing left. I knew these kids, had played hoops, dodgeball, baseball, football with them, they were typical righties who did everything else right handed, yet something that requires the feel and rythm of a lacrosse stick they did left. Just made no sense to me. The rest of the typical righties played right handed. So which is the dominant hand on a lacrosse stick? Some of those right handed people used their dominant hand on the bottom of the stick and some of them used their dominant hand on the top of their stick.
I'd bet a lot of the Canadian leftiness (new word) does come from the hockey stick. You really have no choice but to play left if you pick up a lefty stick, and I can see how that transfers to lacrosse. With my group none of that enters the picture though. After all is said and done, I don't think anyone's got it figured out. It's pretty nuts that so many left hand useless (righties) people play lacrosse left...makes no sense.
I play ball right handed (ping pong, left...definite advantage) and I'm a natural righty with a stick. I'm also a half azzed lefty who does a whole lot of things lefty, including writing. There are also quite a number of things that I'm equally comfortable doing with either hand. You would think that this righty ball player would be inclined to pick up a stick left handed, but then again, I've never really figured out which is my dominant hand.
As for your you can teach most folks to do things with either hand...the left handed Bambino wrote right handed. He also went to a Catholic school. Guess he didn't like getting smacked with that ruler, eh?

I was late to the game. I played lefty but was a natural righty. It just seemed natural!

Catching a baseball isn't too dissimilar from catching a lacrosse ball. People I know who played a lot of baseball and softball but not lacrosse will typically try to catch left handed and throw right handed (or visa versa if they throw left handed).

After college, I played some roller hockey with friends. The hockey stick wasn't mine, and I hated not being able to switch hands with the stick.

[xxxxxxx]

I have questions, if you dive into the crease and any part of your body touches the line what happens? Is a goal disallowed? Is the offensive player penalized? Looking at a crease with my own eyes on Saturday, it looks almost impossible to dive into a crease and not touch part of the cone line.

[wgdsr]

I have questions, if you dive into the crease and any part of your body touches the line what happens? Is a goal disallowed? Is the offensive player penalized? Looking at a crease with my own eyes on Saturday, it looks almost impossible to dive into a crease and not touch part of the cone line.

i haven't seen the official rule as written.
here is at least part of it via us lacrosse press release, including rulings for the diver:
https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/m ... dive-alive
i have also recently seen a tweet from someone that may know how it has been written purportedly, that says there will also be a penalty if you dive "toward the goalmouth" ("in the direction of" for you, d mac) and you land in the cone/goalmouth lines. 1 minute.

if this last part is true, then we basically have the same subjective ruling that has to be made from 2019, but they are now ADDING a place you cannot land, and adding that in some instances (initiating contact with goalie), the refs will have to determine at least:
1) if the offensive player initiated contact
2) if he took off outside the outer crease
3) if the goalie was inside the inner crease
4) if the offensive player landed inside the inner crease and/or dove "toward the goalmouth"
5) if everything is properly no or yes above, if the ball went in before any contact

which means -- i take everything back i said before about this being a potentially more simple version than last year, and even one that's closer to no crease diving. this, ladies and gentlemen, sounds like an absolute cluster****.

[xxxxxxx]

Thanks wgdsr, my main question remains, if you dive into the crease and touch the cone line, what happens? It seems almost impossible to me, to dive into the crease and not at least touch the cone line???

[wgdsr]

Thanks wgdsr, my main question remains, if you dive into the crease and touch the cone line, what happens? It seems almost impossible to me, to dive into the crease and not at least touch the cone line???

did you read the linked article?
land in the goal mouth, no goal and no penalty if no contact with goalie.
if you initiate contact with goalie (who is in the goalmouth), 1 minute penalty.
in addition, if what i referenced above is also correct --- if you dive "toward the goalmouth", then one minute penalty whether you hit the goalie or not.

touching the line would be considered the same as being in the goalmouth. as it's only 3 feet of difference, the rule is only giving you that extra space to land. you can't really fit a whole body within it, as you suggest. it's basically just giving you that amount of room from inside the outer crease, so a little tighter. essentially, you can now land on the outer crease line (and just inside it), but you're not getting the entire inner crease.