Boston College

[wlaxphan20]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

It’s definitely a tough call to make, and the way the rules are written makes it, I think, largely open to interpretation. Don’t envy the officials at all there

[LarryGamLax]

Larry,

This is Rachel Hall's dad. I think it is sad that an old man hides behind a pseudonym to consistently denigrate a 21 year old girl who has fought to achieve everything she has accomplished against all odds. I am glad that people like you did not have the opportunity to influence her along the way, but instead she received the encouragement and praise of the likes of Kayla Treanor, Katrina Dowd, AWW, KAH and other great coaches who saw something in her. She is not mediocre, and if you were to meet her you would find her engaging, intelligent and with perhaps as much if not more knowledge about today's modern game of women's lacrosse than you.

I appreciate everyone who sticks up for her in this forum, but I fear you are only just feeding the troll and Rachel doesn't need help that makes her the brunt of misplayed and uninformed spoutings of an armchair goalie whose knowledge of the game appears grounded in the last century.

I really hope this is the last of this and you can move on to insulting someone else's daughter and not use mine as your example of today's mediocracy in women's lacrosse.

Mic drop. Good on ya, dad.

Sometimes you reach a point with bullies where they need to be either punched in the nose or publicly humiliated. You did both!

Hey CO...when I'm well and healthy again, I'm going to give you THAT opportunity. When you get that opportunity, don't mess up!

[LarryGamLax]

In Beantown, we call that a scorchah.

(Is the fire extinguisher handy?)

I don't know where the fire is. Last time I checked I didn't see any burn marks on me.

Truth is you stepped in it Larry—again. It wasn’t that long ago that you provoked another Dad on this board with your cringe-worthy unrestrained remarks about his daughter.

And what a (NOT!) surprise—no one else with the sand to call you out. All the moral giants strangely silent on the sidelines. But I’m too effusive and ignorant in my assessment of Charlotte North. Of mice and men indeed. Where are the air sick bags. 

I stepped in nothing. I expressed my thoughts on the play of COLLEGE athletes and 2 guys acted like I called their daughters every nasty name you can hear in a Rap. 2 guys acted like I told the Forum their daughters were dating Kanye West. Miss me with the BS!

Again, let me make this Crystal Clear...I AIN'T GOIN NOWHERE! Block me or do whatever you want. I have invested a lot of time and energy into Women's Athletics over 30+ years. I have done a lot that I am proud of and I am not going to let a few people take that away.

So you don't gotta leave, but you gotta get the hell up out of here! Hope that is understood.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

In Beantown, we call that a scorchah.

(Is the fire extinguisher handy?)

I don't know where the fire is. Last time I checked I didn't see any burn marks on me.

Truth is you stepped in it Larry—again. It wasn’t that long ago that you provoked another Dad on this board with your cringe-worthy unrestrained remarks about his daughter.

And what a (NOT!) surprise—no one else with the sand to call you out. All the moral giants strangely silent on the sidelines. But I’m too effusive and ignorant in my assessment of Charlotte North. Of mice and men indeed. Where are the air sick bags. 

I stepped in nothing. I expressed my thoughts on the play of COLLEGE athletes and 2 guys acted like I called their daughters every nasty name you can hear in a Rap. 2 guys acted like I told the Forum their daughters were dating Kanye West. Miss me with the BS!

Again, let me make this Crystal Clear...I AIN'T GOIN NOWHERE! Block me or do whatever you want. I have invested a lot of time and energy into Women's Athletics over 30+ years. I have done a lot that I am proud of and I am not going to let a few people take that away.

So you don't gotta leave, but you gotta get the hell up out of here! Hope that is understood.

Empty, proud, blustery words of denial flying in the face of what actually happened.

[8meterPA]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

[DMac]

Now you're making stuff up, Larry. If you think you don't come on strong and harsh, I'd bet you're the only one who thinks that (and I think you know it and do it purposely). If you're being honest, one of those gals experienced you and your training and wasn't thrilled with it and moved on. Doesn't make you a bad person, can't please all the people the time, not everyone is going to like your style. Doesn't make them bad people either. You need to expect pushback/retaliation when you come on the way you do.

So you don't gotta leave, but you gotta get the hell up out of here! Hope that is understood.

I think I understand but please explain. This is an unwarranted accusation of racism? Please tell me I'm wrong.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

And for the record Larry, I’m not looking for you to go anywhere. As I said before, I like what you write. But I must add—within reason. Sometimes you just have to look before you leap when you post something here. I’ve had to learn that. Obviously we can’t please everybody all the time with everything we post but you get to learn what is really out of bounds. Plus, it’s much more enjoyable to get along with people here than it is to fight with them. Just a thought.

[Can Opener]

Larry,

This is Rachel Hall's dad. I think it is sad that an old man hides behind a pseudonym to consistently denigrate a 21 year old girl who has fought to achieve everything she has accomplished against all odds. I am glad that people like you did not have the opportunity to influence her along the way, but instead she received the encouragement and praise of the likes of Kayla Treanor, Katrina Dowd, AWW, KAH and other great coaches who saw something in her. She is not mediocre, and if you were to meet her you would find her engaging, intelligent and with perhaps as much if not more knowledge about today's modern game of women's lacrosse than you.

I appreciate everyone who sticks up for her in this forum, but I fear you are only just feeding the troll and Rachel doesn't need help that makes her the brunt of misplayed and uninformed spoutings of an armchair goalie whose knowledge of the game appears grounded in the last century.

I really hope this is the last of this and you can move on to insulting someone else's daughter and not use mine as your example of today's mediocracy in women's lacrosse.

Mic drop. Good on ya, dad.

Sometimes you reach a point with bullies where they need to be either punched in the nose or publicly humiliated. You did both!

Hey CO...when I'm well and healthy again, I'm going to give you THAT opportunity. When you get that opportunity, don't mess up!

Sincere best wishes for a full recovery from your medical issues. This is just barroom banter and nowhere near as important as overall health and happiness.

[Dr. Tact]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

[8meterPA]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

[Dr. Tact]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

8M that was always my understanding as well. Interesting that USLax would post that if it was questionable. I guess cause it is a "Cool" video....

[tothedraw]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

I wish my eyes were better to see that more clearly . But as 8meterPA said, by definition it is dangerous propelling. IMO, a lot of the highlight shots - btb, wind up from outside, no look etc are dangerous and should be called. Traditionally the onus was on the shooter to not put anyone in front of her in harms way. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore and if an official doesn't call shooting space quickly or a teammate doesn't get out of the way players just rip it.
Stick and stringing advancement along with player strength/mechanics have totally changed how women shoot.
Not sure what the answer is, things happen soooo fast. I certainly don't want to officiate a collegiate game and you aren't turning back what's already being done. I'm afraid it's going to come to a catastrophic injury to either add more equipment or go back to traditional thinking in regards to shooter responsibility. Ant input appreciated.

[DMac]

by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

I don't see that in this shot. Granted she initiates her motion with no line of sight, but she finishes it looking right at the goal which includes the space between with no players in it. Had there been someone there she could've held back on shooting. Stick didn't hit the defender on the follow through, looks okay to me.

[Dr. Tact]

[
I wish my eyes were better to see that more clearly . But as 8meterPA said, by definition it is dangerous propelling. IMO, a lot of the highlight shots - btb, wind up from outside, no look etc are dangerous and should be called. Traditionally the onus was on the shooter to not put anyone in front of her in harms way.

I agree with you. We went to a game in Baltimore where a ref was clearly over his head....made quite a few bizarre calls, then reversed them. D told me he used to ref her HS games....anyway, my point is that Refs are human, have various levels of experience and are often in the wrong spot to see everything. I tend to think that if a player I root for took that shot, it would be a YC

[8meterPA]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

I wish my eyes were better to see that more clearly . But as 8meterPA said, by definition it is dangerous propelling. IMO, a lot of the highlight shots - btb, wind up from outside, no look etc are dangerous and should be called. Traditionally the onus was on the shooter to not put anyone in front of her in harms way. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore and if an official doesn't call shooting space quickly or a teammate doesn't get out of the way players just rip it.
Stick and stringing advancement along with player strength/mechanics have totally changed how women shoot.
Not sure what the answer is, things happen soooo fast. I certainly don't want to officiate a collegiate game and you aren't turning back what's already being done. I'm afraid it's going to come to a catastrophic injury to either add more equipment or go back to traditional thinking in regards to shooter responsibility. Ant input appreciated.

You are spot on about the potential dangers given the advancement of women's sticks & stringing as well as strength training. The shots are harder and harder and the game is played at a much faster pace. There is very little margin for error and the refs have a nano second to call shooting space at times. Yet the women still have no protection other than a pair of goggles which really offer little protection. I also worry about the catastrophic event that may lead to a change in the game. Some women are shooting in the 70's, so it's a scary thought. For those of you that played baseball, hold a lacrosse ball in one hand and a baseball in the other hand...I'd rather be hit by the baseball (well rather not be hit at all).

[wlaxphan20]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

8M that was always my understanding as well. Interesting that USLax would post that if it was questionable. I guess cause it is a "Cool" video....

By definition then, that between the legs shot from Sammy Jo Tracy that ended up in SC top 10 should’ve technically been a call, correct? I know there wasn’t really any power behind it & the shot was on the ground, so there wasn’t a ton of danger in hindsight, but it just shows how much gray area there is in the rule.

[wlaxphan20]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

I wish my eyes were better to see that more clearly . But as 8meterPA said, by definition it is dangerous propelling. IMO, a lot of the highlight shots - btb, wind up from outside, no look etc are dangerous and should be called. Traditionally the onus was on the shooter to not put anyone in front of her in harms way. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore and if an official doesn't call shooting space quickly or a teammate doesn't get out of the way players just rip it.
Stick and stringing advancement along with player strength/mechanics have totally changed how women shoot.
Not sure what the answer is, things happen soooo fast. I certainly don't want to officiate a collegiate game and you aren't turning back what's already being done. I'm afraid it's going to come to a catastrophic injury to either add more equipment or go back to traditional thinking in regards to shooter responsibility. Ant input appreciated.

You are spot on about the potential dangers given the advancement of women's sticks & stringing as well as strength training. The shots are harder and harder and the game is played at a much faster pace. There is very little margin for error and the refs have a nano second to call shooting space at times. Yet the women still have no protection other than a pair of goggles which really offer little protection. I also worry about the catastrophic event that may lead to a change in the game. Some women are shooting in the 70's, so it's a scary thought. For those of you that played baseball, hold a lacrosse ball in one hand and a baseball in the other hand...I'd rather be hit by the baseball (well rather not be hit at all).

Commotio cordis? It’s definitely a valid and scary thing to be worried about. It happened to a HS kid in Maryland last year I believe.

[8meterPA]

Wow, wlax is tough. You are right, when she makes her initial move to pivot and take that shot she does not have a line of sight to the goal (more evidence of the element of surprise on that shot). She does when she's shooting though. That would be a tough call and one I wouldn't like.

I agree, it's a tough rule - very subjective. In CN's case, here move is so quick and decisive, it's a blur and the ref doesn't blow the whistle. A video always makes it easier to discuss.

Is this a good goal or dangerous propelling?

https://twitter.com/USALacrosseMag/stat ... 9745255424

I guess that because there was no player behind the Vandy player, she isnt required to look at the shot.

by the book, yes, it's dangerous propelling

dangerous propelling would be "any shot directed at or taken without regard to the positioning of a field player." So I would think, by definition if your back is turned to the goal and cannot see what's between you and the goal, it's a dangerous propel. That one seems like an easy one to call to me.

8M that was always my understanding as well. Interesting that USLax would post that if it was questionable. I guess cause it is a "Cool" video....

By definition then, that between the legs shot from Sammy Jo Tracy that ended up in SC top 10 should’ve technically been a call, correct? I know there wasn’t really any power behind it & the shot was on the ground, so there wasn’t a ton of danger in hindsight, but it just shows how much gray area there is in the rule.

The refs have discretion - a between the legs shot that may hit someone in the ankles vs. a btb shot that may hit someone in the head...but I get what you are saying.

[tothedraw]

Yes to Commotio Cordis fear. It's not the fastest/hardest shot that does it, it's pace/timing. A certain fearless defender who I won't name got hit 3 times in a recent game. 3! None caused major injury but something is wrong in the system that either the shooting team wasn't carded or she wasn't for being in shooting space repeatedly. I'm not judging the players just commenting on the incredible level of competition, potential for injury and tough job officials have.
A HS game I was coaching, a very skilled outside shooter got carded for hitting a defender in the ankle on a "worm burner". Not dangerous but it certainly made her stop and think before pulling the trigger as the game went on. Did that call prevent a future bad injury ?
Don't get me started on highlight clips. The pro league flat out promoted players absolutely losing their cool as "things getting chippy" or something ridiculous.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

As I'm following this discussion a thought occurs to me--I don't know how much weight should be given to the preference of the players when considering rules and how the game is played. Sheehan Stanwick Burch had all 4 of the Schneidereith Sisters on her podcast last year. I thought they had some interesting things to say that might relate to this current conversation. The clip is 2:05 long.