Syracuse 2024

[MDlaxfan76]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

Agree. Consistency is the ultimate goal of officiating. If every crew called the same penalties, it would be easy for players to adjust. That almost never happens and coaches have relied on that in their strategies. Pitino used to tell his players at Louisville to make the refs call a foul on every play, knowing that most crews would never call 30-40 fouls in a game.

[sholokov2]

" One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney"

My post questioning 2 minute penalty on Maryland was one called on #27 Schaller at 5:13 mark of 1st period. Thought it should NOT have been 2 minutes and Im a Cuse fan. Like to hear a comment on that call.

Just looked and recalled that play and call. We needed to see the cross check to back of head of man on ground post play to see what the issue was as the initial check didn't seem to be the issue...ref was standing right there. Unnecessary extra thrust and to the back of head...direct...so 2 minutes...we've obviously seen much worse, and this looked from afar to be pretty unconscious, but the rule is clear...if more intentional and nasty then 3 minutes.

Worst thing that has happened in the last 40 years in all sports is instant replay. Produces endless officials' conferences, endless disputes over penalties, red flag moments, more and more ad interruptions, missed plays because the tv replays elide into the action on the field. No matter what the angle of the replay, or the HD clarity, human judgement determines the results. Refs are now afraid to make judgements without running over to the official gaggle to find support. When you argue that the decisions are closer to the truth of the situation, I believe you ignore the fact that most of the refs' decisions are supported by the cameras. I long for the days when an official makes the call, the ref signals and we go on to the next play. I'll take a small percentage of missed calls over endless delays any day.

[nyjay]

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called.

The sainted Kavanaughs being two of the worst offenders. I had always thought UVa was the worst offender with the wild one-handers at the midline, but ND has now surpassed them.

[MDlaxfan76]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

Agree. Consistency is the ultimate goal of officiating. If every crew called the same penalties, it would be easy for players to adjust. That almost never happens and coaches have relied on that in their strategies. Pitino used to tell his players at Louisville to make the refs call a foul on every play, knowing that most crews would never call 30-40 fouls in a game.

yes, the consequences for fouling in basketball are insufficient to deter them.

Here's an easy one for coaches...move your feet, don't cross check except at hip pressure to pressure...and don't hit guys in the head. Back to move your feet!

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

Agree. Consistency is the ultimate goal of officiating. If every crew called the same penalties, it would be easy for players to adjust. That almost never happens and coaches have relied on that in their strategies. Pitino used to tell his players at Louisville to make the refs call a foul on every play, knowing that most crews would never call 30-40 fouls in a game.

yes, the consequences for fouling in basketball are insufficient to deter them.

Here's an easy one for coaches...move your feet, don't cross check except at hip pressure to pressure...and don't hit guys in the head. Back to move your feet!

I think that is bit easier said than done, mostly because cross check is helpful and rarely called (when normally applied). Your comment does take me back to coaching youth lacrosse, when my kids were much younger. I remember taking sticks away from kids on defense and not giving them back until they played proper 1 on 1 defense. It was always amazing how much better they played defense without sticks

[MDlaxfan76]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

Agree. Consistency is the ultimate goal of officiating. If every crew called the same penalties, it would be easy for players to adjust. That almost never happens and coaches have relied on that in their strategies. Pitino used to tell his players at Louisville to make the refs call a foul on every play, knowing that most crews would never call 30-40 fouls in a game.

yes, the consequences for fouling in basketball are insufficient to deter them.

Here's an easy one for coaches...move your feet, don't cross check except at hip pressure to pressure...and don't hit guys in the head. Back to move your feet!

I think that is bit easier said than done, mostly because cross check is helpful and rarely called (when normally applied). Your comment does take me back to coaching youth lacrosse, when my kids were much younger. I remember taking sticks away from kids on defense and not giving them back until they played proper 1 on 1 defense. It was always amazing how much better they played defense without sticks

We did the same! and yes, it works wonders!

I'm fine with basic cross check, pressure against pressure, though hands closer together is what we taught and it wasn't a weapon, just resistance. And the leverage is better lower anyway. Keep your feet moving and time the actual effective check through the arms and stick when needed.

A lot of the time we see bad footwork lead to such a check but above goal line..and the attack man just feels the contact and steps back and shoots, hands free. The defender is already committed...

This was just a gratuitous check to the head, hands outstretched, from a poor approach before there was even a danger of a shot. Right in front of the ref. It probably didn't go over well in film study either!

I'll be watching a game this evening with my son over a pizza and will ask his view...he's coached good HS, college and even post college defense in World Games in Israel so he's way more up to date on modern game than me.

[coda]

If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.

Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.

it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.

the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.

Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.

indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.

and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?

I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet

So...you're saying it is an illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...

Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.

Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.

However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".

Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.

I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.

All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.

On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.

On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.

I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control his stick and body.

Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...

My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...

The slash is one of the most random officiated things in all of sports. Just check a SSDM back after a game where he makes a few clears. Nobody slashes more than attackmen on a lacrosse field and it is rarely called. Was it Powell that made the head bob famous for generating flags? Slash is noted at vicious contact, so it is judgement call. It is supposed to limit the degree of the action.

One issue in lacrosse is that unreasonable fouls are extremely punitive. They are not like football or basketball, where it affects a singular possession. They can be game altering and, as such, should be levied with that in mind. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the level-headed discussion

me too

Not sure I agree that fouls in football aren't often game altering...they can be the difference between a TD or a 15 yard holding or a 40 yard incompletion being turned into a 40 yard gain for interference. They can result in an ejection from the game...

Depends on the circumstances as well in lax. They can't score a goal, but they can reverse a goal that was otherwise scored. They can result in a possession...and man advantage...but that only increases chance of score. Still need to put the rock in the cage...

But sure, they can be frustrating. And even game altering...I like the replay capability now, given the importance indeed of various calls.

Much more frustrating to me is uneven refereeing or refs that clearly don't know the rules (still happens even at college level) and most problematic is when safety isn't being protected and refs lose control...that's when players take it into their own hands to mete out 'accountability'...and that's a mess, and actually quite dangerous.

Agree. Consistency is the ultimate goal of officiating. If every crew called the same penalties, it would be easy for players to adjust. That almost never happens and coaches have relied on that in their strategies. Pitino used to tell his players at Louisville to make the refs call a foul on every play, knowing that most crews would never call 30-40 fouls in a game.

yes, the consequences for fouling in basketball are insufficient to deter them.

Here's an easy one for coaches...move your feet, don't cross check except at hip pressure to pressure...and don't hit guys in the head. Back to move your feet!

I think that is bit easier said than done, mostly because cross check is helpful and rarely called (when normally applied). Your comment does take me back to coaching youth lacrosse, when my kids were much younger. I remember taking sticks away from kids on defense and not giving them back until they played proper 1 on 1 defense. It was always amazing how much better they played defense without sticks

We did the same! and yes, it works wonders!

I'm fine with basic cross check, pressure against pressure, though hands closer together is what we taught and it wasn't a weapon, just resistance. And the leverage is better lower anyway. Keep your feet moving and time the actual effective check through the arms and stick when needed.

A lot of the time we see bad footwork lead to such a check but above goal line..and the attack man just feels the contact and steps back and shoots, hands free. The defender is already committed...

This was just a gratuitous check to the head, hands outstretched, from a poor approach before there was even a danger of a shot. Right in front of the ref. It probably didn't go over well in film study either!

I'll be watching a game this evening with my son over a pizza and will ask his view...he's coached good HS, college and even post college defense in World Games in Israel so he's way more up to date on modern game than me.

We did the same! and yes, it works wonders!

To be honest it works wonders, until you give back the stick and they are back to trying to pull off trail checks.

[DoubleD]

" One final thought, calling of game has gotten way too soft, question some of the penalties last night including the two minute non releasable on M defender that was not taken advantage of by Cuse. The call off of o/t goal by Leo was correct . Hope for a rematch in tourney"

My post questioning 2 minute penalty on Maryland was one called on #27 Schaller at 5:13 mark of 1st period. Thought it should NOT have been 2 minutes and Im a Cuse fan. Like to hear a comment on that call.

Just looked and recalled that play and call. We needed to see the cross check to back of head of man on ground post play to see what the issue was as the initial check didn't seem to be the issue...ref was standing right there. Unnecessary extra thrust and to the back of head...direct...so 2 minutes...we've obviously seen much worse, and this looked from afar to be pretty unconscious, but the rule is clear...if more intentional and nasty then 3 minutes.

Worst thing that has happened in the last 40 years in all sports is instant replay. Produces endless officials' conferences, endless disputes over penalties, red flag moments, more and more ad interruptions, missed plays because the tv replays elide into the action on the field. No matter what the angle of the replay, or the HD clarity, human judgement determines the results. Refs are now afraid to make judgements without running over to the official gaggle to find support. When you argue that the decisions are closer to the truth of the situation, I believe you ignore the fact that most of the refs' decisions are supported by the cameras. I long for the days when an official makes the call, the ref signals and we go on to the next play. I'll take a small percentage of missed calls over endless delays any day.

I disagree I think replay has been great for all sports and teams that would have lost games actually won due to the correct calls being made from replay. Why wouldn't u wnat the team deserving to win not win because a ref made the wrong call? I mean now mostly the correct teams win games due to replay. The fact there is so many replays tells u how many times the refs make mistakes which in the past cost teams wins or championships.

[10stone5]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

[coda]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

[JeremyCuse]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

Well losing in OT to Maryland should give some insight I would think.

[coda]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

Well losing in OT to Maryland should give some insight I would think.

I am not yet ready to proclaim Maryland a top 5 team. I still have some questions about their offense. Their defense is legit and certainly top 5. Excellent at the FOGO and Goalie. Definitely a quality opponent, but I have my doubts if they are a legit NC contender. All going to depend on how that offense gels over the season.

[tech37]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

Well losing in OT to Maryland should give some insight I would think.

Right Jeremy and face it, Leo angles his dive a foot further to left, Cuse wins it. Yeah I know, shoulda, woulda...

Army next week will be a war. Cadets have had SU's number for years now. Good that Cuse faced Terps tough D early... it may have them ready for Army's always rugged defense. Coletti at X will be quite a challenge too.

[JeremyCuse]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

Well losing in OT to Maryland should give some insight I would think.

Right Jeremy and face it, Leo angles his dive a foot further to left, Cuse wins it. Yeah I know, shoulda, woulda...

Army next week will be a war. Cadets have had SU's number for years now. Good that Cuse faced Terps tough D early... it may have them ready for Army's always rugged defense. Coletti at X will be quite a challenge too.

Yup, Cuse had their chances but Maryland found away to get the W. That Leo non goal will haunt for awhile.

Army is very good, probably their best O lineup I can remember for a long time, very difficult to stop. I was hoping SU would find away to get a win in the Maryland game because I don't think SU matches up great with Army and outside of the top 3 of the ACC are probably SU's toughest opponent. Colletti vs Kohn will be a massive matchup as will SU's ability to double pole the Army midfield. Army defensively is also very strong though I think their the weakest in goal they have been in a long time. Guy isn't bad but usually Army has a top 5-10 keeper or so, don't think think he's close to that level at least not yet. If SU can get enough possessions they should be able to put up points.

[Finster]

Another boat-race game from Syracuse.

UNC was like that last year. I remember my model had them over-rated. They would just put up huge numbers on mediocre to poor teams and lose to good teams. It will be interesting to see how Cuse fairs when the schedule stiffens up

Well losing in OT to Maryland should give some insight I would think.

Right Jeremy and face it, Leo angles his dive a foot further to left, Cuse wins it. Yeah I know, shoulda, woulda...

Army next week will be a war. Cadets have had SU's number for years now. Good that Cuse faced Terps tough D early... it may have them ready for Army's always rugged defense. Coletti at X will be quite a challenge too.

Yup, Cuse had their chances but Maryland found away to get the W. That Leo non goal will haunt for awhile.

Army is very good, probably their best O lineup I can remember for a long time, very difficult to stop. I was hoping SU would find away to get a win in the Maryland game because I don't think SU matches up great with Army and outside of the top 3 of the ACC are probably SU's toughest opponent. Colletti vs Kohn will be a massive matchup as will SU's ability to double pole the Army midfield. Army defensively is also very strong though I think their the weakest in goal they have been in a long time. Guy isn't bad but usually Army has a top 5-10 keeper or so, don't think think he's close to that level at least not yet. If SU can get enough possessions they should be able to put up points.

Great points. What is the story with Army always having superb tenders? That kid Barretto imo was all world. Tenacious, tough. Just like you want the military boys.

Still intrigued why they’ve historically gotten great tenders.

[DMac]

Ticket prices at the Dome have gone nuts, seem mighty high to me anyway.
Tickets at the gate for the Maryland game were $27, get two, park your car
and get something from the concession stand and you're in for $100. My, my
how things have changed. $22 for the Gate game, the rest are in that ballpark
too. $5 less if you buy in advance.
Season tickets were $110 (+$10 for a stick it in your asz a little fee) which is
good for all M & W lax games. I aint no fool. Are we the highest is all of the
land for lacrosse tickets???

Utah will beat some teams, they play a pretty good and physical game. Better
than I thought they would be. What a get Kohn was!!
Mark is an incredible GK, wow, is he ever good. Focus on him during an opposing
team possession and watch him follow the ball. That GK is focused!!

[wgdsr]

Ticket prices at the Dome have gone nuts, seem mighty high to me anyway.
Tickets at the gate for the Maryland game were $27, get two, park your car
and get something from the concession stand and you're in for $100. My, my
how things have changed. $22 for the Gate game, the rest are in that ballpark
too. $5 less if you buy in advance.
Season tickets were $110 (+$10 for a stick it in your asz a little fee) which is
good for all M & W lax games. I aint no fool. Are we the highest is all of the
land for lacrosse tickets???

Utah will beat some teams, they play a pretty good and physical game. Better
than I thought they would be. What a get Kohn was!!
Mark is an incredible GK, wow, is he ever good. Focus on him during an opposing
team possession and watch him follow the ball. That GK is focused!!

i think hop prices are climbing, but yeah that's pretty high. uva is $35 for g.a season tix, $25 for a 4 game package, $8 in advance and $10 @ the window. 50-60% higher for reserved, but that's only an issue if sold out, which isn't often the case. maybe nd.

[JeremyCuse]

Ticket prices at the Dome have gone nuts, seem mighty high to me anyway.
Tickets at the gate for the Maryland game were $27, get two, park your car
and get something from the concession stand and you're in for $100. My, my
how things have changed. $22 for the Gate game, the rest are in that ballpark
too. $5 less if you buy in advance.
Season tickets were $110 (+$10 for a stick it in your asz a little fee) which is
good for all M & W lax games. I aint no fool. Are we the highest is all of the
land for lacrosse tickets???

Utah will beat some teams, they play a pretty good and physical game. Better
than I thought they would be. What a get Kohn was!!
Mark is an incredible GK, wow, is he ever good. Focus on him during an opposing
team possession and watch him follow the ball. That GK is focused!!

Lax prices have gone up but they are using dynamic pricing so there higher for bigger games and if the games on a Saturday. Maryland was like $25.00 and I think Gate or someone else was like $15.00.

Season Tickets were actually $85.00 if you just got Mens which is pretty good when you average out the number or home games and dynamic pricing.

Where they get you and where I think it's overboard is $20 bucks to park in any of the west lots or $85.00 if you bought a pass in the pre-season. Parking should be like $10 and don't get me started on the beer prices.

[molo]

I pay senior prices—they aren’t high—at Hopkins, Loyola, Towson, and Maryland. Parking is free at Loyola and Maryland. I park on the street for free at Hopkins and walk to Towson. Haven’t been to the Dome since 1991.