NU at UNC 3/25

[njbill]

To the suggestion that defenders might start taking cheap shots on attackers who go to goal — YIKES! — that to me is a really disappointing comment. 100% wrong. Attackers scoring at the end of a game are competing 100% within the rules. A defender has every right to aggressively defend within the rules, but if she tries to clean the clock of an attacker, she is committing a foul and is playing outside the rules. If I were officiating, that defender would get a red card every time.

I made that statement first and I am sorry you are so disappointed in it. There is a difference in bench scoring and the FU scores the original poster was talking about. No one should take things into their own hands and if done I 100% agree that player deserves a red card. But do you really think it's out of the realm possibility that in a charged game a starting player scores a FU goal and a defender does something wrong and stupid. Not condoning, not saying anyone should expect that but saying that these type of FU goals in a charged atmosphere on a field filled highly competitive players the possibility exists for something bad to happen. It is the coaches decision, the coaches reading of the atmosphere on the field and sideline. Leaving your starters out there for these type of FU goals is 100% on the coach. It only takes a moment of bad judgement by a frustrated player to impact another player in a terrible manner.

I have seen this type of bad judgement in the past on attackers/midfielders I know. This was in the mens game and more than a few years ago.

I frankly didn’t remember who made the comment when I wrote my post. If you took from my post that I thought you were condoning defenders beating up on attackers, I certainly wasn’t saying that. Nor would I think that.

Let me try to make the point a little differently. If a team that’s winning comfortably scores a goal at the end of a game in garbage time, that absolutely does not excuse a defender from taking a cheap shot at the attacker. BUT the fact that some rogue player might do that does not mean attackers on the team with the big lead cannot continue playing their normal game. I think everybody agrees that it is entirely wrong for a defender to take a cheap shot. Needless to say, it is also prohibited by the rules. There is a disagreement on this board about whether or not it is poor sportsmanship to score a goal at the end of a game, but I don’t think anybody says that violates any provision in the wlax rule book.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

...if you saw Izzy's gestures after she scored to make it 15-10, there were some hard feelings flying around. She rarely ever reacts like that. She was pissed about something.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Izzy stepped on, not through, the goal circle with her left foot once but was bumped by rushing-to-close-the-gap Carolina defender Gabi Hall after the goal was in the net. Does getting pushed/bumped/checked into or on the crease by a defender get factored into the rule?

It does get factored, as you already know.

This sincerely baffles me. You say this like you know me when you clearly don't. Why so unfriendly? Why do you assume this? I didn't look up the rule before I posted, nor have I looked it up since. I don't care enough about it to do so. But, I'll go along for a moment to ask a follow up question. Since you know me so well--what is my ulterior motive for asking a question that I already know the answer to? To what end?

Previously you misinterpreted my observations on Hollie Schleicher's injury and pounced based off that misinterpretation. Would it have been so difficult to ask me for clarification as to what I meant by my remarks? That could have led to a civil exchange in which I would better understand where you're coming from, and you would hopefully better understand where I'm coming from.

Again--why so unfriendly?

[Bart]

To the suggestion that defenders might start taking cheap shots on attackers who go to goal — YIKES! — that to me is a really disappointing comment. 100% wrong. Attackers scoring at the end of a game are competing 100% within the rules. A defender has every right to aggressively defend within the rules, but if she tries to clean the clock of an attacker, she is committing a foul and is playing outside the rules. If I were officiating, that defender would get a red card every time.

I made that statement first and I am sorry you are so disappointed in it. There is a difference in bench scoring and the FU scores the original poster was talking about. No one should take things into their own hands and if done I 100% agree that player deserves a red card. But do you really think it's out of the realm possibility that in a charged game a starting player scores a FU goal and a defender does something wrong and stupid. Not condoning, not saying anyone should expect that but saying that these type of FU goals in a charged atmosphere on a field filled highly competitive players the possibility exists for something bad to happen. It is the coaches decision, the coaches reading of the atmosphere on the field and sideline. Leaving your starters out there for these type of FU goals is 100% on the coach. It only takes a moment of bad judgement by a frustrated player to impact another player in a terrible manner.

I have seen this type of bad judgement in the past on attackers/midfielders I know. This was in the mens game and more than a few years ago.

I frankly didn’t remember who made the comment when I wrote my post. If you took from my post that I thought you were condoning defenders beating up on attackers, I certainly wasn’t saying that. Nor would I think that.

Let me try to make the point a little differently. If a team that’s winning comfortably scores a goal at the end of a game in garbage time, that absolutely does not excuse a defender from taking a cheap shot at the attacker. BUT the fact that some rogue player might do that does not mean attackers on the team with the big lead cannot continue playing their normal game. I think everybody agrees that it is entirely wrong for a defender to take a cheap shot. Needless to say, it is also prohibited by the rules. There is a disagreement on this board about whether or not it is poor sportsmanship to score a goal at the end of a game, but I don’t think anybody says that violates any provision in the wlax rule book.

No offense taken. I agree with what you say here.

[ultravisitor]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

[Brownlax]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

I’ll give you my take on this because I have been on both sides of this.

At the end of a game, where the game is clearly over and we have zero chance of winning, I will have my defense pack it in and not press out on the ball. Just let the clock run down and take the L.

I have seen too many teams going crazy on defense when the game is out of reach and it ends in a yellow card fest. This is not for me. I’ve seen kids get hurt in these situations.

On the other hand, when we are up big and I have my subs in, I will let them play to get game experience. Once the clock hits 2 minutes we shut it down on offense. If it was college, I would say 90 seconds due to the shot clock.

Today I see too many instances where games are out of reach and starters are still scoring. That is “stat padding.” If you are a starter and you are playing a much inferior team - get your “stats” in early in the first half because you won’t be playing in the second half.

Coaches need to do a better job of rewarding all their non-starters with game time when they can. This is true not only in blowouts but in regular games. That’s how you develop people - that’s how you get them experience. Some coaches will play 20 kids per game, others play 15.

Just my 2 cents.

[njbill]

A very reasonable approach.

[Seacoaster(1)]

A very reasonable approach.

Concur.

[forthelaxofit]

It's games that are over and an extra goal is scored for no reason such as what happened in last 10 secs yesterday.

I think there was a big reason, however ignoble, for Amonte to rip her FU goal. She was on the receiving end of some brutality during the game. And if you saw Izzy's gestures after she scored to make it 15-10, there were some hard feelings flying around. She rarely ever reacts like that. She was pissed about something. I think the whole team was. Factor the 2022 semifinal into the whole mix and... FU.

Regarding meaningless late (or FU goals), I don’t like them and don’t support them, but not bothered by them either. To each their own.

However are you saying that this is somehow related to the 2022 Semifinal? The game NW had won 14-7 with 10 minutes left and lost by giving up 8 straight goals? Depending which side of the fence you are on is either an epic comeback or epic choke? One could argue a comparable women’s lacrosse equivalent to Atlanta and Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back. If so, seems the NW coaching staff and players came out on losing end with a meaningless FU goal two years later instead of a meaningful semifinal victory that got away from them. But again, to each their own.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Regarding meaningless late (or FU goals), I don’t like them and don’t support them, but not bothered by them either. To each their own.

However are you saying that this is somehow related to the 2022 Semifinal? The game NW had won 14-7 with 10 minutes left and lost by giving up 8 straight goals? Depending which side of the fence you are on is either an epic comeback or epic choke? One could argue a comparable women’s lacrosse equivalent to Atlanta and Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back. If so, seems the NW coaching staff and players came out on losing end with a meaningless FU goal two years later instead of a meaningful semifinal victory that got away from them. But again, to each their own.

I'm coming at it more from a fan's perspective if I really think about it. I'd like to see Northwestern pound the Heels each and every time they play them from here on to infinity, world without end. So be it.

The players have most probably moved on, having exacted their revenge during the regular season last year and then going on to win their 8th national championship.

And for the record, I'm in the Epic Choke camp. You can't blow a lead like that. You just can't. But they did. I'm glad for their sakes they won it in more than convincing fashion the very next year. All bad memories washed away in the purple and white confetti.

[Madlax59]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

I’ll give you my take on this because I have been on both sides of this.

At the end of a game, where the game is clearly over and we have zero chance of winning, I will have my defense pack it in and not press out on the ball. Just let the clock run down and take the L.

I have seen too many teams going crazy on defense when the game is out of reach and it ends in a yellow card fest. This is not for me. I’ve seen kids get hurt in these situations.

On the other hand, when we are up big and I have my subs in, I will let them play to get game experience. Once the clock hits 2 minutes we shut it down on offense. If it was college, I would say 90 seconds due to the shot clock.

Today I see too many instances where games are out of reach and starters are still scoring. That is “stat padding.” If you are a starter and you are playing a much inferior team - get your “stats” in early in the first half because you won’t be playing in the second half.

Coaches need to do a better job of rewarding all their non-starters with game time when they can. This is true not only in blowouts but in regular games. That’s how you develop people - that’s how you get them experience. Some coaches will play 20 kids per game, others play 15.

Just my 2 cents.

But a lot of starters do get left in until the end or with only a few minutes left . Take the kid from Duke who took her 14th shot at end of game as latest example .

[Brownlax]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

I’ll give you my take on this because I have been on both sides of this.

At the end of a game, where the game is clearly over and we have zero chance of winning, I will have my defense pack it in and not press out on the ball. Just let the clock run down and take the L.

I have seen too many teams going crazy on defense when the game is out of reach and it ends in a yellow card fest. This is not for me. I’ve seen kids get hurt in these situations.

On the other hand, when we are up big and I have my subs in, I will let them play to get game experience. Once the clock hits 2 minutes we shut it down on offense. If it was college, I would say 90 seconds due to the shot clock.

Today I see too many instances where games are out of reach and starters are still scoring. That is “stat padding.” If you are a starter and you are playing a much inferior team - get your “stats” in early in the first half because you won’t be playing in the second half.

Coaches need to do a better job of rewarding all their non-starters with game time when they can. This is true not only in blowouts but in regular games. That’s how you develop people - that’s how you get them experience. Some coaches will play 20 kids per game, others play 15.

Just my 2 cents.

But a lot of starters do get left in until the end or with only a few minutes left . Take the kid from Duke who took her 14th shot at end of game as latest example .

As I mentioned, more coaches need to develop ALL of their players. Certain teams barely sub. I think that is a mistake. You may need those players down the road in playoffs or next year due to graduation.

As far as the Duke game last night. I don’t know the details, but if I was Kimmel I would have absolutely had my starters in the game. It was a 2 goal game and ECU had come back from being down 12-3 to make it 12-11.

I’m not sure if the player you mentioned took a shot at the end of the game with a 2 goal lead. But if it’s my team - I am holding the ball and taking the 2 goal win.

[lacrossemwj]

Kind of like the Florida player who scored a goal with 6 seconds left to secure the beatdown 23-6 over Liberty? I mean, really?

[cltlax]

Kind of like the Florida player who scored a goal with 6 seconds left to secure the beatdown 23-6 over Liberty? I mean, really?

Win with class. It's not hard.

[lacrossemwj]

Kind of like the Florida player who scored a goal with 6 seconds left to secure the beatdown 23-6 over Liberty? I mean, really?

Actually 23-3.

[GratefulRed]

Izzy stepped on, not through, the goal circle with her left foot once but was bumped by rushing-to-close-the-gap Carolina defender Gabi Hall after the goal was in the net. Does getting pushed/bumped/checked into or on the crease by a defender get factored into the rule?

It does get factored, as you already know.

This sincerely baffles me. You say this like you know me when you clearly don't. Why so unfriendly? Why do you assume this? I didn't look up the rule before I posted, nor have I looked it up since. I don't care enough about it to do so. But, I'll go along for a moment to ask a follow up question. Since you know me so well--what is my ulterior motive for asking a question that I already know the answer to? To what end?

Previously you misinterpreted my observations on Hollie Schleicher's injury and pounced based off that misinterpretation. Would it have been so difficult to ask me for clarification as to what I meant by my remarks? That could have led to a civil exchange in which I would better understand where you're coming from, and you would hopefully better understand where I'm coming from.

Again--why so unfriendly?

Baffling to be sure. I can't begin to speculate why you would ask a question to which you know the answer. I merely made an observation about the IS goal after you brought it up. Didn’t require a response from you, but you felt compelled to review the play and correct/clarify my point with vivid detail. At the same time you claim not to care about the rule? You patrol and contribute incessantly to all aspects of women's lacrosse content on multiple platforms daily, so your feigned ignorance to this widely discussed rule doesn't ring true.

[ultravisitor]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

I’ll give you my take on this because I have been on both sides of this.

At the end of a game, where the game is clearly over and we have zero chance of winning, I will have my defense pack it in and not press out on the ball. Just let the clock run down and take the L.

I have seen too many teams going crazy on defense when the game is out of reach and it ends in a yellow card fest. This is not for me. I’ve seen kids get hurt in these situations.

On the other hand, when we are up big and I have my subs in, I will let them play to get game experience. Once the clock hits 2 minutes we shut it down on offense. If it was college, I would say 90 seconds due to the shot clock.

Today I see too many instances where games are out of reach and starters are still scoring. That is “stat padding.” If you are a starter and you are playing a much inferior team - get your “stats” in early in the first half because you won’t be playing in the second half.

Coaches need to do a better job of rewarding all their non-starters with game time when they can. This is true not only in blowouts but in regular games. That’s how you develop people - that’s how you get them experience. Some coaches will play 20 kids per game, others play 15.

Just my 2 cents.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. In some of these games, like the UNC and BC games, the defenses hadn't packed it in yet, so I think it's reasonable for Northwestern to keep playing.

In some of these other games other people are citing, the NU starters had been pulled. I think it was Central Michigan, perhaps, where the starters didn't even play the second half. I'm not sure what the bench players supposed to do for the entire second half. Are people honestly saying that they were supposed to play keep away during what was likely the most significant game time that many of them were likely to get during the season?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Izzy stepped on, not through, the goal circle with her left foot once but was bumped by rushing-to-close-the-gap Carolina defender Gabi Hall after the goal was in the net. Does getting pushed/bumped/checked into or on the crease by a defender get factored into the rule?

It does get factored, as you already know.

This sincerely baffles me. You say this like you know me when you clearly don't. Why so unfriendly? Why do you assume this? I didn't look up the rule before I posted, nor have I looked it up since. I don't care enough about it to do so. But, I'll go along for a moment to ask a follow up question. Since you know me so well--what is my ulterior motive for asking a question that I already know the answer to? To what end?

Previously you misinterpreted my observations on Hollie Schleicher's injury and pounced based off that misinterpretation. Would it have been so difficult to ask me for clarification as to what I meant by my remarks? That could have led to a civil exchange in which I would better understand where you're coming from, and you would hopefully better understand where I'm coming from.

Again--why so unfriendly?

Baffling to be sure. I can't begin to speculate why you would ask a question to which you know the answer. I merely made an observation about the IS goal after you brought it up. Didn’t require a response from you, but you felt compelled to review the play and correct/clarify my point with vivid detail. At the same time you claim not to care about the rule? You patrol and contribute incessantly to all aspects of women's lacrosse content on multiple platforms daily, so your feigned ignorance to this widely discussed rule doesn't ring true.

Oh well--ask a stupid question, I guess... Your mind is obviously made up. As you were.

[Womenslaxxfan]

Using this game as an example, if it is OK for UNC’s attackers to continue to try to score, for their defenders to continue to try to stop Northwestern and take the ball away from them, and for the Tar Heels goalie to try to stop shots AND, I presume, if it is OK for Northwestern’s defenders to defend and for their goalie to try to stop shots, why are NU’s attackers the only players on the field who can’t do what they normally do?

Making too much sense here...

I’ll give you my take on this because I have been on both sides of this.

At the end of a game, where the game is clearly over and we have zero chance of winning, I will have my defense pack it in and not press out on the ball. Just let the clock run down and take the L.

I have seen too many teams going crazy on defense when the game is out of reach and it ends in a yellow card fest. This is not for me. I’ve seen kids get hurt in these situations.

On the other hand, when we are up big and I have my subs in, I will let them play to get game experience. Once the clock hits 2 minutes we shut it down on offense. If it was college, I would say 90 seconds due to the shot clock.

Today I see too many instances where games are out of reach and starters are still scoring. That is “stat padding.” If you are a starter and you are playing a much inferior team - get your “stats” in early in the first half because you won’t be playing in the second half.

Coaches need to do a better job of rewarding all their non-starters with game time when they can. This is true not only in blowouts but in regular games. That’s how you develop people - that’s how you get them experience. Some coaches will play 20 kids per game, others play 15.

Just my 2 cents.

More like the whole dollar!!
Well said

[laxfan9999]

The way Halfpenny subs you would think she gets bonuses for all ACC players and All-American because he leaves those three attack out way too long to pad their stats.