Comments on: Good Rules And New Field Lines: Are They Better Than A Shot Clock?

By: John Oravetz

John Oravetz — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:55:00 +0000

Maybe make a rule where if a team accumulates 3 stall warnings, then on the third call of a stall a procedure would be called and a turnover rewarded to the non-offending team.

By: Dan Frye

Dan Frye — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:54:00 +0000

I think one of the big issues with DU-OSU was how young Denver’s defense is. They had 2 freshman starting in their first actual NCAA game and they didn’t seem to be playing aggressively at all. But I do recognize that the stall warning did slow OSU down even more and combined with Denver’s D really slowed down what could have been a much better game.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:09:00 +0000

The calling of a stall warning has no real definition; its very arbitrary. I think the implement of a shot clock once a stall warning is called would put a lot of pressure on the refs in tense 4th quarter moments. It makes the stall warning a more powerful call.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:06:00 +0000

I agree with notaBro <— haha. Although the rules in the article are enticing ideas to people who have been around lacrosse a long time, they would surely confuse new spectators. I'm tired of hearing my parents complaining about how they don't understand the rules and how the announcers for college games constantly have to explain so many rules because so little people actually understand them. And if people don't understand rules, they're not going to like the sport as much. Isn't expansion of the sport the whole point of these rule changes? I think a long shot clock that doesn't play a HUGE factor in the normal game play (say 60 seconds) would be a good idea. I think the touch up rules should stay how they are, too. Even though the touch up and repeat process gives an opportunity for "pure athletes" to give their go at dodging over and over, so much of the game is so skill-based already that these rules provides a good balance. A balance between skilled/smart stick handlers and grinding athletic machines, that is.

By: The Growth Blog

The Growth Blog — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:49:00 +0000

The economic side of this could, for some schools, have more impact than a requirement to purchase a shot clock system. Many NCAA lacrosse schools with field turf have their lines permanently sewn into the turf. Replacing, removing, or changing sewn in lines in expensive and the field will often never look the same since you are introducing new sections of turf that have not had the same amount of exposure to the sun and will never match the color shade of the majority of the field.

By: Michael Jones

Michael Jones — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:20:00 +0000

A 60 second shot clock is exactly what we need. It would speed up the game but wouldn’t change it that dramatically.

By: notaBro

notaBro — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:28:00 +0000

I don’t like this angle. Too confusing for new fans. We need to simplify, not make it more complex or foreign looking to potential fans of the game. I also don’t see this creating more of an up and down game, which is what people seem to want. I’m not sure a shot clock does that either, but at least it’s impossible to stall with a clock. Without one there is nothing holding teams back from sitting in a corner and holding the ball except a pressure defense, and most coaches won’t pressure because they’re afraid of what will happen. There are three possible results from pressure defense, and two of them are bad. Turnover (good), penalty from aggressive checks (bad), easy scoring opportunity from being over-extended or off a scramble with the ball on the ground (bad). D1 coaches typically don’t like those odds, and with careers on the line I don’t see them playing it any way but safe.

By: Michael Riley

Michael Riley — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:27:00 +0000

How about just implement a shot clock once the stall warning is called? Generous of course, probably like 45+ seconds.. enough time to get a shot set up or get stripped of the ball if you’re already stalling.

By: Bill Mensch

Bill Mensch — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:53:00 +0000

The OSU game is a great example of how the stalling rule just doesn’t work. OSU actually seemed to slow down more after the stall was put on. DU didn’t put on any real pressure until it was too late.
I think part of the problem is how hard it is to take the ball away from someone now. The 2010 rule changes for sticks were a step in the right direction, but it’s really hard to take the ball away from someone in todays game, especially if they are not trying to score and just killing time. Part of it is stick technology, part of it is we are better at stringing.
One idea I’ve posted before, after the stall is put in place, you can’t go behind the goal, need to keep it above goal line extended. (no need for a new line, everyone knows where that line is.)

By: Taylor Konyk

Taylor Konyk — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:47:00 +0000

I don’t know if I am sold yet, but this presents a much better alternative than the shot clock. I do like having the close quarter style play, it almost reminds me of profession hockey–the team with possession is forced to make quick passes in close quarters which demands great skill if any team wishes to maintain possession. At the same time, this could generate a lot of turnovers resulting in fast-breaks and ultimately high scores. Not a bad rule change. It would be nice to see how this works on a small scale before it was considered for anything like College Lax.

By: Owen B

Owen B — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:33:00 +0000

Interesting take on the problem. I like the first idea more then the second. However I think we need to come at this from a different angle. As a defender I think the problem lies more in the defensive end than the offensive end. If you are down in a game, and OSU is locked in the box, where is the real pressure Denver? Not token pressure from two defender that are scared of getting beat. But actually an attempt to take the ball away with a real “beat a guys’s arm numb” double team.

Nobody throws any checks anymore. What’s the point of having a bunch of 6’4″ defenseman with excellent footwork and proper positioning if they run around with a cocked stick for 60 minutes and do nothing but push a guy amd lift 30 seconds too late. If the team is stalling, you need to take a chance and go out and aggressively get the ball. Sure you might give up a goal. But you are already losing anyways.

We should stop trying to punish offensive players and coaches. We should start punishing boring defenders and defensive coaches. If you can’t recruit 3 athletic defenseman you and your staff are doing a horrible job, and should convert those 3rd line freshman you aren’t playing and go get the damn ball.

I also like the idea of actually calling the crosscheck hold again. Read that on IL a bit back.

By: Gregory Rose

Gregory Rose — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:25:00 +0000

I’m for it – this is definitely an innovative thought.

And the dodge from up top offense? SO FREAKING BORING.