Comments on: Pocket Rule Change Update: Shooting Strings For 2013

By: connorwilson

connorwilson — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:03:00 +0000

I love this comment.

By: Weston Polivka

Weston Polivka — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:58:00 +0000

good stuff. If the “U’s” are the iss-U, then get rid of U’s. I like U’s. I like freedom of customization. If you have too much hold, that is not good for U. U will throw right into the ground, if you can throw at all. Forget restrictions. let people be awesome, and exercise their own good judgement.

By: philipG89

philipG89 — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:39:00 +0000

this is no issue and for you to say that it negatively affects players is bull. this has not affected at all the way i play because i know how to string. if you understand how to change the sidewalls then a comment like a “brickwall” is erroneous. ive strung multiple head with high and low pockets using warrior hard mesh. the players had no issue adjusting. stop complaining and deal with it. “Yes, the limitations of the pocket would severely hinder the players’ game.”- wrong, again deal with it and adjust

By: keith

keith — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:15:00 +0000

my experience with lacrosse stringing as well as with most things in life is that there are always trade-offs. We’ve all seen the kids who insist on a “bag” so they don’t drop the ball while they cradle only to find out that they can lo longer throw a straight pass or shoot. I can’t tell you how many kids i saw this summer with four straight, or two V’s, or a Billy Bitter Holster but COULDN’T CATCH COLD and all they could throw was a tantrum.

Having a Paul Rabil type pocket will not increase your shot speed to 111 MPH. Clean your room, Eat your vegetables, get in the gym and get on THE WALL. BTW Great write-up,

By: Jeff Shields

Jeff Shields — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:15:00 +0000

I sent emails to Jon Hind, and he is genuine when speaking to people who are passionate about stringing. I told him that the new pocket test, requiring that the ball fall out the backside of the head, would be adequate enough to remove sticks with “too much hold” (what an absurd phrase). I told him the U/V’s are not the culprit, and that there is no reason/argument to base this ruling. He did not try to counter-point or argue with me, he asked about my background and why I felt so strongly about this. I believe he is a great guy. However, the committee as a whole appears to be very out of touch from the game of lacrosse. I believe there needs to be changes within committee, and that the people of this game should unite and demand to have a voice in the matter, rather than sitting by and watching it happen from the sidelines. The FOGO’s did it, why not the rest of the lacrosse community?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:07:00 +0000

Unreal… just unreal… The committee didn’t know that this new proposals would eliminate a 3rd shooter? Just leave the sticks alone, and tell the refs to get really strict with the vertical tests! Its that simple!!!! Im going use a Chris Burman phrase for this… C’MON MAN!!!!

By: Robert Ford

Robert Ford — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:23:00 +0000

I strung up a evo x by a 3 inch measurement with 10 across the top no problem getting 1 nylon and 2 straight across within 3 inches spaced as 3 across, still a pointless rule because it didnt change the hold in the stick at all

By: Cam

Cam — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:23:00 +0000

I liked the way the rules used to be, because they weren’t arbitrary. When a throat was too narrow, the ball couldn’t pop out. When a pocket was too deep, you could easily tell by looking through.

I do not want to waste valuable game time debating whether or not some player’s straight-across hockey lace shooting string is a quarter inch too low- it doesn’t matter. I do not trust even veteran referees to decipher whether or not a player has 2 sidewall strings. Why don’t we ban interlocked knots while we’re at it? These rule changes are awkward. Moreover, I don’t even want to think about how to communicate these issues to parents and the general public. It’s wimpy, nit-picky, useless whining that doesn’t make sense to anyone.

I don’t foresee anything positive coming out of this. I see intelligent lacrosse stringers becoming even more OCD on stringing by knot patterns and 1 or two sticks becoming well known for delivering hold without shooting strings. Banning 25% shooting strings is nothing but a waste of time and perfectly good hockey lace.

By: Edward Chang

Edward Chang — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:47:00 +0000

So basically the rules committee don’t know what they are doing or talking about, didn’t do the proper research, ask the right questions, or right people, and don’t know how to string pockets.

I wonder if they’ve even played lacrosse.

By: Whatabaws

Whatabaws — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:44:00 +0000

this makes me so mad…