Grow the Game®

Team USA vs. MLL All-Stars 2014 MLL All-Star Game Photo Credit: Casey Kermes
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp

Ryan Conwell: Response to “Mainstream Lacrosse”

When reading both Connor’s original post as well as Brian’s follow-up, I found myself agreeing with some of it as well as disagreeing, like most people probably were. What it really did, is start a great conversation which I feel needs to be continued, so I’m throwing my contribution into the mix of responses out there. Don’t miss OfficialLaxGirl’s response either, it’s great!

Ryan Conwell – Mainstream Response

One of Connor’s first points was about mainstream versus a close-knit lacrosse community.

I’ll come right out and say it: I love close-knit. The game is incredibly accessible and at a certain level, everyone seems more closely related than any actor in Hollywood is to Kevin Bacon. The part I don’t like about lacrosse going mainstream is it will increase the number of people in the stands around me who have no idea what’s going on. But, I don’t want to pretend that this is just a lacrosse problem, either.

ryan conwell

I hear the same stuff when I’m at football and basketball games, which are decidedly mainstream. So when sit and think for all of 10 seconds, I realize that while I already hear these confused statements at lacrosse games, I also hear from former players, current coaches, refs, and other fans who are very knowledgeable. This will also increase. So from the fan in the stands perspective, I’m actually for it!

When talking about rules, I feel that this is a big part of the conversation whenever anyone talks about making lacrosse a mainstream sport. Connor had some fantastic proposals about how to merge the several different forms of the sport. Now, to be clear, I would be absolutely shocked if that happens in my lifetime, but I really do think it’s the way to go. Merging men’s and women’s into a single game with the same base rules would significantly help.

Why do I feel that it would help grow the game seeing these two sports merged? Cost. Brian and Connor both bring up cost as an issue, where I find myself agreeing with both of them.

Without getting into too much of a discussion about macro-economic trends in the United States which can veer into a political argument rather quickly, I will just say this: families throughout the country around going to be less and less inclined to drop hundreds of dollars on new equipment each season.

Halftime Youth Lacrosse

With Connor’s proposal of going to lighter pads and finding a middle ground between men’s and women’s games, pads can become cheaper. In turn, by selling to a larger customer base regardless of gender, companies can exploit the favorable economies of scale. This is a bit of an idealist view that companies will stick to the supply and demand curve and drop prices based on increased demand. Realistically, most would just keep their prices level, increasing for inflation as needed and enjoy greater margins.

I can still dream, though!

Now if I circle back to the rules argument, there are a few points and proposals I would like to emphasize given recent discussion. Where I think Brian had one thing totally correct is with this sentence: “Shot clock. The writing on the wall. I’m keen to hear arguments, but I think it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ at this point.”

mll_week 12_lacrosse

The way people talk about the shot clock in NCAA, it really does seem to be something that is going to happen. What concerns me though is how it is discussed and to a larger extent, how most rule changes are discussed. I need to say first that I am not opposed to rule changes and I am not opposed to a shot clock in the NCAA per se. The question that I always struggle to see answered correctly is “what are you trying to fix?”

I can appreciate a good defensive team in lacrosse. I will always be a defender at heart, no matter what the sport, so I love seeing a great defense. I also really love to see the high speed fast break lacrosse that is usually brought up in shot clock discussion. I honestly feel that a well-executed fast break is one of the best things in the game. Just check out the break at the :58 mark in this video for exhibit A (sorry Duke fans):

(Check out LAS on YouTube for more great video!)

Now here is where I struggle with some of the shot clock debate.

That play happened in an era of NCAA lacrosse where I’ve see the term “unwatchable” used. I know it is not an anomaly, either. If you watch a Tufts or RIT lacrosse game, I promise that you will not be asking for a shot clock. What I do hear a lot in the shot clock debate is related to the Maryland and Denver matchup in this past year’s championship. Now this I feel is important. Outside of those fan bases, this game was largely regarded as boring and slow. I didn’t, but I knew ahead of time that people were going to say it was, so I paid closer attention to something.

It was the same thing I paid attention to while watching the US vs. Canada goal medal game in the 2014 World Championships. That ‘thing’ is how long were players holding the ball? In both games, there absolutely were stalling possessions. But there were also seemingly long possessions with nothing happening that had a shot go off before the stall. The thing to keep in mind though is that nearly every single possession had a shot on goal in the 60 to 90 second range, lining up with most shot clock proposals. If you’re a shot clock fan and are bored watching an NCAA game this year, I encourage you to go through the same exercise, then think about what a good length would be.

Canada vs United States 2014 World Lacrosse Championship Gold Medal Game

When we talk about lacrosse becoming mainstream, we want exciting lacrosse and the shot clock is touted as the panacea for this. But I always hear the MLL shot clock referenced and then people say that we should go to 90 seconds in NCAA. I’m not sure why, but that seems excessively long for what the stated goal is. What has also eaten at me with regards to the shot clock is if the 60 MLL shot clock really does make long poles and shorties in transition want to shoot more, or is it just that they’re really good players who want to shoot more anyway.

I reached out to Joe Spallina, who is on both extremes of this debate as an NCAA women’s coach and MLL coach. What he said makes a lot of sense:

“I think the shot clock makes teams less inclined to settle the ball down if an opportunity presents itself. A turnover with no shot clock could mean you don’t get it back for a while. With a shot clock, you get it back 60 seconds or less.”

What he is really saying is that the clock shifts the risk/reward balance more towards reward since you can get your set offense back out there sooner. The longer the shot clock is, the more that risk/reward balance goes back towards risk. I personally feel that a number of things can be done to lower that risk more, and I’ll jump on the crazy idea train at the same time.

A big hurdle to clear with the shot clock is to make sure coaches aren’t incentivized to wait for the best shot and milk the clock. Basketball and NLL work well because of their short clock (it did wonders for basketball’s pace of play), but they also have a small area to operate in and a high amount of rebounds. That is not the same set of conditions that field lacrosse operates under. How can we change this a bit? I can think of three things: eliminate the “closest to” out of bounds rule on shots, change the off sides rule, and bring back our old favorite, the dive.

First, the off sides rule. Imagine for a minute that instead of the midline being offsides, it’s the opposite restraining line. You don’t even have to make an over and back rule if you don’t want to (I can see arguments for both), as any venturing over that line means you are open game to the long poles. It also means that the riding attackmen have more space to cause turnovers, which can create more chaos on the riding/clearing game. On loose balls, all 10 players from both teams could operate between the boxes. It could be superbly chaotic!

Duke vs Johns Hopkins mens lacrosse 2014 NCAA quarter final

Now, when talking about the out of bounds rule, it does need to be noted that it exists in the first place to incentivize shots, knowing you have a reasonable chance of getting back if you shoot wide. But if we look at things holistically, is that still needed? The reason I would want to see it go away in this scenario is that like in box and basketball, it would create more opportunities for rebounds.

If you know that a wide shot will likely go the other way, you are more likely to get a shot on goal rather than just getting a shot off. This creates more opportunity for rebounds off the goalies, pipes, etc. With more rebounds come more “garbage” goals, crease play, and prolonged possessions that will only happen from great inside play. The offense will have to earn long possessions like they do in box and NLL.

So if on-goal shots and frequent shots are going to be the main objective, let’s really talk about bringing back the dive. It is not easy for officials to call these properly at all times, but to be fair, neither are the current rules. What bringing back the dive in NCAA would do is give offensive players another tool in their arsenal. It is awesome in the MLL and the NLL and those plays are always #SCTop10 worthy. When the shot clock is running out, and you have the ball in your stick near the goal, go for it. It also makes feeding the ball inside a better potential reward, knowing that it isn’t a crease call just waiting to happen.

Jack Near Rochester Rattlers New York Lizards MLL Championship 2015

So if you look at all of these rules together, they do a few main things. They make the operating space smaller, they encourage on goal shots, they create more chaos in the middle of the field, and they reward offensive risk. Is this a silver bullet? Probably not. But I think it is worth constantly evaluating the rules which seem set in stone. If you want to take more control out of coaches’ hands and put the responsibility on the players, then the rules need to create more opportunity in situations where the coach cannot dictate play from the sideline.

So what are your thoughts? Am I totally crazy and off base? Do I not go far enough with some of these proposals? Let me know!