Debate on 2010 stick specifications

[theCanadian]

In my opinion I think its a bunch of BS. Lacrosse is a very ugly sport when the ball is on the ground all the time. Think field hockey. Anyway you really shouldn't go for stick checks unless they are hanging and in that case the ball comes out 99% of the time. Play D on the body.

I understand the reasons for the rule change. But I don't agree with them.

(go ahead rip me apart, I probably won't even check back though)

[brainddeadjock]

I disagree. I remember before the pinched offset sticks. The ball stayed in the air, if fact, there was more passing, more finesse and less power cradling and one-on-ones. I liek the fact, it will force players to PASS THE BALL more.

[LaxRef]

Right now, it is so hard to dislodge the ball that it discourages passing. I mean, since they can't check the ball out of your stick, the most likely way to turn the ball over is to pass it. Easier to dislodge = more passing + more fast breaks = better lacrosse.

Plus it will be safer, since you won't have guys who feel like they need to beat the crap out of each other trying to get the ball out.

[theCanadian]

Ok I agree. Having a tight pocket CAN discourage passing. However, a team that can pass and catch will pass and catch, and if you can't, your only other option is to run it. And if you make the sticks easy to check the ball out, then your not playing lacrosse at that point, it becomes field hockey. The ball moves faster by passing than running it and it's impossible to defend a ball thats in the air all the time. You simply can't get in and out fast enough. As for getting beat on, I pass the ball when I'm getting beat on. If I'm getting doubled, someone else is wide open, probably on the doorstep.

[massref]

Remember Jim Brown holding the crosse against his body and running through defenders? That rule change didn't negatively affect the game. It's time to adjust the rules to disallow a mechanical advantage of stick design over a skill of cradling and passing.

[wslaxer]

i think this is a pretty stupid thing. yes the ball does saty in the stick pretty good but still y do we need new rules we have pretty good 1's now i think its just a bunc of bs.

[Titanoh]

I think it makes since. This pretty much gets rid of players who pinch there sticks, because if they do, it will be so much more noticable now.
There will be more stick protection, much more passing, as said before.
Sure, it will be a different game, but we can all adapt to it. There is no need to complain about it, its done, you just need to go with it.

[Lax101]

The only issue is that the 2010 rules make nearly every head on the market illegal, including extremely wide beginner heads and the Proton. The 2009 rules, although they seem harsher, allowed a narrower throat area. The current specifications for the throat area, 3" at 1.25" high on the head, is too wide for any head to pass right now.

[RaiderLax17]

The only issue is that the 2010 rules make nearly every head on the market illegal, including extremely wide beginner heads and the Proton. The 2009 rules, although they seem harsher, allowed a narrower throat area. The current specifications for the throat area, 3" at 1.25" high on the head, is too wide for any head to pass right now.

That sucks. I had a Bionic and I hated it because of how wide it is. I guess I should appreciate the changes though since I'm a defenseman.

[czechinthepipes]

There is a lot about the 2010 rules I dislike, but even so I think its a great rule and will help the game a lot. I prefer the 2009 rules a lot more though, due to the reasons that Lax101 mentioned. Overall, either rules will help the game be like it used to be, and will show who really has skill and who just had a pinched head that made them look good.

[Stringer4Lax]

Think about the stores.... They wont be able to sell all the pinched heads they bought and have to sell, and the companies wont buy them back. This could put some dealers out of business.

[Titanoh]

Most stores won't buy anymore new heads in 09'. They will most likely keep 2 or 3 of each head in stock, just to be safe (Im talking about small stores).
Most big stores will keep ordering more, but by the middle of 09', getting close to 10' they will order as they go, or keep a small ammount in stock (5 or so)...At least thats what I would do.

(Is the Xcaliber 2010 legal?)

[Raiderslax911]

i hate the new specifications. i love lacrosse right now, to me, if oyu get a clean hit on the stick, the ballcomes out. its all about playing smarter defense with the way the sticks are now, Lacrosse will be come much mroe sloppy with the new specifications

[LaxRef]

Remember Jim Brown holding the crosse against his body and running through defenders?

According to the Eric Evans article in one of the first issues of Stripes (#1 or #2), that's an urban legend.

[Titanoh]

You complaining will change nothing.

[Raiderslax911]

i'm not trying too. this is a debate and i am voiceing my opinion. thats usually what goes alogn with a debate

[Show'emTheNumba]

Sure you can debate this topic out to wazoo, but the rules will stay. Yes, a majority of people might disagree with the new rules but lets take a step back and chill. The world is not over and lacrosse will most certainly not even be close to field hockey. If anything these new rules will cause more players to hit the wall and practice much more. It sounds like some of you think lacrosse will be ruined in the next few years, WRONG.

[I got man!]

if you remember like 15 or + years back heads off the shelf were about the dimensions the new rules are calling for. Even further back they were bigger. Of course people who played back then also had better form

[laxzeeb]

Anything at the NFHS level that will minimize the intensity of contact, improve and increase passing, movement with and without the ball, are positives in my view. I'm all for true, clean checking, but not the clobberfests that are sometimes needed to get the ball in play. Out goes the flag and the next thing I hear is "Let em play!".

I understand the expense issue but most are replacing heads fairly often anyway. We are starting to see too much contact in the youth leagues, which then stays with the player as they progress. Any reasonable change that will reinforce that this is a passing and catching game likely will have my support. I realize proper instruction is a big factor in this too, but I support this equipment change.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I've heard much cursing of the 'darkness', but have seen no lit candles.

Let's stipulate that the NFHS shares Zeeb's opinion that "Anything at the NFHS level that will minimize the intensity of contact, improve and increase passing, movement with and without the ball, are positives in my view." Let's also postulate that this objective is shared among the vast majority of responsible members of the lacrosse community.

Can anyone propose a better way to accomplish this than to redesign the sticks so that the ball is more easily dislodged?

Anybody?

[laxzeeb]

Can anyone propose a better way to accomplish this than to redesign the sticks so that the ball is more easily dislodged?


It is simplistic but proper training in the fundamentals of play is a big factor, if not the largest. There is a shortage of well schooled coaches, as is the case with officials, given the rapid growth of the sport. You can only tell a kid that winning is more fun than hitting so many times. After all, many lopsided games have we all seen due to well executed fast breaks and pinpoint passing. So I guess I'm not surprised to see tweaks like this to try to structure the play in the direction of the fundamentals.

Basketball has the various versions of the 5 second rule to promote continuous play and ball movement but the last thing I'd prefer is yet another count to deal with. No other options come to mind.

[laxmj1992]

I am curious to see how many new heads come out in 2010. Looking at the head specifications, it does not seem like companies have many options to create a new head, and all new heads will look pretty similar.

[TXD2LAX]

I've heard much cursing of the 'darkness', but have seen no lit candles.

Let's stipulate that the NFHS shares Zeeb's opinion that "Anything at the NFHS level that will minimize the intensity of contact, improve and increase passing, movement with and without the ball, are positives in my view." Let's also postulate that this objective is shared among the vast majority of responsible members of the lacrosse community.

Can anyone propose a better way to accomplish this than to redesign the sticks so that the ball is more easily dislodged?

Anybody?

I am completely for the rule changes to go into affect. I am a coordinator for a youth lacrosse league. I cannot tell you how many broken wrist I have seen as a result of kids whacking away to try and dislodge the ball. Yes it may seem a lot more simple just to instruct the kids to do this, but lacrosse is a hard sport to master at an early age, and the whacking comes from frustration. Most youth games in this area of the world have been reduced to the battle of the ISO players. I want to see more give and gos, more draw and dumps, and definately want to see kids learn to catch the darn ball. The detractors to this rule say it will cause a majority of the game to be who can pick up the most groundballs. Those that feel the ball will spend more time on the ground than in the air need to work on the wall. Maybe now we will see a kid that has busted his tail at practice and practicing at home against the wall start to rise up as the star player on the team, not the guy who lifts weights or who happened to be born bigger than everyone else. Lacrosse is a game of grace and finesse. If you want violence, go play football.

I would however, like to see the rule where a pass in flight from one player to another is considered "in possession." Thus eliminating the cheap shots from behind by the defending team.

[laxzeeb]

I also help run a youth league. To try to limit the intensity and emphasize the fundamentals we restrict checking in certain ways plus have a one pass completion rule before a shot can be taken. All area programs follow the same rules. Further, we permit the refs to do some "teaching" when a penalty is called so long as it doesn't really impede the flow of the game. The stick violence is always the biggest issue so every season early on lots of slash calls.

[TXD2LAX]

I also help run a youth league. To try to limit the intensity and emphasize the fundamentals we restrict checking in certain ways plus have a one pass completion rule before a shot can be taken. All area programs follow the same rules. Further, we permit the refs to do some "teaching" when a penalty is called so long as it doesn't really impede the flow of the game. The stick violence is always the biggest issue so every season early on lots of slash calls.

Yes, I added the "take out" check rule to the rules this season. I did stick my neck out there a bit by making the rule where all one handed stick checks will be ruled as a slash. Our HS organization runs under NCAA rules, so that is what I put our MS group under as well. But when I threw in the rule about one handed stick checks...let's just say I had to do a lot of defending. My points were 1) we want to develop good fundamentals 2) most one handed checks are from a kid that just got beat and is throwing it in desperation or frustration 3) that 99.9% of MS age boys can control their stick with only one hand. I had one coach say I need to add wording that "as long as it made contact with the body." I explained to him that he needed to reread the rule of a slash. That a slash could be called without contact even being made. Just intent was enough to draw a call.

[LaxRef]

I would however, like to see the rule where a pass in flight from one player to another is considered "in possession." Thus eliminating the cheap shots from behind by the defending team.

A pass in flight is considered to be in possession. NCAA now makes the distinction of it being in "team possession" if it's in flight.

However, NCAA and NFHS handle this differently. Consider this situation:

A1 throws a pass. While the ball is in flight, B1 pushes A1 from behind (ball is more than 5 yards away). Then the ball is (1) caught by A2 (2) not caught.

NFHS: Initially a play-on. (1)When ball is caught, it changes to a flag down technical foul. (2) Play-on until ball hits ground; award ball to Team A.

NCAA: Play on in both cases. (1) Play-on ends when ball is caught. (2) Stop play and award ball to Team A.

I think the NFHS has it right here.

[laxzeeb]

I struggle with the NCAA version as it seems to have the potential to thwart a goal, as in the situation where the defender is burned, the best thing to do is commit the foul. It doesn't discourage the conduct. The offended team deserves the potential for a man up opportunity. In football when a defensive back that has been beat mangles a receiver in the endzone they don't just tell the offense they get a free down do over.

[dalaxmandef3]

I'm just confused about stick checks will all refs carry rulers?

[Titanoh]

What I would do is make a mold with the exact measurements, if they mold dosen't fit in the head, it is illegal.

[TXD2LAX]

A pass in flight is considered to be in possession. NCAA now makes the distinction of it being in "team possession" if it's in flight.

However, NCAA and NFHS handle this differently. Consider this situation:

A1 throws a pass. While the ball is in flight, B1 pushes A1 from behind (ball is more than 5 yards away). Then the ball is (1) caught by A2 (2) not caught.

NFHS: Initially a play-on. (1)When ball is caught, it changes to a flag down technical foul. (2) Play-on until ball hits ground; award ball to Team A.

NCAA: Play on in both cases. (1) Play-on ends when ball is caught. (2) Stop play and award ball to Team A.

I think the NFHS has it right here.

But in both of those situations it is merely a technical foul, loose ball push. So no big deal. If it was truly treated as being "in possession" it would be a personal foul push from behind with possession. Thus creating a man up situation for the offended team. It was like this years ago. Now days how often do you see a fast break run perfectly only to have it ruined at the end by the goalie laying out the happless attackman cutting across in front of the crease to receive the feed?? By the way BOTH of my sons are goalies. I highly discourage this type of play from them, but as they are both teenagers and their own coaches encourage it I see both of them do it at least once a game if not once per half.

I struggle with the NCAA version as it seems to have the potential to thwart a goal, as in the situation where the defender is burned, the best thing to do is commit the foul. It doesn't discourage the conduct. The offended team deserves the potential for a man up opportunity. In football when a defensive back that has been beat mangles a receiver in the endzone they don't just tell the offense they get a free down do over.

This is exactly what I was reffering to. I am not sure the reason it was changed, but I see far to many HS and under players hurt because this is allowed to happen. All the defending team has to realize is that if I am having to do this someone has gotten beat, and if I do it the only thing that will happen is the other team will get to restart with the ball but me and my buddies can reset our defense. It is a win/win situation for the offending team. I thought the rules were written as to not give an advantage to an offending team. This one has slipped through the cracks.

[jmk2910]

What I would do is make a mold with the exact measurements, if they mold dosen't fit in the head, it is illegal.

I understand what you are saying here, but im not sure if it would be practical. Its much easier for refs to just carry around a tape measure to take dimensions.
Personally, i think these changes are going to make the game more exciting, make it more fast-paced(if possible), and more back-to-the-basics

[laxzeeb]

I'm just confused about stick checks will all refs carry rulers?

We all carry small tape measures already to conduct stick check measurements.

[pboyd]

IRT prior posting
"A1 throws a pass. While the ball is in flight, B1 pushes A1 from behind (ball is more than 5 yards away). Then the ball is (1) caught by A2 (2) not caught.

NFHS: Initially a play-on. (1)When ball is caught, it changes to a flag down technical foul. (2) Play-on until ball hits ground; award ball to Team A."

This situation in NFHS would be a Flag Down right from the start not a Play-On. See 4.5 page 42 2008 NFHS Rules.

[LaxRef]

IRT prior posting
"A1 throws a pass. While the ball is in flight, B1 pushes A1 from behind (ball is more than 5 yards away). Then the ball is (1) caught by A2 (2) not caught.

NFHS: Initially a play-on. (1)When ball is caught, it changes to a flag down technical foul. (2) Play-on until ball hits ground; award ball to Team A."

This situation in NFHS would be a Flag Down right from the start not a Play-On. See 4.5 page 42 2008 NFHS Rules.

I don't have a rulebook handy, but I was taught to call a play on, then throw the flag if the pass is caught. If you throw the flag right away and the pass is not caught, you have to pick up the flag, which looks like you screwed up. It's better to save the flag until you know that you need it. Thus:

Pass in flight
Push from behind--we don't know if it's with possession until the ball is caught or not
Play on!

Then:

Ball caught: throw flag, yell "flag down!"
Ball not caught: whistle, award possession.

[LaxRef]

But in both of those situations it is merely a technical foul, loose ball push. So no big deal. If it was truly treated as being "in possession" it would be a personal foul push from behind with possession. Thus creating a man up situation for the offended team. It was like this years ago. Now days how often do you see a fast break run perfectly only to have it ruined at the end by the goalie laying out the happless attackman cutting across in front of the crease to receive the feed?? By the way BOTH of my sons are goalies. I highly discourage this type of play from them, but as they are both teenagers and their own coaches encourage it I see both of them do it at least once a game if not once per half.

A push from behind with possession is not a personal foul, it is a time-serving technical foul. If there's a personal foul at any time, the player committing it will serve penalty time regardless of who had possession or whether the ball was loose.

In NFHS, a pass in flight that is caught is treated as being in possession, so the player committing the push from behind is flagged for the push and play continues. The player committing the push gains no advantage: if the pass is caught, he serves time (30 seconds, unless a goal is scored); if not, the other team gets possession back instead of the fouling team having a chance to scoop the loose ball.

If it's not just a push but an illegal body check (e.g., hard hit from behind), the flag gets thrown no matter what and the player serves time no matter what.

And a goalie laying out a player without the ball is committing an IBC and should serve 1 to 3 minutes.

This is exactly what I was reffering to. I am not sure the reason it was changed, but I see far to many HS and under players hurt because this is allowed to happen. All the defending team has to realize is that if I am having to do this someone has gotten beat, and if I do it the only thing that will happen is the other team will get to restart with the ball but me and my buddies can reset our defense. It is a win/win situation for the offending team. I thought the rules were written as to not give an advantage to an offending team. This one has slipped through the cracks.


I don't see your point. If the pass is in flight (under NFHS rules), the foul creates no advantage and results in a penalty being served if the pass is caught. In NCAA, you are right: a technical foul with the ball in flight gets you at best a chance to set up your defense and at worst (pass is caight) costs you nothing. But this is similar to this situation:

A1 is about to scoop a loose ball and has nothing but open field in front of him. B1 pushes him from behind, and B1 scoops the ball.

In this situation, B1 is rewarded for the foul. This, I think, is a much bigger problem since it happens more often and in both NCAA and NFHS.

Oh, I should add that in all of these situations, the fouling team runs the risk of the foul being judged to be a personal foul. There's also the "repeatedly committing the same technical foul" USC to contend with, plus the garden-variety USC for committing any other act deemed USC by the officials.

[pboyd]

"I don't have a rulebook handy, but I was taught to call a play on, then throw the flag if the pass is caught. If you throw the flag right away and the pass is not caught, you have to pick up the flag, which looks like you screwed up. It's better to save the flag until you know that you need it." [LaxRef]
I cited NFHS Case 4.5 - it clearly indicates Flag Down - although your Play-On and Flag Down if pass is caught makes sense since B1 doesn't serve time if the pass is not caught - just award possession to Team A. According to Case 4.5 - this is the only case where a player doesn't serve time following a Flag Down which seems contrary to my previous understanding that whenever you see a flag - someone is serving time or else the official indicates inadvertent flag.

[eme]

My attempt to rewrite the poorly written NFHS Case 4.5 didn't make it in the 2008 book. I will try again for next year.
It should be Play on while ball is in flight...then if pass is dropped, you can whistle dead an award possession and if pass is caught throw the flag. I would bet a silent play-on with just an arm in the air would be better in this case.

[spike191]

It seems to me that everyone thinks these rules are going to happen, but they already pushed the rules back once. I see two things happening if they are actually put into action, 1) Lacrosse dying for atleast a year, because no one will be able to play the same type of game that they were used to playing. Strategies will need to be overhauled, mostly on a highschool level. I feel like alot of contact will be taken from the game. Also, there is going to be a manufacturing problem, we will see if they actually adhere to the rules, they haven't stopped making pinched heads yet. In my opinion i think that the rules a little to strict, i wouldn't mind seeing everyone using proton like heads though. Again, thats if any of this stuff happens

[LaxRef]

It seems to me that everyone thinks these rules are going to happen, but they already pushed the rules back once. I see two things happening if they are actually put into action, 1) Lacrosse dying for atleast a year, because no one will be able to play the same type of game that they were used to playing. Strategies will need to be overhauled, mostly on a highschool level

How is an NCAA rule going to affect NFHS lacrosse? :thinking:

[3rdPersonPlural]

How is an NCAA rule going to affect NFHS lacrosse? :thinking:

OK, so now I'm confused.

What rules are going to affect which body (Fed or NCAA) at what time?

I'm apparently out of some loop. Perhaps I should read all of my e-mail.....

[eme]

New stick dimensions go into effect Jan. 1, 2010 for NCAA.
Remember that these stick dimensions are more stringent than those for NFHS; thus, an NCAA stick in 2010 would still be legal under current NFHS rules.

[LaxRef]

OK, so now I'm confused.

What rules are going to affect which body (Fed or NCAA) at what time?

I'm apparently out of some loop. Perhaps I should read all of my e-mail.....

There is currently nothing on the table regarding changes in stick dimensions for NFHS. For NCAA, there are changes set to take effect in 2010.

[theCanadian]

Good point 3rdpersonplural, and I had this same idea, but didn't really voice it. If we need to change the rules because people are illegally pinching heads or not playing good lacrosse, ex: holding the ball instead of passing, then what does that say about the integrity of the players? I think the thing to do is reteach players a respect for the game. Yes I know it will be alot harder to do it that way and some coaches might not go for it, but isn't the better method usually the harder one?

[eme]

New stick dimensions go into effect Jan. 1, 2010 for NCAA.
Remember that these stick dimensions are more stringent than those for NFHS; thus, an NCAA stick in 2010 would still be legal under current NFHS rules.


Not quite true, upon examination. New NCAA regs say 6" minimum on the back of the crosse...NFHS rules say 6.5" minimum "at the bottom of the sidewall" (i.e the back)

[spartanlax10]

it's going to be kind of weak, but i don't really think it's all that much of a change...

however, i dont like the idea of changing my stick just because of some rule. especially since there arent any problems with the game as it is.

[LaxRef]

Not quite true, upon examination. New NCAA regs say 6" minimum on the back of the crosse...NFHS rules say 6.5" minimum "at the bottom of the sidewall" (i.e the back)

As usual, you are correct. However, this is the same as the old NCAA rule. I suggested about 3 years ago that they take out the part about measuring the back to be at least 6.5" because:

(a) No one was measuring the backs of heads at that time and

(b) If you did start measuring the backs, essentially every stick would be illegal.

At that point, the "at the bottom" was removed from the NCAA rules, but left in the NFHS rules. I personally don't measure the back in NFHS games because no one else does. I suppose I need to address this in some form when writing the mechanics manual.

[PlayOn]

i saw this on another thread http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?t=77471

Is this the sort of contraption we're going to have to use? I suppose if this is the case then we'll just have to leave the checking device on the table and do all our check there. It would be very difficult to measure 3 inches, hold that place with my thumb, then measure across, then 5 inches etc.

Also I hope NFHS falls in line on this one. It's would be absurd to think that the problems occuring at the NCAA level that this rule change is resolving should be allowed to persist in High School (ie more violent play and less passing).

[Woodenstick]

I would think that someone will develop a model that folds up like a carpenter's rule, or compresses like a compact umbrella.

Also, the NCAA rules have different measurements for front and back, so you might need 2 devices, or 1 with moving parts.

[laxzeeb]

I suppose if the NFHS goes to this the one option is for a similar contraption [I suspect it could be fairly easily injection molded out of plastic] to be something the home team provides and it sits on the table to be grabbed for stick checks. Not only would we not be required to have one in our bags, but that basically would mean all the coaches would have one for the players to use for their own self checks. If produced in quantity it might be fairly inexpensive and it probably could be made at one of the same plants currently use to mold heads. It is something someone could talk to Paul or Gary Gait about at the convention.

[LaxRef]

I suppose if the NFHS goes to this the one option is for a similar contraption [I suspect it could be fairly easily injection molded out of plastic] to be something the home team provides and it sits on the table to be grabbed for stick checks.

I doubt they'd put this on the coaches. They'd make the officials responsible for them.

[eme]

I doubt they'd put this on the coaches. They'd make the officials responsible for them.

Bingo! The coaches want the game cleaned up but they want the officials to do it.

[laxzeeb]

Certainly I'd defer to your experience on that. Another thing we get to buy with our healthy renumeration. . .

I just figured it would be a better way of getting compliance from the players if they were with the team rather than just showing up at a game in an official's bag. But if someone produces them out of plastic and they are inexpensive enough some may get them anyway.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Actually, a paralinear ruler with a vertical array of measuring 'blocks' is a better alignment

I----------------------------------I 10"
I----------------------I 6"
I-----------I 3.5"