LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I'm curious what people thought about this year's main rule changes and points of emphasis, the big ones being:

• Count starts on a loose ball in zone 3.
• The pre-whistle face-off violation deal.
• Emphasis on calling illegal back checks.
• The rules designed to take pull strings out of the game.
• Any other rule changes you thought were noteworthy.

i generally don't like that POE's are even mentioned, the inexperienced officials in developing regions almost always over-do it.

the back check POE is a great example of one that will quickly go overboard with overzealous inexperienced officials.

I have mixed emotions about the new face off rules. In principle I like the rule, it makes the better pure face-off midfielder the natural winner of the draw. I will admit that I constantly cheat on draws and the rule still allows for some and with that I do like it. What I really hate is the inconsistency with the officials on calling the violation. There were numerous times that I saw the official would whistle the play and point a direction and then flag a FOGO for not leaving when they had no idea that they had to leave. If there was a mechanic that officials stated who had to go (if it was prewhistle) then things would go smoother and there would be less confusion. The better officials are telling FOGOs who has to leave but there are many who are not saying anything and its causing a lot of problems in games I have seen.

If the rules people can put in a mechanic like this then I think it will work better.

cjwilhelmi wrote:I have mixed emotions about the new face off rules. In principle I like the rule, it makes the better pure face-off midfielder the natural winner of the draw. I will admit that I constantly cheat on draws and the rule still allows for some and with that I do like it. What I really hate is the inconsistency with the officials on calling the violation. There were numerous times that I saw the official would whistle the play and point a direction and then flag a FOGO for not leaving when they had no idea that they had to leave. If there was a mechanic that officials stated who had to go (if it was prewhistle) then things would go smoother and there would be less confusion. The better officials are telling FOGOs who has to leave but there are many who are not saying anything and its causing a lot of problems in games I have seen.

If the rules people can put in a mechanic like this then I think it will work better.

I think the big problem was that the rule was ill-conceived and that led to mechanics being such an issue.

Officials were supposed to say, "Moved early, white ball," let white pick up the ball, and then blow it in, only flagging blue if blue didn't sub out and if blue got involved in the play. But we were under pressure to get the restart in quickly because the advantage only lasted as long as it took the FOGO to sub off.

Much better would have been stating that the offending FOGO couldn't leave center until the whistle—then we'd have plenty of time to report the foul and get a clean restart. A colleague offered the suggestion that you put the offender behind his offensive restraining line and not release him until the whistle, which also stops teams from nullifying the advantage by calling a timeout.

I think not allowing the offending FO man to leave center until the restart whistle blows is a great idea, and would certainly eliminate a lot of confusion

I don't the idea of having them place the offending FOGO in a certain spot (restraining line or back at the 'x'). If they move early and are away from the play before they realize that they jumped its only going to slow the game down by putting them back and then restarting. I think that the best way to solve it is to redo the mechanic and have officials state who jumped and that they have to leave. I really don't see how hard it would be to state "Black you have to go, White ball".

EDIT:: Stopping play and rearranging players is called Girls Lacrosse and its boring as crap. Its like freeze tag with sticks.

Count starts on a loose ball in zone 3.
Loved it. Took a few games to get used to starting the count immediately. Don't know if it was because of this rule, or the teams are just getting better and playing lacrosse, but the games seemed to finish quicker and the players were always hustling to keep play moving.

The pre-whistle face-off violation deal.
Jury is still out on this one. I agree I like the idea, but it still has a lot of issues.

Emphasis on calling illegal back checks.
I don't have a problem with it. There are very few excuses for the stick to be swung and initial contact made across the back. (Not to be confused with the ever popular, never called, cross-check hold).

The rules designed to take pull strings out of the game.
Once again a case where the coaches vote on a rule they themselves should be enforcing. Almost everybody does it, almost everybody knows it, yet we're going to put the onus on the officials to "see" it and call it.

Any other rule changes you thought were noteworthy.
I still believe when a ball comes out of the box on a shot, the 10 second count begins, the ball then crosses midfield and goes out of bounds with Team A (the shooting team) closest to the ball and regaining possession on the restart, the count when whistled in should be 10 seconds, not 20 seconds. If Team A picks up the ball in their defensive half of the field in this case, the 10 second count continues. Why should they be rewarded with 10 extra seconds for letting the ball go out of bounds? Just my opinion.

shrekjr wrote:I still believe when a ball comes out of the box on a shot, the 10 second count begins, the ball then crosses midfield and goes out of bounds with Team A (the shooting team) closest to the ball and regaining possession on the restart, the count when whistled in should be 10 seconds, not 20 seconds. If Team A picks up the ball in their defensive half of the field in this case, the 10 second count continues. Why should they be rewarded with 10 extra seconds for letting the ball go out of bounds? Just my opinion.

I'm confused. We have:

NCAA Rule 4-14 wrote:Once the officials start a 10-second count on a team, any new count for
that team will also be a 10-second count (even if possession is established
in the defensive end) unless (1) the defensive team had an intervening
possession; or (2) a goal has been scored since that 10-second count.

By that rule, in the situation you describe it would be a 10-count.

But I just noticed that A.R. 60 in that section needs to be fixed!

I agree, but I couldn't get ANY of the higher ups in my district to agree. After me bringing it up on several occasions, it was "decided" this scenario would be a 20 second count in this district until it was proven otherwise in writing. A.R. 61 would seem to address this generally, but to no avail here. Would love to see an A.R. for this!

shrekjr wrote:I agree, but I couldn't get ANY of the higher ups in my district to agree. After me bringing it up on several occasions, it was "decided" this scenario would be a 20 second count in this district until it was proven otherwise in writing. A.R. 61 would seem to address this generally, but to no avail here. Would love to see an A.R. for this!

I don't understand why you need an A.R. when the rulebook says it in black and white: you can't get a second 20-count without a goal or an intervening possession. Is there either one in the situation you describe? No. Then it's a 10-count.

The district can't "decide" something that is in direct contradiction with the rules.