Boring?

[Kyle Berggren]

because we are applying the same methodology to lacrosse as we do business. Specialization is a lot of people's strategy. It's efficiency vs. effectiveness, whichever you think is better.

[laxfan25]

I think the stalling rule is not nearly utilized by the refs enough; perhaps that is what is needed.

Someone also stated that Michigan held the ball for 6 minutes and took two shots.
I'm just curious - if the refs DO call stalling, what happens? What are the rules? The rulebook says that a team with possession inside the box cannot be guilty of stalling, so how should the refs handle it?

[Danny Hogan]

you get warned for stalling, then you have to keep it in the box. you can keep stalling inside the box however. The warning is a judgement call, the actual stalling call would be when the offensive team left the box.

[laxfan25]

Good call Danny. Basically it becomes like the last two minutes rule, where the team ahead has to "keep it in". They can still play a four corners offense but better not step out of the box or on the line.
With some of the descriptions given of game situations it does sound like the stalling warning should be used more...

[Larsen]

I really believe the low scoring games are just as, if not more, exciting than seeing a goal every 2 or 3 minutes. When a game is low scoring there is more riding on every possession, every defensive stand, every clear and ride, and every EMO opportunity. Granted this is different than a team just burning clock which i can't imagine anyone really enjoys watching.

yeah, goals are exciting but i don't think the game as a whole is any better off in a shoot-out than a defensive battle.

Anybody else see that sportscenter highlight a month or two ago of the h.s. basketball game that ended 5-3? no shot-clock so the one team just passed around the outside to kill time. example of low-scoring game plan gone horribly wrong.

[John Paul]

As stated above, there is a difference between stalling and running a disciplined offense against a very good defense. Some teams at every level certainly slow things down for the sake of slowing things down. Others run very deliberate offensive sets and demand good shots. It's apparent when you watch a game live what a team is trying to do.

No argument about specialization, though. I'd love to see it minimized as well, but unless the rules change to force it, coaches would be stupid not to take advantage and utilize their athletes in the most advantageous way. I hate to go through the tedious midfield-sub-through-FO X process every time we get the ball down on their end of the field. I want us attacking (deliberately, with composure and patiently - but attacking nonetheless), but if it gives my team an advantage to get specialized personel on the field, while limiting the other teams opportunity to get theirs on, then we'll keep doing it. If we don't want to sit and watch our opponent go through that, play a stalling game, and we have the horses to do it, we'll extend and force them to attack.

Syracuse last year is a bad example, by the way. They did not have their typical athletic defense, capable of forcing play. They even played a packed-in zone at times, a first in the years I've been watching them play. They also haven't had the kind of dominant offense they've had in the past that can win shootouts every time. They won by playing a much more disciplined style of play that they've been evolving into since Desko took over.

At our level, I think you can also make an argument that we don't have too many truly dominant offensive players. You can turn a great athlete into an all-american defenseman, but it's much harder to build a truly creative offensive player. Most of them are playing varsity lacrosse. The good defenses at the top of the IA are often simply better than the offenses they are going up against.

[dv]

It's apparent when you watch a game live what a team is trying to do.

It's so true JP. [/url]