MCLA.us Game Stats...should they be monitored?

[MountaineerLax]

2008 Mens Lacrosse Rulebook

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/ ... _rules.pdf


If it's not posted on your conference or team site - you should try to get that added.

[Jolly Roger]

Here's a question... A shot is going wide of the net, the goaltender catches it. Its is a shot, NOT a save... but does the goalie get a groundball? What do you call shots off cage that the goalie catches? Not saves... then what?

This is a ground ball.

[John Paul]

JP,

It's my understanding that there will be some rules that will be universal across all of the conferences as soon as the MCLA releases it's new By-Laws? Is this true? And when could we expect them?

A couple things we've run into and could use some help from the MCLA execs. on are....

1. Stats and game scores entry required by 72 hours (in place now) - but there are no penalties for those teams that do not. Doug Carl mentioned that we might be able to put them on administrative probation - but what does that mean?

2. A set amount of in-conference games that are required by each conference. We've run into some questions because here in the RMLC, with only 3 DI teams, we require 3 D1 In-confrence games (everyone plays each other). But in a conference such as the PNCLL where they have more D1 teams, they may require 8 or 9 in-conference games because again, everyone plays each other. So a team like CSU or BYU play 3 times in conference and 10+ times out of conference. Oregon plays in-conference 8 times and out of conference, at least 5 times less than their RMLC brethern.

This definitely effects the outcome of the season, as well as the growth of the league.

Plus, what's to stop a team from leaving a conference and joining another because the rules there are better for their success?

1. You're right. That rule exists, but we have no teeth to it yet. We will. Not sure what yet.

2. Doubt this one will be passed. Hasn't even been discussed at the Board level. This is the first I've heard that it's a concern.

3. Nothing would initially stop a team from switching conferences. If the new conference accepts them, they are in. If the old conference appeals to the BOD, it's conceivable the move could be over-ruled, but their argument would have to be pretty convincing. Bigger question - do we ever go back to allowing independent teams? That one is discussed every year.

[Zamboni_Driver]

With the parents I deal with, I tell them that a save is when the goalie stops or deflects a ball that is heading at the goal as a result of the opposing teams play. They always question whether or not to count a shot from midline with 5 seconds left. We count that as a save if the goalie's stick is still inside the crease, because the other team would have counted it as a goal if the goalie was not there. But if the goalie runs 5 yards to the right to catch it...then no save.

It's definitely a shot - but not a save because it did not have a chance at scoring.

I disagree here. Have you ever seen a wide shot hit a defensemen in the head and go in. Again as long as the goalie is in the crease, it is a save. We just have to teach parents the difference between a wide shot and a backside feed.

[WCLLPREZ]

Zamboni,

Not true. The NCAA rule book is very specific with what is considered a save. If the ball would have gone in the cage if he hadn't touched it, it is a save. There could be an instance where the ball hits the goalies stick, which is in the crease but the shot wouldn't have gone in the goal, thus no save. It may be better to teach them that if the goalie's crosse is between the pipes (hi/low or side/side) when it contacts the ball, that is when a save is recorded. Taken another way, the goalie while standing in his crease catches a ball that is above over the top crossbarl or beyond the side posts, then a save is not registered, despite he and his stick being "in the crease".

[Zamboni_Driver]

Zamboni,

Not true. The NCAA rule book is very specific with what is considered a save. If the ball would have gone in the cage if he hadn't touched it, it is a save. There could be an instance where the ball hits the goalies stick, which is in the crease but the shot wouldn't have gone in the goal, thus no save. It may be better to teach them that if the goalie's crosse is between the pipes (hi/low or side/side) when it contacts the ball, that is when a save is recorded. Taken another way, the goalie while standing in his crease catches a ball that is above over the top crossbarl or beyond the side posts, then a save is not registered, despite he and his stick being "in the crease".

Obviously I'm biased towards the goalies. And I'm not a rules guy. I read the rules posted, and know what they say and why. After that it is up to each person to use certain references to ascertain whether there was a save or not. I like the crease concept for several reasons...

1. It is an easier references for parents to see from the stands.

2. For 90% of the shots, everyone can tell. For 10% though, I believe at that only the goalie and shooter really know if a shot is 1 inch under the pipe or 1 inch over the pipe. If someone can tell from the box or the 5th row of a stadium, you have better eyes than most. Also, within those 10% where only an inch is the difference, if a goalie steps out to cut off angle, has his hands extended -- I think it becomes real tough to tell. For those, I wouldn't want to be betting my house on it. So until they have the technology that tells if it is a strike put into lacrosse games, again I'll give the benifit of the doubt.

3. If they keep giving credit for goals that are due to wide shots that are deflected unintentially, I like giving credit for goalies busting their butt trying to gain possession and start a fast break.

Back to the 10% of too-tough-to-call shots, that is why the orginal poster and I agree on a 3-4-5 save difference is acceptable, but not on double digit differences.

[WCLLPREZ]

I couldn't agree more with all you have said. I have been training our scorekeeper for the past six years and she does a really good job. If only everyteam had a scorekeeper who can stick around this long to learn the game. We will always give the benefit of the doubt to the goalie. We do review film after each game and agreed, there are only 3-5 questions each game.

Getting married and using your wife isn't for every coach/ team though; for all those who thought we had some undergrads at Santa Clara taking that long to graduate!!!

[nhoskins]

Getting married and using your wife isn't for every coach/ team though; for all those who thought we had some undergrads at Santa Clara taking that long to graduate!!!

Some undergrads taking that long to graduate? I think all of our undergrads do...

[shep]

Zamboni,

Not true. The NCAA rule book is very specific with what is considered a save. If the ball would have gone in the cage if he hadn't touched it, it is a save. There could be an instance where the ball hits the goalies stick, which is in the crease but the shot wouldn't have gone in the goal, thus no save. It may be better to teach them that if the goalie's crosse is between the pipes (hi/low or side/side) when it contacts the ball, that is when a save is recorded. Taken another way, the goalie while standing in his crease catches a ball that is above over the top crossbarl or beyond the side posts, then a save is not registered, despite he and his stick being "in the crease".

Obviously I'm biased towards the goalies. And I'm not a rules guy. I read the rules posted, and know what they say and why. After that it is up to each person to use certain references to ascertain whether there was a save or not. I like the crease concept for several reasons...

1. It is an easier references for parents to see from the stands.

2. For 90% of the shots, everyone can tell. For 10% though, I believe at that only the goalie and shooter really know if a shot is 1 inch under the pipe or 1 inch over the pipe. If someone can tell from the box or the 5th row of a stadium, you have better eyes than most. Also, within those 10% where only an inch is the difference, if a goalie steps out to cut off angle, has his hands extended -- I think it becomes real tough to tell. For those, I wouldn't want to be betting my house on it. So until they have the technology that tells if it is a strike put into lacrosse games, again I'll give the benifit of the doubt.

3. If they keep giving credit for goals that are due to wide shots that are deflected unintentially, I like giving credit for goalies busting their butt trying to gain possession and start a fast break.

Back to the 10% of too-tough-to-call shots, that is why the orginal poster and I agree on a 3-4-5 save difference is acceptable, but not on double digit differences.

I wasn't aware that statisticians had the option of "not being a rules guy"....what if someone decided to award 2 assists per goal a la Hockey because they felt the rule was unfair or too hard to judge from the stands? Rules is rules.

[laxdad03]

Got to agree with keeping with the rules. Also note that, in terms of easy to express "concepts", this determination basically shouldn't be any different than discriminating between a "shot" and a "shot on goal", in fact there really is a need for consistency there anyway. I've trained a goodly number of stats folk as well over the years, and to me, the simplest and most straighforward concept (consistent with the rules) is the rubric already stated: Essentially, if the ball would have gone in the goal if it were not for the goalie's contact. Obviously agreed that there is room for judgement, but that rubric ought to be the criterion for judging, not where the goalie's stick or feet or whatever were at the time. Some of the other factors (stick positioning, in the crease, etc.) can be mentioned as possible aids to determine whether or not it would have gone in, under certain circumstances and viewing conditions, but shouldn't be put forth as "the rule" any more than, for example, how many steps a player can take before scoring to determine whether an assist is given or not. And if there's uncertainty or error in judgement in a few cases, that's fine (as is a little bit of "benefit of the doubt"), but at least the judgment ought to be attempted on the right basis.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Got to agree with keeping with the rules. Also note that, in terms of easy to express "concepts", this determination basically shouldn't be any different than discriminating between a "shot" and a "shot on goal", in fact there really is a need for consistency there anyway. I've trained a goodly number of stats folk as well over the years, and to me, the simplest and most straighforward concept (consistent with the rules) is the rubric already stated: Essentially, if the ball would have gone in the goal if it were not for the goalie's contact. Obviously agreed that there is room for judgement, but that rubric ought to be the criterion for judging, not where the goalie's stick or feet or whatever were at the time. Some of the other factors (stick positioning, in the crease, etc.) can be mentioned as possible aids to determine whether or not it would have gone in, under certain circumstances and viewing conditions, but shouldn't be put forth as "the rule" any more than, for example, how many steps a player can take before scoring to determine whether an assist is given or not. And if there's uncertainty or error in judgement in a few cases, that's fine (as is a little bit of "benefit of the doubt"), but at least the judgment ought to be attempted on the right basis.

I like what you wrote. My guess is in application, they are virtually identical (maybe 1 or 2 saves over a season). I'm just surprised people are not willing to admit that there is a subset of shots, intercepted by the goalie, that we really can't be 100% positive would have hit or missed the cage. Since we don't have the technology to help us (like the strike zone, or the line call in tennis) we have to go by visual cues to help.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Obviously I'm biased towards the goalies. And I'm not a rules guy. .

I wasn't aware that statisticians had the option of "not being a rules guy"....what if someone decided to award 2 assists per goal a la Hockey because they felt the rule was unfair or too hard to judge from the stands? Rules is rules.

I would argue slightly different than you-- here's my thoughts and I hope some the people who might have a better vocab or analysis than me jump in to either help me out and shoot me down..

Rule Types:

1. Procedural: These are rules that involve the referee. Within this set there are the absolute and the subjective kind: Absolute rules are those that is shown to any ref from the youth to NCAA D1 they would all call it the same (ex: ball crossing the goal line, not enough men on the field, offsides). Then the subjective rules are those that if all refs saw they would be a range of responses (ex: contact with the helmet might be considered by some a brush others a personal foul; or if a guy turned into a hit vs a push call). In the subjective case, does the rule state that if an event occurs there should be a call --yes, but the event is up to interpretation, it is not an absolute. Notice the rule is not up for interpretation, the event is up for interpretation.

2. Evaluative: These usually don't require the referee's input. Examples here are saves (hence the discussion) or face off wins or failed clears or assists. Referees are not required to tell the box of a save. But they do tell the box if there was a score or penalty (which are procedural). Under these types of rules, these evaluations are also give parameters (rules) to meet, but they require judgment and thus interpretation of the event can create varied responses for several people looking at the same event, and varied responses for similar events that occured at different levels of the sport (youth, high, college).

So back to someone giving 2 pts. That is not their call to begin with. Goals are absolute procedural calls given by the ref. But if a shot was going in verse hitting the pipe before a goalie stepped in front of it falls under evaluation.

Do you agree with these different types of rules or are all rules the same??

[laxdad03]

I certainly agree that there will necessarily be variation in responses/interpretation/evaluation of what/how events occurred, but I think the intent should be for everyone to judge them based on the same criteria, even if there is difficulty or differences in how those events/criteria are observed. I think the danger of changing/substituting criteria is exemplified by, for example, a narrow angle shot coming from GLE and going across in front of the goal. Its path could miss going in by feet when the goalie picks it off in front, but an observer just looking to see if the goalie's feet are in the crease and his stick is between the pipes would tend to still credit a save (totally independent of visibility issues).

[Zamboni_Driver]

I certainly agree that there will necessarily be variation in responses/interpretation/evaluation of what/how events occurred, but I think the intent should be for everyone to judge them based on the same criteria, even if there is difficulty or differences in how those events/criteria are observed. I think the danger of changing/substituting criteria is exemplified by, for example, a narrow angle shot coming from GLE and going across in front of the goal. Its path could miss going in by feet when the goalie picks it off in front, but an observer just looking to see if the goalie's feet are in the crease and his stick is between the pipes would tend to still credit a save (totally independent of visibility issues).

Again, we are in agreement. I mentioned above we had to teach people the difference between a save and intercepting a shot - which I think is alot easier to handle than what I believe the impossible ability to determine if a shot is between the pipes.

Honestly, if we can determine that a shot is between the pipes when the goalie stops it, then we don't need nets. When the ball crosses the plane of the goal, it is a goal if it hits a net or just carries on. We have nets because of a rule, that realized it would be very difficult for referrees to be 100% accurate if there was no obvious visual cue - hitting the net, or crossing a the goal line. Thus I believe we all use visual cues to determine if a goalie makes a save on a ball that was between the pipes - and that visual cue is the goalie's motions - not the trajectory of a ball moving 85 mph. As a results we may be biased to a goalie that stands at a higher arc, steps aggressively to the ball, and extends his hands (giving him credit for saves because he caught the ball even though they were off cage) vs a goalie with a flat arc and little step (that probably lets all off goal shots go bye). I just don't want my people having to distinguish between these types, but the crease is always a constant.

Again, i think I'd score a save the same as eveyone on this page. I just think it is arrogant to think we can call whether a shot is between the pipes from the sideline with 100% accuracy. Since I can't, I expand the area to make sure my goalies always get the benefit of the doubt. [And parents can't argue as much]

[laxdad03]

Agreed. Visual cues & etc. (just like nets) can be very important and useful, it just seems that people ought to know the whys of those cues, rather than thinking that the cues themselves ARE the rules.

No question that the cues can help, and should be used judiciously wherever possible, to help do a better job of APPROACHING that 100% target. And of course even with all the best cues (and intentions), there are still plenty of times when things will be missed or arguable or whatever. That's why there are refs (and scorekeepers, etc.) -- thanks, guys! It's a tough job.

There was a recent game in which a shot looked to everyone (apparently including the refs) like it went through the mouth of the goal, but kept going past the back of the net and out the end line. The refs stopped everything while they diligently searched the net for holes in that area, until quite a while later, when it appeared that they finally found a suitable hole, THEN they credited the goal.