NCAA Committee Proposes Lacrosse Rule Changes

[slider]

Sounds good. Good talk.

[tamu33]

While I totally agree that the slow down of the game is hindering its appeal to some areas, if we complicate the rules we will become much like the NHL. You see where it got them.

To me, limiting subs to a certain time limit is silly and is not in the spirit of the game which is what a rule should encompass.

If I were to suggest anything to speed up the game it would be a shot clock. Basketball implemented it and look how it has changed their game. Also, with the shot clock, subbing will be done more conservatively.

[shrekjr]

While I totally agree that the slow down of the game is hindering its appeal to some areas, if we complicate the rules we will become much like the NHL. You see where it got them.

To me, limiting subs to a certain time limit is silly and is not in the spirit of the game which is what a rule should encompass.

If I were to suggest anything to speed up the game it would be a shot clock. Basketball implemented it and look how it has changed their game. Also, with the shot clock, subbing will be done more conservatively.

I don't completely disagree, but think through the logistics. How many USLIA teams can afford to have visible shot clocks installed, and how many teams play on school intramural fields and wouldn't be allowed to install clocks even if they had the money.

[TexOle]

I played golf with the guy most people claim is responsible for the shot clock in basketball. His name is Marques Haynes. He was playing for the Globetrotters against the Minneapolis Lakers when he accomplished one of his greatest feats. The passed the ball to him to start the 4th quarter, and he dribbled the clock out.

[LaxRef]

To me, limiting subs to a certain time limit is silly and is not in the spirit of the game which is what a rule should encompass.

The same argument could have been made against the rule change that gave us the on-the-fly subs that you think are now in the spirit of the game.

[tamu33]

To me, limiting subs to a certain time limit is silly and is not in the spirit of the game which is what a rule should encompass.

The same argument could have been made against the rule change that gave us the on-the-fly subs that you think are now in the spirit of the game.

Forgive me, I was not aware that on-the-fly subs were a rule change... I thought it was an original rule in the modern game. Also, on-the-fly subs opened up so many possibilities but, from what I understand, this rule would limit possible options. Either way, limiting subs just seems like a step backwards in the overall progress of the game's development.

A Few Possible problems=
Refs- different timers for the 20sec and then the sub time.
Coaches - lets say a player is injured on the offensive side and wants to come out but can't because of the rule (not injured enough to have play stopped by ref; poke checked in the chest and lost his breath)
Player - [also see coaches] you run out of gas and want to sub even though it means going man down for a bit. (highly irregular, but it happens)

[shrekjr]

A Few Possible problems=
Refs- different timers for the 20sec and then the sub time.

When pigs fly!

[Dan Wishengrad]

If the intent of the rules committee is to speed the game up a bit and minimize mass substitutions, I respectfully disagree that the new 30-second rule will accomplish this stated aim.

Won't the practical affect of this rule actually reduce the number of fast-breaks? We play our first Fall games this coming weekend, so I haven't seen the new rule implemented yet. But if our team has been playing defense for awhile and gains possession, why would we fast break now if it means these same guys have to stay on offense after the clear without it being allowed to sub for them? We'll just have to "kill the ball" in the defense end while we get the fresh legs of offensive middies out there in fear of being "trapped" into using the same players on offense if we fast-break down to the offensive box.

Doesn't this new rule also mean that if a team DOES fast-break that a long-stick middie who triggered that break MUST now stay on offense without being allowed to be subbed for? Somebody please explain how this will improve the game of lacrosse, watching a long-pole being forced to play offense for a potentially long series?

[byualum]

The way I understood it, you could still sub with the ball in the box. Given your example, the LSM can trigger the break and take the ball into the box, but still sub out within the 30 seconds.

Now, there's a chance I'm wrong, but that is the way it was explained to me.

[laxfan25]

The way I understood it, you could still sub with the ball in the box. Given your example, the LSM can trigger the break and take the ball into the box, but still sub out within the 30 seconds.

Now, there's a chance I'm wrong, but that is the way it was explained to me.

You are correct. Both teams have the full 30 seconds to get their substitutions done, even if the ball is in the attack area. The subbed player just hs to have stepped on the field when the 30 seconds expires - he does not have to be in the box.
So fast breaks will still be successful. If you don't get a good opportunity you can hold the ball in the attack area and complete your subbing.
The question I am still trying to get clarified is once you get the ball in the attack area, and the ball comes out because of a shot or defensive deflection, the attack is then free to pick it up without a turnover. But do they then have 30 seconds to do subs again? 30 seconds to get it back into the box? My understanding is that under the new 30 sec rule the 20 and 10 second counts no longer exist, so it would seem a team would have 30 seconds to get it back in as well as sub.

[LaxRef]

Doesn't this new rule also mean that if a team DOES fast-break that a long-stick middie who triggered that break MUST now stay on offense without being allowed to be subbed for?

No. But even if it did, he could still go exchange his long pole for a short stick at the table area or the bench.