Shot Clock (re-visited)? Revamp the field dimensions?

by **Sonny** on Tue May 30, 2006 3:47 pm

Some folks are complaining about how the final quarter of a NCAA National Championship (UVa vs. UMass) was boring. UVa built a great lead, pulling away in the 3rd quarter - And they played keep away in the final quarter. If you think four corners of lacrosse is brutal to watch in person, try it on ESPN in High Def.

Do you think it's time to revisit the shot clock issue? Personally, I think they should keep the stall warning as is... But they should make the box a little smaller to allow defenses a better opportunity to pressure the ball. It was painful to watch UMass get outmanned like that in the end when they couldn't even get possession back.

Your thoughts?

**Sponsor**

by **byualum** on Tue May 30, 2006 4:25 pm

UVA earned the right to play keep-away through the first three quarters of the game.

If UMass wants to take the ball away, it's up to them. After playing defense for probably 65-70% of the game, they couldn't come up with a steal when they needed it.

Make the box smaller? Maybe. Shot clock? No way. Scoring does not always equal entertainment. I've changed the channel away from more than one 25-18 MLL game.

Why are people trying to mandate that all games be close and be high scoring? UVA was the better team, they played great and were able to put UMass in a position to chase.

Would you rather have a shot clock which forced UVA to push the ball the final 6 minutes and win 25-10?

by **StrykerFSU** on Tue May 30, 2006 4:27 pm

I like things the way they are now. I didn't find the end of the game boring at all. I saw 6 superior lacrosse players taking care of the ball and demonstrating their dominance. UVA beat UMass in groundballs and faceoffs all day, showing that they had the heart to go along with all of that spectacular shooting. The game was already out of reach in the fourth quarter because UVA was the better team. Tweaking the rules to allow a weaker team a better shot doesn't seem all that sporting to me. I know that wouldn't be the intent of rule changes but that's my interpretation of what I saw on Monday.

However, I might support bringing in an elevated goal and making it worth 10 points ala MTV Rock n' Jock.

by **Saul C** on Tue May 30, 2006 4:31 pm

Keep the box the same. Keep the game the same. However, maybe we can change the stalling portion. First time, the stall call is a warning, second time turnover. This has been discussed on laxpower and I suggest this post .....

http://www.laxpower.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18185

by **LaxRef** on Tue May 30, 2006 5:30 pm

I think if they'd do something about the sticks then they wouldn't need to talk about the shot clock. Get rid of the drawstring pockets, get rid of the pinched heads, and suddenly the ball comes out occasionally.

One idea I like is having the stick used to score the goal checked after every goal. Getting goals wiped out would get rid of those sticks in a hurry. Also, let the officials check for slipknots and penalize 3:00 NR for them.

by **Hugh Nunn** on Tue May 30, 2006 6:18 pm

LaxRef wrote:I think if they'd do something about the sticks then they wouldn't need to talk about the shot clock. Get rid of the drawstring pockets, get rid of the pinched heads, and suddenly the ball comes out occasionally.

One idea I like is having the stick used to score the goal checked after every goal. Getting goals wiped out would get rid of those sticks in a hurry. Also, let the officials check for slipknots and penalize 3:00 NR for them.

I agree completely. One of my all-time favorite plays was in the early 90's when Hopkins was down to Syracuse and Pietramala had to go strip tha ball from Gary Gait to force overtime. I wonder if he would have had the same opportunity to force the turnover had that happened this weekend.

by DG on Tue May 30, 2006 7:47 pm

Hugh Nunn wrote:
LaxRef wrote:I think if they'd do something about the sticks then they wouldn't need to talk about the shot clock. Get rid of the drawstring pockets, get rid of the pinched heads, and suddenly the ball comes out occasionally.

One idea I like is having the stick used to score the goal checked after every goal. Getting goals wiped out would get rid of those sticks in a hurry. Also, let the officials check for slipknots and penalize 3:00 NR for them.

I agree completely. One of my all-time favorite plays was in the early 90's when Hopkins was down to Syracuse and Pietramala had to go strip tha ball from Gary Gait to force overtime. I wonder if he would have had the same opportunity to force the turnover had that happened this weekend.

My buddy was on the field that day and says it was one of the most amazing things he has ever seen. Time was running out, and the Hopkins coach (Zimmerman I think) was waiting...waiting...waiting. At the right moment, he yelled "Petro! Now!" Petro stripped Gait, picked the ball up and Hopkins got a timeout. How good do you have to be to strip the one of the best players in the world on command?!?

DG

by **LaxRef** on Tue May 30, 2006 8:08 pm

DG wrote: At the right moment, he yelled "Petro! Now!"

Sounds like a post-hypnotic trigger phrase.

by **Sonny** on Wed May 31, 2006 7:51 am

Saul C wrote:Keep the box the same. Keep the game the same. However, maybe we can change the stalling portion. First time, the stall call is a warning, second time turnover.

That is a good suggestion. I still think the box is a little large for 6 on 6 defense in a stall-situation. Makes coming back very difficult (which maybe a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint).

by **DanGenck** on Wed May 31, 2006 7:59 am

I agree that UVA has the right to do what they want if they build a big lead. The stall warning is a good system right now and if UMass doesn't have the legs to pressure the ball... then unfortunately there is going to be a lot of wasted time.

And of course, every team practices how to double the ball in an important situation. It comes down to execution and conditioning, both of which UMass lacked in the last minutes of the game.

However, as a fan... the 4th quarter was very boring.

by **Champ** on Wed May 31, 2006 8:36 am

LaxRef wrote:One idea I like is having the stick used to score the goal checked after every goal. Getting goals wiped out would get rid of those sticks in a hurry. Also, let the officials check for slipknots and penalize 3:00 NR for them.

I don't mind checking the stick, but slipknots should not be penalized. They just happen to be the best knot to tie at the bottom of your stick because it allows you to tweak it without having to untie knots that sometimes get too tight.

If the same person scores 2+ goals, and the stick is legal the first time, do you continue to check it after every goal?

by **Danny Hogan** on Wed May 31, 2006 8:51 am

i think he referring to small knots that can be tugged back through the stringing holes to make a pocket appear legal.

i dont' agree with checking sticks after every goal. would slow down the game waaay too much.

if you ain't cheatin you aint trying.

by **LaxRef** on Wed May 31, 2006 10:00 am

Danny Hogan wrote:i think he referring to small knots that can be tugged back through the stringing holes to make a pocket appear legal.

Yes. Those should be illegal because their only purpose is to cheat.

Danny Hogan wrote:i dont' agree with checking sticks after every goal. would slow down the game waaay too much.

I don' think they would. Lead signals goal and gets the ball. Trail grabs the stick and gives it to the lead. The lead checks pocket depth and rollout, gives ball to trail who heads for midfield. Trails measures head width, head length, overall stick length, returns stick and heads to his spot. I think this would add maybe 10 seconds after each goal, which is a small price to pay for getting the illegal sticks off the field and not having to do a shot clock.

Danny Hogan wrote:if you ain't cheatin you aint trying.

I will try to remember your name as a man without honor.

by **Danny Hogan** on Wed May 31, 2006 11:22 am

slipknots are and should be illegal.

i have never seen a stick check take under :30 and most refs take more than 10 seconds to get to the midfield on their own...let alone measuring on the run.

if a coach thinks the reason a player scored is because of his stick, they can call a check if they want.

by **FLALAX** on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:28 am

Lacrosse should adapt. There are lacrosse purists who think the game should stay they way it is. If you look at other popular sports, football, basketball and hockey all have changed rules or equipment to "enhance" the game. Slight rule changes and emphasis put on different areas is what is needed for a sport to evolve. Yes, lacrosse is a old game but to 95% of this country it is a new game and with this added exposure fresh ideas will change how this sport is played.

A shot clock, change to the box, or a change to the goal would not always be a bad thing for the game.