Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Different perspective for a minute and just my opinion. This change to the game is not a move forward, rather a move backward.

People got creative and used the tools available to them to create a new move--the pinch and pop. Rather than outlaw the move, those people should be thanked for creating something that is exciting and fresh, not too mention extremely successful and cuts down on bone crushing collisions (yes I know, the tough guys out there like the collisions). But as another poster pointed out, the best is only winning 70% of the time at the D-1 level...so lets not give this new move too much actual game impact as the best have always won around 70% of their moves. So the only difference is the amount of collisions and resulting injuries.

Even if the impact on possessions was great, isn't that why colleges try and recruit the best players? Football rule changes are just the opposite--move the PAT back so that the better kickers can get the points...give skill a chance to make the game more competitive for those willing to do the work. Move the line of scrimmage on the kickoff up so we will have less bone crushing hits. Make skill positions more skilled. Imagine if they outlawed the curve ball in baseball because one guy did it better than everyone else??? What if they said David Tyree can't use his helmet to catch the ball???

No, not that simple. This step backward makes the time it takes to F/O far longer and will just result in the two toughest guys on the field fighting each other for the ball. Completely taking away skill and athleticism and creating a fight. That is a step backward I/M/O.

Ball in the back of the stick is withholding ball from play? I guess they haven't seen a guy with the ball running around with the ball in the front? What is the difference? Ball is dislodged from the front or the back quite easily. They put the ball in the back because there is just enough grab to let the person lift the ball from the ground and move away from the other player. Hit that shaft with the ball in the back and I would argue it is in fact easier to dislodge as there is no pocket to protect the ball. Have you seen how easy it is for them to pop the ball out?

The premise that the back of the stick is some how a stronger position to interact with the ball is plainly false. If it were true no one would use the front pocket. So silly an argument, but one that the rules committee knows can easily manipulate those who haven't played the game.

I would prefer to d up against some poor soul with the ball in the back pocket every day of the week (played for many years and I for one like the new move because it adds some excitement to the game). Most of the people liking the rule-never played this game - or are stuck with the memories of how they played the game. It is those people and the rules committee that need to learn to accept the change and help grow the game rather than moving it backward...my opinion, but fire away...


I'm not sure what the average score of a college game is but let's say 10-8, that's 18 faceoffs and then another 4 for the start of each quarter (assuming no penalty ad possession at the end of a quarter). So on average there are perhaps 22 faceoffs. If you have a kid that wins 70% of the time, your team will win 15 faceoffs vs. your opponents 7, so you have 8 more possessions. In a game that's easy to stall and control the ball that seems like too big of an impact for one specialized aspect of the game. I don't care if it's eliminating the pinch and pop or not, but since that one move came into play the faceoff has had a disproportionate impact on the game of lacrosse. The ball gets lodged in the back of the stick because the neck is very thin and the sidewall strings wedge against the sidewalls when the ball is in the back of the stick - to me someone's found a loop hole. My son's team has an excellent faceoff kid and we certainly benefit from his dominance at the faceoff X, but i'd love to see what would happen if the faceoff was a 50-50 groundball situation.


First of all most games don't result in a 70% win, in college it's usually close to 50/50. Balls do not get "wedged" in the back of the stick, if that were true they would not pop out easily, and the kid would not run holding the stick out in front fearing the ball will fall out. You do realize it is a violation if the ball does not come right out on the first try. And for your great F/O guy, be happy you have him or you probably lose many more games. I wrote an earlier post where I talked about facing off back in the 80s. I rarely lost facing off the "old" way. I was dominant no doubt, same as my son is the new way. Could he adapt? Probably. I just don't see the point. You Will always have dominant F/O men. That does not make the game unfair, it's part of it. I have seen plenty of games lost where the F/O Wil percentage is north of 70% because the opposing team is just better. Fact is that today's methods of facing off require much more skill and practice to excel at. I also like the fact that it allows for more diversity in the type of player we see at the x. I personally love to see a small skinny little kid beat a big football player type. It adds excitement. I don't want to see a scrum every time. Been there done that, and it's old, like me! Not to mention I'd rather not increase my son's risk of concusion.