US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums LACROSSE LIBRARY RULES & REGULATIONS NCAA Face Off Rule Changes

I was very surprised to see Casey Powell in Inside Lacrosse this month call for the end of face offs after goals. "I think they should face off at the beginning of each quarter and that's it. The fact that the ball gets stuck in the back of their stick is ridiculous. I think that should be illegal."

I can't say I disagree after seeing some really 1 dimensional players impacting a game greatly when they are only on the field 5 seconds at a time,

Somehow they need to make it more of a 50-50 contest or just give the ball to the team that was scored on.

I saw an indoor league with fast restarts where the goalie goes right into a clear after being scored on. It worked great. The game was a lot faster.

I would love to see the fast restart after a goal and completely agree that players that play a total of 5 minutes for the game shouldn't have such a big impact on the game as they do now.

This change along with a shot clock would greatly help the college game.

It's really insane that because of 1 guy that barely steps on the field a team can keep possession for an entire game. A change would improve the game and possibly elevate it to the next level.

I was very surprised to see Casey Powell in Inside Lacrosse this month call for the end of face offs after goals. "I think they should face off at the beginning of each quarter and that's it. The fact that the ball gets stuck in the back of their stick is ridiculous. I think that should be illegal."

I can't say I disagree after seeing some really 1 dimensional players impacting a game greatly when they are only on the field 5 seconds at a time,

Somehow they need to make it more of a 50-50 contest or just give the ball to the team that was scored on.

I saw an indoor league with fast restarts where the goalie goes right into a clear after being scored on. It worked great. The game was a lot faster.

First of all, it is a lost possession if the ball gets stuck in the stick...

Second, if there are 15 face offs in a game, and each one last less than 10 seconds, that is 2.5 minutes of game time associated with a face off...If you were to simply give the ball to the scored upon team, they would have 20 seconds to cross midfield and then 10 more to get in the box (this would bring stalling to a new level) so eliminating that aspect will not make the game faster but will actually make it slower with teams spending twice as much time riding after each goal. eliminating face off will create a slower game with more turnovers.

I completely agree with shot clock, once a team has possession, they have 30 seconds to put a shot on the cage. that will make the game faster....

So i f you are down two with less the minute and score your screwed. How many comebacks have been built around winning face offs ? Its not broke, don't fix it

just saw this thread and very interested. I agree with those that think the faceoff should NOT be eliminated. In my opinion it is one of the most exciting aspects of the sport. I think a few modifications ie: move the sticks 8" apart, (4 on each side)if the ball is in the back of the stick you must release the ball within 3 seconds, no checks allowed to the faceoff men's sticks by the wing players. Just the 2 face off guys digging it out. Good faceoff guys help make the team better and that's what the sport is about. Those guys practice their craft and work hard at it. Maybe add something like no subs may enter the game for either team until the next whistle occurs after the faceoff.

Go ahead and get rid of one of the most exciting parts of the game. That should help the sport grow! It works great the way it is now. Keeps the game fresh and fun for spectators. I don't agree with moving sticks apart because that will lead to more player injury due to jamming. Less skill involved. I also disagree with a previous poster's suggestion limiting the time a player can keep the ball in the back of the stick. The current rule works great, one chance to pop it out. What is the difference if the ball is in the front or back of the stick?

Go ahead and get rid of one of the most exciting parts of the game. That should help the sport grow! It works great the way it is now. Keeps the game fresh and fun for spectators. I don't agree with moving sticks apart because that will lead to more player injury due to jamming. Less skill involved. I also disagree with a previous poster's suggestion limiting the time a player can keep the ball in the back of the stick. The current rule works great, one chance to pop it out. What is the difference if the ball is in the front or back of the stick?

The problem is in a game of possession this one position can control the whole game. AT the younger level the last thing I would want is t be on a team with a real good face off man. You will never see any action during the game and won't get any better.

That's not true! A team is so much more than the F/O. I have seen many games (youth and HS) where almost all F/O's have been won, but the team still loses, many times badly! It is one thing to win the F/O, you then have to keep the ball. A good team will force turnovers and get the ball back without missing a beat. Sure it is an advantage, but not always as big a difference as you think when your whole team is strong!

If you ever did the stats I am sure its well over 75% for the team that wins the faceoff.

Every sport is specialized, that is due to the growth of the sport. F/O have become and exciting important part of the game. Someone said should one player on the field for two or three minutes have such and impact? Did you ever see football? Sixty minute game and almost half of the games each year (proven) come down to a guy who can't tackle, can't catch, can't throw, can't block and is slow...Can you guess the position???

Keeping the game exciting is what will grow the sport. Creating more skilled positions will grow the sport, limiting the impacts of skilled position players is a natural progression. It happens now. LSM? DM? OM?

Maybe we should eliminate the goaile and just have a really small hole in the center of the net, then we can be basketball with pads...

Come on folks, the only people that don't like the FOGO positions are the college teams that haven't found the right kid for the role and lost a national championship because of their failure to have forecast the value of having a great kid play fogo. Did I hear someone say Syracuse...

I couldn't disagree more. people want fast paced action. That is why the shot clock was brought in. and more will be done to speed up the game. The face off needs to be changed and it wil. within the next few years it will change completely

Don't count on it!

First of all, it is a lost possession if the ball gets stuck in the stick...

Second, if there are 15 face offs in a game, and each one last less than 10 seconds, that is 2.5 minutes of game time associated with a face off...If you were to simply give the ball to the scored upon team, they would have 20 seconds to cross midfield and then 10 more to get in the box (this would bring stalling to a new level) so eliminating that aspect will not make the game faster but will actually make it slower with teams spending twice as much time riding after each goal. eliminating face off will create a slower game with more turnovers.

I completely agree with shot clock, once a team has possession, they have 30 seconds to put a shot on the cage. that will make the game faster....

Seems as though more than a few people do think it is broken and limiting the game from advancing to the next level.

There will always be pros and cons but in this case replacing the face off with a fast restart will have more positives than negatives for the game.

So if you're down three and cut it to two with 2 minutes left but lose every face off, you have no chance of coming back either...you make a good point but i think the solution is to make the face off more equitable - they need to figure out how to make it a true ground ball situation, which unfortunately means taking some of the technique out of the process.

So if you're down three and cut it to two with 2 minutes left but lose every face off, you have no chance of coming back either...you make a good point but i think the solution is to make the face off more equitable - they need to figure out how to make it a true ground ball situation, which unfortunately means taking some of the technique out of the process.

FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....

It works as long as your son is an attachman on the team that keeps winning these face offs ..otherwise your son might be bored just watching the game played in the other end of the field

Did anyone else watch the FIL Championship? The face offs weren't the problem. The stall is going to kill any TV deal.

Ok so i have read some of these posts, and have something to add. My family is not well off, in fact we struggle. My son who is going into HS next year started to play lacrosse in middle school. He became very good at the face off position and people are telling us he could get a scholarship. This has changed his life. He works so hard every day trying to get better at this. I go to all of his games and enjoy watching the face off as much as the other parts of the game. It is so intense and exciting, and I know it is not just because it's my son. Everyone stops chatting and watches. If faceoffs are taken out of the game in the way they are used now, there are so many young boys that will see their dreams burn up in front of them. This is bad for everyone. I don't see how such an important part of the game can change. It makes no sense at all. What kind of person would want to stir a pot like this. There must be something else you can focus on. leave the Faceoff alone!

FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....

No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.

No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.

You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!

Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.

Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.

Sounds like you're mad. Probably cause your son is a wanna be FOGO who sucks and you're just bitter about spending all that money training him. Maybe try a new position? The face off negative nellys try to bring up this crap every year. Fact is the majority of lax players and fans enjoy that aspect of the game, silly!

Wow, your family must love you around the dinner table. Fast break less exciting than face off? Now that is silly, loser!

You couldn't be more wrong! As the game evolved, so did the position. There are specialists in many sports. FOGO is one of them. These boys work incredibly hard at their position. The best rise to the top and are sought after. What's wrong with that? It's a niche that is filled by a type of elite lax player who is committed to his craft. They make the game exciting!

The simple fact that most fans agree on is that a player that is only on the field for a couple of minutes a game shouldn't have that big of an impact. The game drags to a halt after every goal as the players celebrate and take there time making substitutions. A quick restart would greatly enhance the flow and competitiveness of the game!

The simple fact that most fans agree on is that a player that is only on the field for a couple of minutes a game shouldn't have that big of an impact. The game drags to a halt after every goal as the players celebrate and take there time making substitutions. A quick restart would greatly enhance the flow and competitiveness of the game!

Most fans? You represent them? Please, in my experience "most people I have talked to" like the face off and the battle...

Not so simple after all.

Not sure what games you and "most fans" are watching that grind to a halt. I think it makes the game more fun to watch which is exactly what the sport needs.

What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.

Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!

Enjoy it while it's still here

Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not going anywhere, just chatter from haters! Would never happen, I even spoke to several D1 coaches about this issue, and was told by every one of them that the F/O is safe. Deal with it.

I spoke with a few who I am friends with and they don't want to rock the boat with their FOGO recruits because nothing has been decided yet. They feel it might happen but can't tell the kids that at this time for their own teams sake.

some of you think FOGO going away because it slows down the game...another guys has some college lacrosse coaches as friends and also thinks the position is going away, but Duke goes out and takes a proven FOGO from Stony Brook today?

Syracuse searching hard for a better FOGO?

UNC, VIrgina, Upenn, Penn State, Princeton all recruited 2017 for FOGO? Come on people, you may not like the position, you might not think it is fair for one player/position to have an impact on the game, but the schools are fielding the best FOGOs they can find...

I am sure, if they all thought it was going away, they wouldn't have been recruiting 2018s at Jake Reed...why would they waste their time?

So, no matter if you like the position or its impact, common sense tells you that the top schools would not waste their time recruiting FOGO for 3 years hence if they thought the position was going away...

Well said, and most importantly it adds a special excitement to the game. Needs to stay if the sport wants to grow. Rules changers are like school administrators. Always trying to reinvent an already well-oiled wheel!

Of course they are still going to recruit those kids. Until it gets eliminated you would have to. I don't think it will happen next year but I do see it being eliminated down the road. Just like long pole midfielders wee added . Back in the 80's no one did that. the game evolves and changes are made by the administrators to make the game better. It's pretty simple if you ask me so don't fight it

Mark Dixon noted this morning that many coaches think Fogos will no longer be able to carry the ball on the back of the stick when the new rules come out.

Of course they are still going to recruit those kids. Until it gets eliminated you would have to. I don't think it will happen next year but I do see it being eliminated down the road. Just like long pole midfielders wee added . Back in the 80's no one did that. the game evolves and changes are made by the administrators to make the game better. It's pretty simple if you ask me so don't fight it

Just so you know, he has been against the FOGO position for a long time, so to hear from him is not surprising. They tried this a couple years back and it got no traction...

To all the FOGOs, don't worry about this thread, there is no real information here, just people and opinions.

There are as many of you FOGOs as goalies, it is a real position and takes real talent even if some people don't agree. Stand together and make your opinions known.

For someone that doesn't understand how a lacrosse head works, they might see having the ball in the back of the head as an advantage. Having strung hundreds of heads over the years, I can tell you having it in the back is a distinct disadvantage, the ball can be dislodged much more easily, you cannot pass or shoot accurately which is why the guys typically pop it from back to front as soon as they have the space to do it.

If I were on the opposing team I would be happy to see someone trying to pass or shoot from the back of the head...

Come on people, wake up, what is your issue with FOGO? Did a better one steal something from you???

Growth of the game requires excitement and TV. This is the one battle on the filed consistently that allows for great TV coverage. If you want to grow the game, leave the Face offs alone and add an objective shot clock...the game will grow as audiences watch more

Well said, agree 100%. Just a pot stirrer with nothing legitimate to say!

Thank you mister stringer...Your information is useless. I didn't know the kids go on here and panic when they read something

Most of the club teams and HS programs on LI have full time FOGOs at this point. Philly as well...

But thanks for your opinions on how to train our 5th graders...

To the guy with the useless comment, please share your information, perhaps, unlike mine, yours will be useful.

Yes, people, some of them kids who have spent years learning FO, read this site. so if you have nothing better to do, go to the 2024 thread and tell them they shouldn't be excited about their kids playing lax...

What a jerk you are, ever think they like doing it ? Gets lost with your garbage.

You mean doing faceoffs and working on sprinting off the field.

Yes, exactly. after practicing with top level club for 2 hours, spending more time doing face offs and sprints.

FOGOs are on the very best clubs, where does your kid play? Good luck!

I agree. My son puts in countess hours working on his craft. Yes he's a specialist and proud of it. This boy is D1 bound with a great scholarship. We are very proud of him. F/O training has provided him with dicipline and perseverance. Qualites that will take him far in life.

That is great! Congratulations to you and your son. I don't have a FOGO, but I think it is a great position and like goalies, the hardest job on the field...

Kid either wins or losses, can't hide in that role. Team down by one in final minutes and your kid has the chance to get his team the ball--or better yet--win the FO and fast break for the tying goal. Great stuff!

For those that think the position isn't fair or doesn't require a "true lax player" I guess they haven't seen a kid win the FO, sprint down the field dodging long poles and shoot at full sprint to score a goal.

Does anyone really think that kid doesn't have lax skill? Of course he does and from what I am seeing this summer, some of the FOGOs are the best athletes on the field.

Life is about doing what you do best to your best ability. Kids that choose FOGO do so because they are good at it and make an impact. Sorry to naysayers, but specializing in HS as a FOGO is a great choice if you can do it at a high level.

Get many looks at the best colleges and will make an impact.

If you live in a lax town, you know the boys are playing from 2nd grade, no one specializes until 8th...plenty of time to find out what you like...