FCA’s top 2 players/holdbacks from last summer (middie and left attack who both towered above the other kids) weren’t at NAL last weekend. Totally different team. Same great goalie play (and obnoxious dad) though.
Just for the record........FCA 2029 lost 2 players to the new Age Verification from last summer. Lefty attackman and goalie. The lefty attackman is playing on the Crabs 2028 B Team. The goalie is taking some time off from lacrosse.
There was no midfielder or any other positions lost.
Was the lefty attack an '09 birth year? or did he just miss the cutoff for '10?
Missed cutoff by 4 days. May 27th birthday.
He was one of the bigger 2028s...remember the real cutoff date was supposed to be Sept 1.
No argument. Sept 1st should have been the date.
But claiming FCA “embraced” holdbacks because one player of significance was 4 days older than the adopted cutoff is ludicrous.
Whats Ludicrous is that you are defending being a May birthday while majority of boys who play sports in this country's earliest Birthday is Sept1 thru Dec1, and majority are much latter. But lets defend being a holdback and getting to play down and play against younger players, now that Ludicrous!
Hey skippy... might need to refresh your reading comprehension skills... "No argument. Sept 1st should have been the date." is a pretty clear indicator that I support a normal school year cutoff. I pointed out the gross exaggeration by the previous commenter that FCA "Embraced the holdback model" last year.
That's clearly not the case. Moreover, I don't know any Elite level clubs in maryland that would refuse to roster a kid because his parents made the decision to hold him back. HOCO, US Lacrosse and NLF largely determine eligibility. If a kid meets that eligibility and he's good, he's gonna make the club. Yes, a few clubs like True and Crabs openly push kids to reclass. I can assure you, FCA is not one of those clubs.
You and I may not agree with June 1 but we don't make the rules.
