Whew, what a game. First half, I thought Cornell would do well next week against (one presumes) Syracuse. Second half, it seemed likely Cornell's season would end next week at Stony Brook if not at Schoellkopf. We are not a second-half, hold-that-lead team. I think "choke" is the word the rest of the lax world might use.
It's one more game that shows the conventional wisdom to hold the ball late with a narrow lead does not work, at least not in Cornell's case.
Awesome take-away play by AJ Fiore when Loyola threw a lazy pass in the 3rd OT behind the cage. It would have been more impressive if Cornell went upfield and scored off that play in the final OT, not the next (?) possession? To their discredit, Loyola could not manage the end-of-period clock in OT. To our discredit, our leadership on offense did not step up at the end. Unlike last week, a bobbled Pannell-Hurley pass didn't lead to the other team getting possession in OT and scoring.
I'm heading to Stony Brook next weekend for the quarterfinals but I'll feel the same way I did heading to the Carrier Dome for the Cornell-Kentucky game. You go because you love Cornell sports. You hope for an upset. In the case of lax, you would be excused for thinking how much more mature this team will be in 2011 and wonder what miracle finds Tambroni will make on the recruiting trail. Given how many players we lost from last year's amazing season, even making it this far was an accomplishment.
Hey, did TV color man Jack Emmer (ex Cortland / Army coach) with the sniffles sound like Jack Nicholson winding down (sniff ... sniff) from a cocaine high? ,,, and what a nice job ESPN did milking the Virginia tragedy (not that most viewers aren't morbidly curious) ... also, thank you for showing us the end of the '09 Syracuse title game again. And again. And again.
Quote from: billhowardHey, did TV color man Jack Emmer (ex Cortland / Army coach) with the sniffles sound like Jack Nicholson winding down (sniff ... sniff) from a cocaine high?
No.
Quote from: billhowardHey, did TV color man Jack Emmer (ex Cortland / Army coach) with the sniffles sound like Jack Nicholson winding down (sniff ... sniff) from a cocaine high?
His commentary was pedestrian and added nothing to the game. I guess it's hard to find good TV announcers when ESPNU is stretched so thin covering so many lacrosse games on the same day. The guys in the studio are good.
As I was watching the game, and seeing so many game shots where it looked like Schoellkopf was completely empty, I was wondering if perhaps Cornell should build a lacrosse stadium, which could also be used for soccer, similar to what many other schools have. Back in the 70s, when we used to get 15 to 20,000 fans for big games like Hopkins, Hobart and NCAA tournament games, we needed to play in a football stadium. But those days are long gone.
I was watching the game on TV at a friend's house whose daughter is a Cornell freshman and a big enough sports fan that she had season hockey tickets her freshman year. He emailed her when the game began asking if she was there. She said she was on her way back from the Farmer's Market and wanted to know which sport Cornell was playing today! That's why we don't need to play our lacrosse games in a football stadium (for that matter, we don't need to play our football games in a football stadium either, but that's a whole other story).
Quote from: dbilmesQuote from: billhowardHey, did TV color man Jack Emmer (ex Cortland / Army coach) with the sniffles sound like Jack Nicholson winding down (sniff ... sniff) from a cocaine high?
His commentary was pedestrian and added nothing to the game. I guess it's hard to find good TV announcers when ESPNU is stretched so thin covering so many lacrosse games on the same day. The guys in the studio are good.
As I was watching the game, and seeing so many game shots where it looked like Schoellkopf was completely empty, I was wondering if perhaps Cornell should build a lacrosse stadium, which could also be used for soccer, similar to what many other schools have. Back in the 70s, when we used to get 15 to 20,000 fans for big games like Hopkins, Hobart and NCAA tournament games, we needed to play in a football stadium. But those days are long gone.
I was watching the game on TV at a friend's house whose daughter is a Cornell freshman and a big enough sports fan that she had season hockey tickets her freshman year. He emailed her when the game began asking if she was there. She said she was on her way back from the Farmer's Market and wanted to know which sport Cornell was playing today! That's why we don't need to play our lacrosse games in a football stadium (for that matter, we don't need to play our football games in a football stadium either, but that's a whole other story).
I have always been surprised how few students go to the games considering how good the team usually is, there is always a lot of the players families there.
Upper Alumni Field is called that because there used to be a Lower Alumni Field, a gem of a grass field that could have been the equivalent of Princeton's 4000-seat Class of 1952 Field, perfect for the non-football sports, and close to the main campus. Alas, it became Comstock Hall, the one next to Teagle / across from Barton. The soccer field at the far end of Upper Alumni Field has crappy stands and it's a long haul from the dorms. It's how not to encourage attendance. It would have been better to have taken a chunk of Upper Alumni Field but the promise at the time was that if Lower Alumni Field went bye-bye, Upper Alumni Field would be forever green. Hah!
Go Army.
Four of the ESPN top ten hightlights are lacrosse including the conclusion of Max Feely's end-to-end run for the winning goal at No. 3. The behind-the-back goal by Stony Brook was No. 1. I suppose it's just coincidence that ESPN-U broadcast the lax games and the highlights are on ESPN. I'm surprised one of the highlights wasn't the ESPN-U announcers talking about the Virginia women's team preparing for today's game.
Quote from: billhowardThe behind-the-back goal by Stony Brook was No. 1.
That goal was sick.
has the coach considered not taking the team to the locker room during halftime?
I mean maybe he could just huddle them on the sideline and pretend it is still the transition between the first and second quarters =P
Article about the game in The Syracuse Post-Standard (http://blog.syracuse.com/orangelacrosse/2010/05/cornell_leads_loyola_8-2_at_th.html) and a nice human interest story about two SU lacrosse moms in The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/sports/16mothers.html?ref=sports)
Can't wait for the game next weekend. If 'cuse wins, there will be a lot of people at Stony Brook because many Long Islanders go/went to both schools.
LGR!
Quote from: ajh258Can't wait for the game next weekend. If 'cuse wins, there will be a lot of people at Stony Brook because many Long Islanders go/went to both schools.
LGR!
According to some folks on the laxpower fora, there are less than 4,000 tickets left and it's expected to be a sell-out. If form holds today, Stony Brook, Virginia, Syracuse, and Cornell will make for a very attractive field in the eyes of lacrosse fans on the Island.
Quote from: Jim HylaArticle about the game in The Syracuse Post-Standard (http://blog.syracuse.com/orangelacrosse/2010/05/cornell_leads_loyola_8-2_at_th.html) and a nice human interest story about two SU lacrosse moms in The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/sports/16mothers.html?ref=sports)
First time in three weeks the NYT didn't have a big sports story on a present or former Princeton coach or team.
Notre Dame eliminates Princeton, 8-5
Notre Dame 8, Princeton 5. A small part of me feels sad that the Ivy League only has one team moving into the quarterfinals. The rest of me rejoices. Princeton has twice as many NCAA titles as Cornell, but they're getting to be old, too [the last in 2001]. If you want to play Ivy lacrosse at the highest caliber anytime since then, go to Cornell. I still love their stadium, though. And their big stadium will be pretty empty without Princeton fans to boost the gate, such as they have fans. (I see the Princeton band finally made it to a lax game today.) Imagine how much worse Princeton would feel if Bill Tierney got Denver past Stony Brook.
I'm trying to recall how often (seldom) Princeton has made the final four since that run of six titles in a decade. I believe they had FF appearances the next 2 years (2002, 2003), then missed the next 2-3 years, and then the Princeton record book online is blank for 2006 and beyond. They lost to us 6-4 last year in the quarters with a team that arguably was third best in the country after Syracuse and Cornell. And they won't be in the FF this year.
I wouldn't mind borrowing their freshman midfielder, Chanenchuk, for next week's game.
Syracuse and Army 8-8 with 5 minutes left in 4th.
Wow, what a horrible last possession for Army. Tough to leave a shot on the field @ the Dome.
Quote from: Jordan 04Wow, what a horrible last possession for Army. Tough to leave a shot on the field @ the Dome.
Shouldn't have called timeout when they were breaking into the zone with just under a minute left.
Now going into overtime.
Wild finish to the first OT. Heading to double OT.
Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Army wins 9-8 (2 o't.), plays Cornell at noon next Sunday.
Also, N. Carolina beat Delaware 14-13.
Thats great, now Syracuse has a vague idea how we feel, losing with 5.7secs left in OT2
Quote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
Quote from: phillysportsfanThats great, now Syracuse has a vague idea how we feel, losing with 5.7secs left in OT2
As a not-so-poetic radio host would say, how Syracuse feels is "not even a pimple on the fanny" of how we felt (assuming you are referring to last year).
Quote from: RitaIt just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot.
Took 'em awhile, but Army finally
did set up the perfect shot.
Quote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
I was yelling "Don't shoot" because it seemed as if Army had no good shots and couldn't penetrate the perimeter in OT. About 2 seconds before the nice little pass for the winning goal, I remarked that Army seemed to be unable to get the short inside pass we're so good at. Army seemed scared to test the Syracuse defense, such as it was. (Even though Army's coach had a good line postgame about the Syracuse defense, something like: "You can have a good defense when you don't have to play much of it." ) You can't win without shooting but you can lose by taking low percentage shots you wish you had back. Like the bad angle shot by the Army long pole (unlike Cornell's long pole who fired from dead on) and that long shot by the Army short stick middie, which led to ESPN analyst Emmer's best line of the weekend: "There's a reason they have this kid playing defensive middie and it's not to be a shooter." One of the many worst lines was Emmer pondering the question of who Jeff Tambroni would rather face. Let's see, the #2 team in the nation or an unseeded team ranked around #15?
As for faceoffs, it's possible Army will revert to the norm which means not win half the faceoffs. Another Q: Army's hot shooter, #9, the freshman, if he's so good why didn't they let him handle the ball much in OT? I wonder if he's got a stickhandling problem someone like Jason Noble can exploit?
Thank you, Kay-dets, for giving us a better chance (statistically) of doing well next week. Let's not look past that game. I thought Bemidji State wouldn't much of a challenge to the hockey team in 2009 in the second round.
Just off from my studying break and I discovered the news that Army won. The plot thickens...... ::rolleyes:: LGR!
Quote from: Jordan 04Quote from: phillysportsfanThats great, now Syracuse has a vague idea how we feel, losing with 5.7secs left in OT2
As a not-so-poetic radio host would say, how Syracuse feels is "not even a pimple on the fanny" of how we felt (assuming you are referring to last year).
Yeah definitely not even close to last year, closer to how we lost in this years Cuse game
If anyone likes 'Cuse-related Schadenfreude, the 'updated printable bracket' on the ncaa website has them listed as beating Army and playing us next week. Maybe if one has any trash-talking 'Cuse fans in their region, it warrants being sent.
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-lacros/auto_pdf/MLax-D1-2010Bracket
Boy, who woulda thunk we'd be wearing our home whites next Sunday ::woot::
While I certainly like our chances much better than if we had to play Cuse again, make no mistake that Army will be a huge challenge. Given both teams' penchant for one-goal games this year, hard to picture anything other than more of the same.
Go Army, until midnight tonight.
Dodged a bullet. A re-focused Cuse after having the bejesus scared out of them or an overachieving Army team. Hmmmmmm.......who would I rather face..........
Quote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
And the Boston Globe, with no actual lax stories today, shows the final score as
Syracuse 9........Army 8 (2 OT)
Jim's right. Lax should not be sudden death. Too easy to score. I felt that way before the game last Memorial Day. It's only a nice way to end that game for a TV audience that doesn't care who wins so long as someone wins, and typically in the next five minutes of airtime.
Quote from: CornellCommodoreIf anyone likes 'Cuse-related Schadenfreude, the 'updated printable bracket' on the ncaa website has them listed as beating Army and playing us next week. Maybe if one has any trash-talking 'Cuse fans in their region, it warrants being sent.
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-lacros/auto_pdf/MLax-D1-2010Bracket
Lots more Schadenfreude over on syracuse.com. I mean, I wanted revenge for last year, but this'll do.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: CornellCommodoreIf anyone likes 'Cuse-related Schadenfreude, the 'updated printable bracket' on the ncaa website has them listed as beating Army and playing us next week. Maybe if one has any trash-talking 'Cuse fans in their region, it warrants being sent.
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-lacros/auto_pdf/MLax-D1-2010Bracket
Lots more Schadenfreude over on syracuse.com. I mean, I wanted revenge for last year, but this'll do.
You have got to love the fact that Cornell got as far as Syracuse in the basketball tournament and farther than them in the lacrosse tournament
Quote from: Jim HylaI'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
Used to be that way, and it was much more fair in determining a winner. Maryland scored first in OT in the 1976 championship game, but Cornell came back to score four and won by three. Kind of like OT in college football vs. the NFL.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Jim HylaI'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
Used to be that way, and it was much more fair in determining a winner. Maryland scored first in OT in the 1976 championship game, but Cornell came back to score four and won by three. Kind of like OT in college football vs. the NFL.
and it's the way high schools do it.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
I understand the reasoning, but it just seemed like they were content to pass the ball around until the clock practically ticked down to zero. In the meantime, while waiting for the perfect shot, the D is hacking/slashing them and trying to get the ball out. I'm not one to yell "shoot the damn puck on a hockey PP", but man, all that passing and no shooting in the lax OT was making me edgy.
Yeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Given the way they just stall for time and run the clock down, what about instituting some sort of shot clock, say 60 seconds, for the OT periods? The refs do have an option of calling some sort of "stalling warning" where the team with possession has to keep the ball in the box, correct? Is there a time limit associated with that warning too? Do the refs just not call that during OTs (kind of like how the hockey refs used to put away the whistles during OT)?
Quote from: RitaQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
I understand the reasoning, but it just seemed like they were content to pass the ball around until the clock practically ticked down to zero. In the meantime, while waiting for the perfect shot, the D is hacking/slashing them and trying to get the ball out. I'm not one to yell "shoot the damn puck on a hockey PP", but man, all that passing and no shooting in the lax OT was making me edgy.
Yeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Given the way they just stall for time and run the clock down, what about instituting some sort of shot clock, say 60 seconds, for the OT periods? The refs do have an option of calling some sort of "stalling warning" where the team with possession has to keep the ball in the box, correct? Is there a time limit associated with that warning too? Do the refs just not call that during OTs (kind of like how the hockey refs used to put away the whistles during OT)?
Actually there is some discussion about a shot clock for the whole game. I doubt it though. The SU-Providence game was a classic for that. All Providence did was to hold the ball, with no intent to shoot till absolutely necessary. Outshot 43-15.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
I understand the reasoning, but it just seemed like they were content to pass the ball around until the clock practically ticked down to zero. In the meantime, while waiting for the perfect shot, the D is hacking/slashing them and trying to get the ball out. I'm not one to yell "shoot the damn puck on a hockey PP", but man, all that passing and no shooting in the lax OT was making me edgy.
Yeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Given the way they just stall for time and run the clock down, what about instituting some sort of shot clock, say 60 seconds, for the OT periods? The refs do have an option of calling some sort of "stalling warning" where the team with possession has to keep the ball in the box, correct? Is there a time limit associated with that warning too? Do the refs just not call that during OTs (kind of like how the hockey refs used to put away the whistles during OT)?
Actually there is some discussion about a shot clock for the whole game. I doubt it though. The SU-Providence game was a classic for that. All Providence did was to hold the ball, with no intent to shoot till absolutely necessary. Outshot 43-15.
My concern with a shot clock is given how the out-of-bounds shot rule works, it seems like it would be pretty easy for a team to "shoot" high and wide with a player backing up the play in order to deliberately reset the clock, so you might not get much improvement over how the current stall warning tries to fix the problem.
Quote from: RitaYeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Rita, it was absolutely the right comment, and Emmer had the right and the obligation to say it if the goal was to provide helpful insights. This isn't high school JV sports we're talking about. Maybe it stood out because color commentary is so useless most of the time. We're conditioned to pablum in broadcasts. Most team broadcasters are employed by the teams or they're approved by the teams. So when the Devils make a first round exit in the playoffs, you've got to turn to the Star-Ledger or fan forums for a discussion of what really went wrong. His outspokenness makes Barry Melrose so intriguing: sometimes wrong, seldom in doubt.
It's Tuesday, and the Globe still has Syracuse beating Army in 2OT. Plus they show the 14-1 Orange playing us on Saturday. Must be that whacky-liberal, anti-military bent that the local conservative talk show hosts always accuse them of having (or the sports department is just too lazy to get the facts).
Quote from: KillerIt's Tuesday, and the Globe still has Syracuse beating Army in 2OT. Plus they show the 14-1 Orange playing us on Saturday. Must be that whacky-liberal, anti-military bent that the local conservative talk show hosts always accuse them of having (or the sports department is just too lazy to get the facts).
Is that the problem when you're not "All the news that's fit to print"?
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KillerIt's Tuesday, and the Globe still has Syracuse beating Army in 2OT. Plus they show the 14-1 Orange playing us on Saturday. Must be that whacky-liberal, anti-military bent that the local conservative talk show hosts always accuse them of having (or the sports department is just too lazy to get the facts).
Is that the problem when you're not "All the news that's fit to print"?
I thought it was "All the news that fits, we print."
Quote from: JasonN95Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
I understand the reasoning, but it just seemed like they were content to pass the ball around until the clock practically ticked down to zero. In the meantime, while waiting for the perfect shot, the D is hacking/slashing them and trying to get the ball out. I'm not one to yell "shoot the damn puck on a hockey PP", but man, all that passing and no shooting in the lax OT was making me edgy.
Yeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Given the way they just stall for time and run the clock down, what about instituting some sort of shot clock, say 60 seconds, for the OT periods? The refs do have an option of calling some sort of "stalling warning" where the team with possession has to keep the ball in the box, correct? Is there a time limit associated with that warning too? Do the refs just not call that during OTs (kind of like how the hockey refs used to put away the whistles during OT)?
Actually there is some discussion about a shot clock for the whole game. I doubt it though. The SU-Providence game was a classic for that. All Providence did was to hold the ball, with no intent to shoot till absolutely necessary. Outshot 43-15.
My concern with a shot clock is given how the out-of-bounds shot rule works, it seems like it would be pretty easy for a team to "shoot" high and wide with a player backing up the play in order to deliberately reset the clock, so you might not get much improvement over how the current stall warning tries to fix the problem.
Professional lacrosse DOES use a shot clock. The clock is 60 seconds, and resets after a save, a shot hits the post, or a goal is scored.
Lacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
Quote from: polarQuote from: JasonN95Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RitaQuote from: Jordan 04Army wins 9-8. Stunning!
Was anyone else yelling "shoot" at their tv during the OTs? I'm still figuring out lax, but you can't score if you don't shoot. It just seemed like they were spending an eternity setting up for the PERFECT shot. I get hanging onto the ball in regulation and playing for the last shot and leaving no time on the clock, but in Sudden victory OT?
Army was really good on face-offs, how does that bode for us next weekend?
Quite shocking to see Syracuse go down. Shocking in a nice way :).
It really doesn't matter if it's end of game or OT. The problem with Lax OT is that it's so much easier to score than in hockey. Therefore you want to limit your opponents chances. Even in OT, if you get the ball you want a good chance before taking it. Otherwise you are like the Army defensive middie who went down the field, took a not very good shot, and gave it back to SU with a chance for them to win.
I'd prefer two 4 min OTs, followed by sudden.
I understand the reasoning, but it just seemed like they were content to pass the ball around until the clock practically ticked down to zero. In the meantime, while waiting for the perfect shot, the D is hacking/slashing them and trying to get the ball out. I'm not one to yell "shoot the damn puck on a hockey PP", but man, all that passing and no shooting in the lax OT was making me edgy.
Yeah, I caught the comment the talking heads made about the Army Middie (talk about oxymoron, armed forces style) who had "no right taking that shot". I thought that was kind of harsh.
Given the way they just stall for time and run the clock down, what about instituting some sort of shot clock, say 60 seconds, for the OT periods? The refs do have an option of calling some sort of "stalling warning" where the team with possession has to keep the ball in the box, correct? Is there a time limit associated with that warning too? Do the refs just not call that during OTs (kind of like how the hockey refs used to put away the whistles during OT)?
Actually there is some discussion about a shot clock for the whole game. I doubt it though. The SU-Providence game was a classic for that. All Providence did was to hold the ball, with no intent to shoot till absolutely necessary. Outshot 43-15.
My concern with a shot clock is given how the out-of-bounds shot rule works, it seems like it would be pretty easy for a team to "shoot" high and wide with a player backing up the play in order to deliberately reset the clock, so you might not get much improvement over how the current stall warning tries to fix the problem.
Professional lacrosse DOES use a shot clock. The clock is 60 seconds, and resets after a save, a shot hits the post, or a goal is scored.
Lacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
Ah, thanks. I knew that the pros use a shot clock, but didn't know the conditions for how it resets. If that is how it's done, then my concern is moot.
Quote from: polarLacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
I'm not so sure. There's a shot clock in basketball. Playing one OT would lead to the behavior Rita is scorning: holding the ball nearly four minutes for the last shot. A second OT--as was done back in the day with two four-minute overtimes and no sudden death--would give the team losing the first OT's face-off a chance to get the ball for the second OT, if the team winning the first OT's face-off were to hold for the last shot.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: polarLacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
I'm not so sure. There's a shot clock in basketball. Playing one OT would lead to the behavior Rita is scorning: holding the ball nearly four minutes for the last shot. A second OT--as was done back in the day with two four-minute overtimes and no sudden death--would give the team losing the first OT's face-off a chance to get the ball for the second OT, if the team winning the first OT's face-off were to hold for the last shot.
You could take your cue from college football and give eahc team one possession to score and call that one overtime period. If both teams score or neither do then go on to a second OT (and so on). On the positive side there would be no reason to stall but no the negative side it's artificial (eliminates faceoffs for one thing).
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: polarLacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
I'm not so sure. There's a shot clock in basketball. Playing one OT would lead to the behavior Rita is scorning: holding the ball nearly four minutes for the last shot. A second OT--as was done back in the day with two four-minute overtimes and no sudden death--would give the team losing the first OT's face-off a chance to get the ball for the second OT, if the team winning the first OT's face-off were to hold for the last shot.
You could take your cue from college football and give eahc team one possession to score and call that one overtime period. If both teams score or neither do then go on to a second OT (and so on). On the positive side there would be no reason to stall but no the negative side it's artificial (eliminates faceoffs for one thing).
I thought about that, but refrained from posting the idea for fear of being bashed by the "purists" ::blush::. So Keith, I am surprised you suggested it ;-). I actually don't care for the OT in college football, totally removes the kicking game and forces the teams to play on a short field. As for OT Lax, I would just prefer something where you don't have to watch 4 min 45 seconds of keep-away/stalling. I'd be okay with a shot clock play the full OT period.
Quote from: RitaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: polarLacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
I'm not so sure. There's a shot clock in basketball. Playing one OT would lead to the behavior Rita is scorning: holding the ball nearly four minutes for the last shot. A second OT--as was done back in the day with two four-minute overtimes and no sudden death--would give the team losing the first OT's face-off a chance to get the ball for the second OT, if the team winning the first OT's face-off were to hold for the last shot.
You could take your cue from college football and give eahc team one possession to score and call that one overtime period. If both teams score or neither do then go on to a second OT (and so on). On the positive side there would be no reason to stall but no the negative side it's artificial (eliminates faceoffs for one thing).
***Rita's quote that I managed to delete somehow***
You should be surprised that I suggested it. I even thoguht that as I wrote my post.
I normally don't like artificial in sports. I don't much like the college football OT rules. I absolutely hate shootouts. But since my interest in lacrosse is so shallow (I think I've only watched a handful lax games, all Cornell tournament games) I don't get worked up about it the way I do for sports that I am really in to. Plus, I don't really like the way faceofs work in lax (*) so I don't mind the idea of eliminating them in OT.
(*) Hard to explain why. It's the way faceoffs drive possession so strongly since, unlike hockey, turnovers are less frequent. Never played (obviously) and haven't watched much so it's largely just initial perceptions.
I thought about that, but refrained from posting the idea for fear of being bashed by the "purists" ::blush::. So Keith, I am surprised you suggested it ;-). I actually don't care for the OT in college football, totally removes the kicking game and forces the teams to play on a short field. As for OT Lax, I would just prefer something where you don't have to watch 4 min 45 seconds of keep-away/stalling. I'd be okay with a shot clock play the full OT period.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: RitaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: polarLacrosse overtime would work fine if they played out the period, rather than playing sudden death. It works for basketball.
I'm not so sure. There's a shot clock in basketball. Playing one OT would lead to the behavior Rita is scorning: holding the ball nearly four minutes for the last shot. A second OT--as was done back in the day with two four-minute overtimes and no sudden death--would give the team losing the first OT's face-off a chance to get the ball for the second OT, if the team winning the first OT's face-off were to hold for the last shot.
You could take your cue from college football and give eahc team one possession to score and call that one overtime period. If both teams score or neither do then go on to a second OT (and so on). On the positive side there would be no reason to stall but no the negative side it's artificial (eliminates faceoffs for one thing).
You should be surprised that I suggested it. I even thoguht that as I wrote my post.
I normally don't like artificial in sports. I don't much like the college football OT rules. I absolutely hate shootouts. But since my interest in lacrosse is so shallow (I think I've only watched a handful lax games, all Cornell tournament games) I don't get worked up about it the way I do for sports that I am really in to. Plus, I don't really like the way faceofs work in lax (*) so I don't mind the idea of eliminating them in OT.
(*) Hard to explain why. It's the way faceoffs drive possession so strongly since, unlike hockey, turnovers are less frequent. Never played (obviously) and haven't watched much so it's largely just initial perceptions.
I thought about that, but refrained from posting the idea for fear of being bashed by the "purists" ::blush::. So Keith, I am surprised you suggested it ;-). I actually don't care for the OT in college football, totally removes the kicking game and forces the teams to play on a short field. As for OT Lax, I would just prefer something where you don't have to watch 4 min 45 seconds of keep-away/stalling. I'd be okay with a shot clock play the full OT period.
??????????::drunk::