Lax Cornell 11 Loyola 10 (3 OT) & other NCAA 1st round

[Swampy]

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).

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."

[polar]

Army 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.

[JasonN95]

Army 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.

[Al DeFlorio]

Lacrosse 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.

[KeithK]

Lacrosse 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]

Lacrosse 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.

[KeithK]

Lacrosse 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.

[Jim Hyla]

Lacrosse 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::