Cornell lacrosse 2018

[semsox]

I like lacrosse, I just don't understand it.  How does Cornell go from losing all 24 faceoffs (or winning only 1...sources differ) in one game to winning 12/24 in the next game?  I know that Albany is a lot better than Binghamton, but that's just so dramatic.  And how does Cornell stay competitive in a game where they lose every faceoff?

Yea, I wouldn't look at winning 50% as a good harbinger. Binghamton was playing it's 6th game and came into the game 40% on the year. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that fixing the face-off problem for this team might mean the difference between not making the Ivy League Tournament or potentially making a run in the NCAAs. Every other unit on this team seems ready to go, and if face-off performance keeps holding them back, it's going to start to show in the morale of the other units.

[Swampy]

I like lacrosse, I just don't understand it.  How does Cornell go from losing all 24 faceoffs (or winning only 1...sources differ) in one game to winning 12/24 in the next game?  I know that Albany is a lot better than Binghamton, but that's just so dramatic.  And how does Cornell stay competitive in a game where they lose every faceoff?

Short answer: They don't.

Long answer:

Lacrosse has changed over the years. Back in the 1970s, it was common to play a goal keeper, 3 defense men, 3 attack men, and 3 midfielders. Since only midfielders commonly ran the full length of the field, it was also common to run 2-4 lines of "middies,' the same way as teams change lines in hockey (lacrosse didn't change midfielders as frequently, but change them it did). Teams would also substitute defenders and attack men, but not entire lines; instead, they'd rotate maybe 1-2 players into the defense or attack, usually just to give the starters a break. Because midfielders played at both ends of the field, they'd have to be able to play offense and defense, just like in basketball. Very rarely a defender would cross over midfield, typically carrying the ball, and because the rules always require a team to have at least 3 players (not counting goalie) on both sides of the midfield line, somebody would have to stay back -- typically a midfielder, or extremely rarely, an attack man -- so the defender could cross over without the team being offsides. But getting back to face-offs, because teams ran several midfields and midfielders played both ways, there would typically be one player on each midfield line who regularly took face-offs, or perhaps there would be 2-4 players who did and, depending on the situation, any one of them might rotate in to do so. But even if that player regularly played on a different midfield line, he would stay in and play with the other midfielders on the field during the face-off, and might substitute out only after several minutes.

Today the game is completely different. It has become completely specialized; overly specialized, IMHO. In addition to attack and defense men, teams have midfielders who specialize in offense or defense. They even have defensive midfielders who specialize in using shorter or longer sticks.

And they have players who specialize in nothing but facing off and getting off the field. Hence the term, FOGO. This has become a very specialized position, almost as important as the goal keeper position. Because each team can have only three players in the middle portion of the field during a face-off, the two wings for each team are also important and also often specialize. Because midfielders specialize in defense and offense now, the face-off units specialize too, and you may see the wings on face-offs doing only that. Suppose a team used its offensive middies for a face-off and lost the ball to the other team. Then the team would have to substitute defensive midfielders for the face-off unit. The same is true vice-versa if the team used defensive middies and won the ball: it would have to substitute offensive middies. So since substitution is likely either way, teams just count on substituting for their face-off units, which allows even greater specialization.

Think of the current situation in lacrosse as somewhat similar to basketball back in the day when jump balls were common (e.g., before possession arrows). A team with a 7 foot center, like Wilt Chamberlain, had a tremendous advantage. But basketball scores are typically 50-100 points, and teams could win the ball back by rebounding or causing turnovers. So the advantage didn't necessarily mean a team with a tall center would win the game. In lacrosse, scores are typically <=20, so having a dominant FOGO is a bigger advantage. Of course, not everyone wins the genetic lottery (as Bill Walton calls it), so 7-foot centers are very rare. But theoretically, anyone can learn to win face-offs, so on the surface the shift to specialized FOGO's does not seem to confer such extreme advantage. But FOGOs on the very top teams are usually in a class by themselves compared to the average, run-of-the-mill FOGO. If a team doesn't have an elite FOGO, good coaching can make up for part of the deficit. But it's still a big disadvantage.

[Trotsky]

That's a great write up, thank you.

Is there a movement in lax to have possession arrows?

[Al DeFlorio]

That's a great write up, thank you.

Is there a movement in lax to have possession arrows?

It was tried, and abandoned, to work it like basketball where the scored-upon team would be given the ball after a goal.  Maybe TimV (or anyone else) can tell us why that approach failed.

[scoop85]

That's a great write up, thank you.

Is there a movement in lax to have possession arrows?

It was tried, and abandoned, to work it like basketball where the scored-upon team would be given the ball after a goal.  Maybe TimV (or anyone else) can tell us why that approach failed.

The biggest issue is that if you are going to eliminate the face off, you have to have an always on shot clock IMO. When they eliminated face offs in 1979, it failed because there was no shot clock less talented teams could do the old Dean Smith style four corners and just play keep away.

[Swampy]

That's a great write up, thank you.

Is there a movement in lax to have possession arrows?

It was tried, and abandoned, to work it like basketball where the scored-upon team would be given the ball after a goal.  Maybe TimV (or anyone else) can tell us why that approach failed.

The biggest issue is that if you are going to eliminate the face off, you have to have an always on shot clock IMO. When they eliminated face offs in 1979, it failed because there was no shot clock less talented teams could do the old Dean Smith style four corners and just play keep away.

Agree. And the current shot clock, which goes on at the referee's discretion, isn't working that well, IMHO.

Edit: BTW, I should have included this in my earlier post: Lacrosse used to be called "the fastest game on two feet." It's very hard to claim this today, since you frequently see people standing around while this or that specialist units substitutes in and out. And even after the substitutions, for some reason I don't quite understand, you see teams passively passing the ball around the periphery without much noticeable effort to break down the other team's defense. To see what I'm talking about, watch movement away from the ball.

There have, however, been two notable exceptions recently: Brown 2015, 2016 and Albany the past 3 years. I may be wrong, but I believe I'm correct in saying both teams used 2-way midfields.

[upprdeck]

just change the rule to no subs until possession change or ball goes out of bounds..  they should implement a shot clock period.. 1-2min from gaining possession regardless of shots taken.  shoot and keep is still fine but only until that 1-2 min is up..

[TimV]

That's a great write up, thank you.

Is there a movement in lax to have possession arrows?

It was tried, and abandoned, to work it like basketball where the scored-upon team would be given the ball after a goal.  Maybe TimV (or anyone else) can tell us why that approach failed.

The biggest issue is that if you are going to eliminate the face off, you have to have an always on shot clock IMO. When they eliminated face offs in 1979, it failed because there was no shot clock less talented teams could do the old Dean Smith style four corners and just play keep away.

Right Scoop. But a problem with the approach at that time was that after a score, the scored-upon team got the ball at the midfield.  If it was done like basketball- get the ball behind your own goal - it would force a clear.  Using todays clearing rules would prevent teams using up too much time, and reward a hard riding opponent.  There have been other suggestions with minor tweaks like putting more space between the crosse of the FO guys.  

I'd like to see a variant derived from the old XFL.  Instead of an opening kickoff they had one player from each side run to get posession of a ball placed at the midfield line.  So, after a goal, restart with EVERYONE behind the restraining lines and the ball at the midfield dot.  Blow the whistle and let 'em go get it.

[Swampy]

just change the rule to no subs until possession change or ball goes out of bounds..  they should implement a shot clock period.. 1-2min from gaining possession regardless of shots taken.  shoot and keep is still fine but only until that 1-2 min is up..

+1

[Swampy]

I'd like to see a variant derived from the old XFL.  Instead of an opening kickoff they had one player from each side run to get posession of a ball placed at the midfield line.  So, after a goal, restart with EVERYONE behind the restraining lines and the ball at the midfield dot.  Blow the whistle and let 'em go get it.

Like a ground ball drill. Cool.

Maybe have them start at the wing lines. You want to see them battling for the ball, not see who can gain a step or two sprinting from GLE.

[abmarks]

is the penn state game on TV or video stream anywhere?

[dag14]

There is apparently no video capability at the field where they are playing, which makes no sense.  not sure what that means -- that the neutral venue can't/won't provide a crew?

[Al DeFlorio]

2-0 PSU late first; still losing all face-offs; now 3-0 after one

Getting looks but missing cage

[billhoward]

Penn State 4-2 at the half. Bunch of turnovers and failed clears hurting Cornell.

Up to 6-2 PSU late in the third. Third ends 6-3 on Teat third goal.

Fourth: Pettison cuts cuts margin to 6-4 2 minutes into fourth quarter. Midway through, Teat and McCulloch hit the pipe within 15 seconds. Dowiak cuts it to 6-5 with 8 minutes left, evens it at 6 with 7:23 left. 3G, 2A for Teat so far. Cornell wins the ensuing faceoff (finally) and gets called for failure to advance; too much of that happened at Albany, too. Followed by an offside penalty against Cornell, leads to a PSU goal as the penalty expires, 7-6, PSU. Ouch. Petterson from Piatelli ties at 7 with 4-1/2 to play.

Last 3 minutes: Dowiak third goal on skip pass from Teat with 2:02 left gives Cornell 8-7 lead.

Last 2 minutes: PSU wins faceoff, takes TO with minute to play. PSU restarts, passes the ball out of bounds. Unsettled clear by Cornell, Petterson picks up, puts Cornell up 9-7 with :25 to go. Delayed pentalty on PSU gives Cornell the ball, no need for faceoff. Final 9-7.

... as the basketball game starts to slip away vs. Harvard. At least we sneaked into the playoff.

Awesome come from behind win. Rather we'd done it last week against #1 Albany. But okay, we're coming back.

Jeff Teat 2-4--6. Dowiak and Petterson 3-0--3 each. Knight 13 saves, 7 GA, 65%. Cornell took only one penalty.

[Al DeFlorio]

6-6 mid-third after a Teat goal followed by three Teat assisted goals