Don’t kill us yet!

[Caliknight]

Our recruiting resources are definitely getting better. But it's a fair point. If you want to keep winning, donate. Something. Everyone needs skin in the game. Everyone. MLAX Stick Fund is a very easy place to go.

Men's Lacrosse - Rutgers Athletics

Our yearly campaign goal is not only to raise outside support for our Men's Lacrosse Operating Fund, but also to engage and involve the extended Rutgers Men's Lacrosse family!

giving.scarletknights.com

FO's are probably the toughest position to project. I think about a kid we had committed that flipped to Syracuse. He was thought to be very high level coming out of high school. He never saw the field there and transferred, and their fogo game is garbage. If he couldn't see the field there, the projections were missed by everyone.

It's just a really hard position to recruit for. Historically we've had some really incredible fogos. I'd like to see us get back to that level obviously.

 

[Wagram97]

Our recruiting resources are definitely getting better. But it's a fair point. If you want to keep winning, donate. Something. Everyone needs skin in the game. Everyone. MLAX Stick Fund is a very easy place to go.

Men's Lacrosse - Rutgers Athletics

Our yearly campaign goal is not only to raise outside support for our Men's Lacrosse Operating Fund, but also to engage and involve the extended Rutgers Men's Lacrosse family!

giving.scarletknights.com

FO's are probably the toughest position to project. I think about a kid we had committed that flipped to Syracuse. He was thought to be very high level coming out of high school. He never saw the field there and transferred, and their fogo game is garbage. If he couldn't see the field there, the projections were missed by everyone.

It's just a really hard position to recruit for. Historically we've had some really incredible fogos. I'd like to see us get back to that level obviously.

Yup, been in discussions with reps from the program on donating (how to help out as much as possible). Not up to the big donation status but giving what we can - including that stick fund. Will be donating more the next couple of months.

 

[Caliknight]

That's awesome. It's all been trending up. That needs to continue. The money game can't be an issue. Slowly but surely it's getting solved.

Thanks for your donations. If you don't know any of the players, I can tell you it goes to support really great kids who work their asses off.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

Fogo is the one position that being on the shorter side does not seem to be a disadvantage, guys like Petey LaSalla, Sisselberger, Jake Naso having a lot of success. They are using their low center of gravity to their advantage but on the flip side yeah it can work against you in regular run of play.

 

[Caliknight]

Short is one thing. 5'5" or so and not able to run from trouble is another.

Dugenio is short, but he's strong and very quick. He's an athlete. Like LaSalla and Naso. Probably a better athlete actually.

 

[mattkamish]

The fact the Irlan began at Albany suggests it's an inexact science.

Face off recruiting is a crap shoot. A good fogo has way too much impact on the game. Sorry. Too many games are tied to the better and more dominant fogo.

Army is a great team. Great defense. But the data does not lie…Army had 14 more possessions than Loyola on Sunday out of face offs and they won by 2. I’d argue if Loyola goes 50/50, they win the game by 3+ goals. That’s where we’re at. The Army Loyola game was lost based on one position only…fogo. That’s it

I am not a purist. One position should not have that big of an impact. It’s hurting the game for the common fan. I’ve talked with 10-20 fringe fans in the last 30 days…they all say the game is driven too much by fogo play

 

[RUonBrain]

Face off recruiting is a crap shoot. A good fogo has way too much impact on the game. Sorry. Too many games are tied to the better and more dominant fogo.

Army is a great team. Great defense. But the data does not lie…Army had 14 more possessions than Loyola on Sunday out of face offs and they won by 2. I’d argue if Loyola goes 50/50, they win the game by 3+ goals. That’s where we’re at. The Army Loyola game was lost based on one position only…fogo. That’s it

I am not a purist. One position should not have that big of an impact. It’s hurting the game for the common fan. I’ve talked with 10-20 fringe fans in the last 30 days…they all say the game is driven too much by fogo play

Agree

The face off in lax is a big turn off to me personally.
Seems ridiculous that one team can dominate possession because of 1 play / player.

They do it the same way in hockey but 1 extra possession there is meaningless
In soccer, the other team gets the ball (this makes more sense to me).

Any chance the rules are ever changed?
Are these rules in place everywhere the game is played, at all levels?

 

[Laxing4life]

I enjoy the faceoff, to me it brings a unique skill set into the game and a different athlete. Not a one size fits all so I think the young player no matter their size or speed feels like they can participate.

However, I do believe the position tips the scale way too much. My solutions to fix would be 2 things. 1.) Eliminate the clamping of the ball, only allow sweeps 2.) Eliminate the restraining lines for the wings and have them line up around the midfield circle like women’s lacrosse.

These 2 things would immediately turn it into a 50/50 battle and the effort and will would win. Would be some serious GB battles!

 

[mdk01]

Face off recruiting is a crap shoot. A good fogo has way too much impact on the game. Sorry. Too many games are tied to the better and more dominant fogo.

Army is a great team. Great defense. But the data does not lie…Army had 14 more possessions than Loyola on Sunday out of face offs and they won by 2. I’d argue if Loyola goes 50/50, they win the game by 3+ goals. That’s where we’re at. The Army Loyola game was lost based on one position only…fogo. That’s it

I am not a purist. One position should not have that big of an impact. It’s hurting the game for the common fan. I’ve talked with 10-20 fringe fans in the last 30 days…they all say the game is driven too much by fogo play

I enjoy the faceoff, to me it brings a unique skill set into the game and a different athlete. Not a one size fits all so I think the young player no matter their size or speed feels like they can participate.

However, I do believe the position tips the scale way too much. My solutions to fix would be 2 things. 1.) Eliminate the clamping of the ball, only allow sweeps 2.) Eliminate the restraining lines for the wings and have them line up around the midfield circle like women’s lacrosse.

These 2 things would immediately turn it into a 50/50 battle and the effort and will would win. Would be some serious GB battles!

Full disclosure: While the FOGO was not as specialized when I played (in fact the term had not been created) face off ability increased my playing time because I was good for 50+% (NOT! 70%) in D1. And I was athletic enough to stay on and play D if I lost. So one change to consider is requiring the FOGO to stay on until there was a change in possession or goal.

Two other changes to consider:

When I played the ball was not on ground for the face off, it was placed between the two sticks on their lower wall. This opened up front flip and back flip moves, though that would not change the impact a dominant FOGO would have. The other difference was the wing middies. Not only could they check sticks of the FOGO before either got possession but (subject to all the other rules like not below the waist of in the head) they could hit the FOGOs. Frankly I don't think there is enough emphasis of wing play these days.

Not an unbiased view, but I think it should be tweeked and not abolished.

 

[Wagram97]

Is part of the problem with the FO that it can have such a large impact on a game, or even season, for just one position? Go back to 2019 for Rutgers, that was a good team. With Mullins and Charalambides on attack, add in Gallagher, then Pless and JJF on defense, Edelman in goal. Yet the FO was awful, recall a lot of injuries, but they just really struggled at that position and it had a huge impact on the season. I just looked at the stats and they were 40% for the year on FO.

That was the year they were at Syracuse, Mullins and Charalambides were having a great game (Mullins with 6 assists and AC with 6 goals). Had the lead for most of the game, just could not win at the FO - especially in the 4th QTR (RU was 1-11 in the 4th on FO). Syracuse would outlast RU and go on to win the game.

 

[Laxing4life]

Full disclosure: While the FOGO was not as specialized when I played (in fact the term had not been created) face off ability increased my playing time because I was good for 50+% (NOT! 70%) in D1. And I was athletic enough to stay on and play D if I lost. So one change to consider is requiring the FOGO to stay on until there was a change in possession or goal.

Two other changes to consider:

When I played the ball was not on ground for the face off, it was placed between the two sticks on their lower wall. This opened up front flip and back flip moves, though that would not change the impact a dominant FOGO would have. The other difference was the wing middies. Not only could they check sticks of the FOGO before either got possession but (subject to all the other rules like not below the waist of in the head) they could hit the FOGOs. Frankly I don't think there is enough emphasis of wing play these days.

Not an unbiased view, but I think it should be tweeked and not abolished.

I like the idea of having the faceoff players stay on either side of the field for at least 1 possession, goal or turnover. The only issue would be if the faceoff player that won possession was required to stay on I would suspect that they would stay on the field near the box and let the offense play 5v5.

 

[mdk01]

I like the idea of having the faceoff players stay on either side of the field for at least 1 possession, goal or turnover. The only issue would be if the faceoff player that won possession was required to stay on I would suspect that they would stay on the field near the box and let the offense play 5v5.

That wouldn't happen if they were facing a FOGO like Dugenio, who has scored goals and gotten assists. You'd be giving up an untimed man up advantage. If anything, it would mean FOGOs in general would have to have some regular midfield skills.

BTW, one of the factors creating these no move tie ups is the increased flexibility of today's stick. Back in the day, if you won with a clamp move you'd either look to position to pick the ball up with your body between the opponent and the ball or rake it to an incoming wing. No 30 second tie ups.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

It is an interesting debate and adjustments do need to be made. When your team can't win a faceoff it is pretty demoralizing especially if you are playing a team with a competent offense.

One thing that is so simple and can be instituted this afternoon if they wanted is what they do at the youth level - free clears after a goal if your team is down by 7(I think).

At the NCAA level maybe you have the goalie start with the ball instead of a free clear and I would lower the threshold to around 5 goals to keep things interesting.

I doubt this would ever be adopted as I am pretty sure there is not a precedent for sports at a competitive level to give an advantage to a team because they are getting their doors blown off.

The closest thing may be the use of DRS in Formula 1 to help the drivers that are trying to pass cars in front.

Anyway, it would require little overhead compared to more complex changes and they could start testing the change immediately. Current faceoff guys who have been honing their skills for many years would retain their value as the face off will still matter if the game is close.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

BTW, one of the factors creating these no move tie ups is the increased flexibility of today's stick. Back in the day, if you won with a clamp move you'd either look to position to pick the ball up with your body between the opponent and the ball or rake it to an incoming wing. No 30 second tie ups.

Yes, and after a 30 second tie up you may be working with a somewhat pinched or warped stick which may not be ready for an extended offensive possession.

 

[mdk01]

Yes, and after a 30 second tie up you may be working with a somewhat pinched or warped stick which may not be ready for an extended offensive possession.

Not really these days. But when super lights were first introduced in '75 it was soon discovered that when they went against an older, less flexible stick using a clamp move they ended so badly warped that they couldn't play until they went to the sidelines and straightened it back out. Their only hope was a flip move, which disappeared when the ball got moved to the ground to start play. Obviously stick technology has progressed.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

Not really these days.

Very much the case these days. Even in high school you better have a softball on the sidelines to expand the head as some of the idiot refs will not give you the courtesy of waiting for it to rebound before checking your stick.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

Just spit balling but another simple idea is a mandatory rotation of fogos so that one guy cannot take two faceoffs in a row.

The elite teams will still be able to stock pile face off talent but the odds of a team having two LaSallas or Wiermans would be pretty slim.

 

[rbled]

I think the simplest solution is to limit faceoffs to the beginning of each quarter. Each goal is followed by a clearing attempt. It doesn’t eliminate the position but severely reduces the overall impact. At the same time it increases the importance of riding and clearing, which is a much more integral part of the game than face offs.

 

[Caliknight]

I think in the future the game is going to look significantly differently. The Olympics are already seeing to that.

 

[Roy_Faulker]

Just change the position of the wing players to prevent the fast break. That’s the killer. Yes you want more possessions but the game swings at the face because of the unsettled fast break on offense and a dominant player’s ability to wash, rinse, repeat.

Beast had suggestions as well to increase the number of 50/50 balls.

I’m biased but love the FO in the game - the chess match is amazing especially with two evenly matched guys.

 

[mattkamish]

Is part of the problem with the FO that it can have such a large impact on a game, or even season, for just one position? Go back to 2019 for Rutgers, that was a good team. With Mullins and Charalambides on attack, add in Gallagher, then Pless and JJF on defense, Edelman in goal. Yet the FO was awful, recall a lot of injuries, but they just really struggled at that position and it had a huge impact on the season. I just looked at the stats and they were 40% for the year on FO.

That was the year they were at Syracuse, Mullins and Charalambides were having a great game (Mullins with 6 assists and AC with 6 goals). Had the lead for most of the game, just could not win at the FO - especially in the 4th QTR (RU was 1-11 in the 4th on FO). Syracuse would outlast RU and go on to win the game.

I was at that game. We were leading and then we lost 7 face offs to start the 4th quarter and it’s was over. Cuse scored 4-5 in a row if I recall…

I respect peoples opinions on keeping the face off… but like other rules, time for some changes. If it can be tweaked. Then great, let’s change it…

 

[Degaz-RU]

How about this rule change? The team against whom a goal was scored has a CHOICE of either (1) having a traditional face off; OR (2) taking possession at its own goal line and having to clear, except the defensive team gets to ride with one additional player in that end.

Teams with great FOGOs (like a Wierman or Sisselberger) might be more inclined to choose the FO, but teams with less dominant FOGOs might be more inclined to choose to take the ball and then takes their chances with the more difficult clearing attempt.

Just a thought.

 

[Caliknight]

The e game is going away from faceoffs. The only question is when will it happen.

 

[mattkamish]

The e game is going away from faceoffs. The only question is when will it happen.

The PLL sixes format had no face off after goals. My tweak to that is there isn’t an automatic “go” after the ball hits the net…players get time to celebrate the goal, both teams reset the field, offense to defense, and then you blow the whistle and the clear starts…maybe you have 80 seconds from the time to ball scores to the time the ref blows the whistle for the clear to go the other way…..

I agree, change is coming….just don’t know what

 

[Wagram97]

The PLL sixes format had no face off after goals. My tweak to that is there isn’t an automatic “go” after the ball hits the net…players get time to celebrate the goal, both teams reset the field, offense to defense, and then you blow the whistle and the clear starts…maybe you have 80 seconds from the time to ball scores to the time the ref blows the whistle for the clear to go the other way…..

I agree, change is coming….just don’t know what

You cannot get rid of the after goal celebration. I've played a lot of sports and obviously now watch a lot of sports, and to me, the lacrosse goal celebrations are some of the best.

 

[rufamily]

How about this rule change? The team against whom a goal was scored has a CHOICE of either (1) having a traditional face off; OR (2) taking possession at its own goal line and having to clear, except the defensive team gets to ride with one additional player in that end.

Teams with great FOGOs (like a Wierman or Sisselberger) might be more inclined to choose the FO, but teams with less dominant FOGOs might be more inclined to choose to take the ball and then takes their chances with the more difficult clearing attempt.

Just a thought.

Coming at this from another angle is the reffing of the faceoff which is different from person to person (I am a ref) it is next to impossible to get consistent face-offs procedures from the ref's. I have been in the pregame meetings with the fogo's and my partners will tell them one thing and then do another. Every pregame meeting I have as a ref includes faceoff procedures.

It have said that I face off should simply go away and make the team clear the ball after a goal. There is nothing more frustrating than watching your team lose face-offs to a player who would struggle to be on the field otherwise.

 

[mdk01]

Coming at this from another angle is the reffing of the faceoff which is different from person to person (I am a ref) it is next to impossible to get consistent face-offs procedures from the ref's. I have been in the pregame meetings with the fogo's and my partners will tell them one thing and then do another. Every pregame meeting I have as a ref includes faceoff procedures.

It have said that I face off should simply go away and make the team clear the ball after a goal. There is nothing more frustrating than watching your team lose face-offs to a player who would struggle to be on the field otherwise.

Didn't the NCAA put out a memo 5-6 years ago telling refs to vary their timing on faceoffs? I kept track of how a ref operated because the individuals used to be fairly consistent. If you knew you were going to get a quick or slow whistle was a real advantage, but I guess these days most coaches are on to that.

 

[rufamily]

I am not actually talking about cadence which we do generally vary. It is position, movement, tone all of these things vary but it is will the guy call you if your hands are on the line? if you are tilted. I have times where s the second or off-ball guy I can see them leaning or rolling into the face-off and it is not getting called. Some guys want to impose their will into the game and some just want the game to be as fair as possible.

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

Some guys want to impose their will into the game and some just want the game to be as fair as possible.

My vote is for as fair as possible! Family - what is your approach on calling/not calling a push on face-offs? It seems to be one of the more inconsistent calls at the youth level and drives me nuts when one of my guys wins the draw has possession and gets pushed resulting in him on the ground, losing the ball and now its a three on two going the other way with no call.

That alone has me wanting to abolish face offs.

Side question - have you called many/any three minute penalties for intentional contact with the head and neck?

I have seen some egregious ones that are not being called.

 

[Roy_Faulker]

You cannot get rid of the after goal celebration. I've played a lot of sports and obviously now watch a lot of sports, and to me, the lacrosse goal celebrations are some of the best.

Agree - it’s better than the TD celebrations before the NFL became the no fun league haha

To be honest nothing tops the women angrily throwing their sticks to the ground after a goal.

 

[rufamily]

My vote is for as fair as possible! Family - what is your approach on calling/not calling a push on face-offs? It seems to be one of the more inconsistent calls at the youth level and drives me nuts when one of my guys wins the draw has possession and gets pushed resulting in him on the ground, losing the ball and now its a three on two going the other way with no call.

That alone has me wanting to abolish face offs.

Side question - have you called many/any three minute penalties for intentional contact with the head and neck?

I have seen some egregious ones that are not being called.

For the push on the face-off we are looking for advantage /disadvantage and where the contact was. if it is from the front and above the waist, as long as you don't crosscheck then that's a good play. from the back should always be called but from the side is tricky. But, any contact with a fogo while he is engaged in the faceoff should be whistled right away.

funny you ask about 3 minutes. we have been told to call these more strictly, so ( in HS) a crosscheck that slides up to the head and neck which was 1 minute is now 1-2 NR and accidental or on purpose blows to the head we have been instructed to start at 2 minutes but most should be 3 minutes NR. Now this is for HS games.

The problem with some no calls is angle. Sometimes I hear something but if it is going away from me or I do not see it it is very tough to call. Remember we have different viewpoints than coaches and we have different areas of responsibility. So in a 2 man game the trail has the shooter while the lead has the goal line and the crease, so while there are 2 of us we are responsible for different things and we are not both generally watching the ball

 

[DowntownT_Brown]

from the back should always be called

Yes the incidents that frustrate me are always in the back(pretty much the numbers) so needless to say - frustrating.

I really appreciate you taking the time to share your insight!!

 

[jreinsdorf]

I LOVE the FO despite its impact which i admit is disproportionate. But as others have mentioned, I just think there are no other parts of the game or even a sport anywhere that is equal parts chess match and street fight. I like it as much as a sweet goal. So before eliminating the number of them I do hope they will tweak further the technique involved or tbh I would start with closer wingers. They simply start too far away imo.

 

[Roy_Faulker]

The Army/UMD and UM/Cornell games were great faceoff games.

 

[biazza38]

Hate that Michigan won. As if they need another sport to be good at

 

[Roy_Faulker]

Yeah - my son was rooting for UM. Would prefer them and the BIG vs ND who ESPN seems to have already anointed.

Want the BIG to win…or Army.

 

[biazza38]

Yeah - my son was rooting for UM. Would prefer them and the BIG vs ND who ESPN seems to have already anointed.

Want the BIG to win…or Army.

I hope Michigan loses by a million next round

 

[Caliknight]

Love Michigan winning. F Cornell. Stronger B1G is great for us and their OC is a very loyal son.

 

[biazza38]

I understand the B1G doing well in out of conference play during the regular season helps our RPI. But come postseason play, we’re way past the point of questioning the legitimacy of the B1G.
The last thing Rutgers needs is a school such as Michigan, which has more money and resources than us, to start winning in lacrosse. If Michigan becomes a consistent force, good luck out recruiting them. It will 100% come at the cost of another B1G school. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Syracuse football from 2006-2011 once Rutgers turned the corner.
One other quick point, when RU made the tournament in 2021, look how many teams from the B1G made it that year. Only two. It was a down year for the B1G. But it didn’t matter because we were good and deserved to get in that year. RU doesn’t need Michigan to start having success. We were fine without them
Michigan can go skip rocks

 

[Caliknight]

We just need to worry about ourselves. People still consider the Acc rhe best conference. The more the B1G wins the more that narrative changes.

Most importantly, Bieda will be at RU someday. The more he wins the better. He’s one of us. As long as it is t at our expense, go get em I say.

Can’t believe I’m saying this but go Penn St. F Princeton