Proposed rule changes including goal scorer push into the crease

[mdk01]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/arti...-landing-into-goal-mouth-due-to-contact/59842

Rutgers was on both sides of that during the season. Makes sense. The contact to the head rule needs further definition. If what they call "indirect contact" means the top of the helmet brushes the contacted player's face mask while the shoulder and/or forearm are striking the chest I think that should not be a penalty. I'd go 1 minute and 3 minutes on the other two.

And it looks like Gait might be out some royalties on his new stick.

 

[Caliknight]

What's up with Gait?

The goal rule needed to change. It was so obviously poorly thought out. It makes you wonder who is coming up with this stuff.

 

[SF88]

Check out the Inside Lacrosse Instagram. They seem to not like Rutgers. Not much positive during the tournament. However, they have a clip of Cornell 27 freight training RU 44 with a ward or no ward discussion. Also, have the RU55 push in back against Penn to void the goal as offense landed in crease. IMO both were the wrong calls. Should have been lowering shoulder ward on Cornell and a goal for Penn.

 

[Caliknight]

Not sure there is a lot of love there for whatever reason. They have shown some of our highlights though.

Dude from Cornell is a big boy and had a full head of steam. Looks good on video for them. I think we played him properly though. Should have treated him more like this kid from UPenn and picked him up early with a pole. He was clearly better than we thought.

That said, SSDM's get picked on constantly. Nature of the position. 44 may have lost that one but he's won far more than his fair share. The fact he's getting paid to play lacrosse now is all we need to know. If he can stay healthy, think he's going to be one of the top two SSDM's taken in his class. His game is perfect for that league and the more comfortable he gets and the more used to the speed he gets the more plays we are going to see him make. It was very obvious in his first game that he belongs there.

Whipsnakes got a steal with him going undrafted.


The crease call was the right one. It was the rule itself that is wrong and that's been changed apparently. You can say we outsmarted Penn :)
But yea, that’s the definition of ward.

On a side note, I will be with the entire staff tonight. Should have some good information.

 

[mdk01]

What's up with Gait?

The goal rule needed to change. It was so obviously poorly thought out. It makes you wonder who is coming up with this stuff.

Does anyone use the Gait D head that the article referred to? Maybe @Golfer2019 has an idea. But the powers that be do not seem amused.

 

[Caliknight]

No one on our team uses them. We are a Maverik school and guys don't have an NIL deal with them. Maybe they use them in the offseason but with all the stuff these guys get I highly doubt it.

 

[Caliknight]

Not sure I can give too much information that I learned but we are inching closer to getting the stadium done. It's going to take all of us but a major gift is coming to get it kicked off.

 

[e5fdny]

Check out the Inside Lacrosse Instagram. They seem to not like Rutgers. Not much positive during the tournament. However, they have a clip of Cornell 27 freight training RU 44 with a ward or no ward discussion. Also, have the RU55 push in back against Penn to void the goal as offense landed in crease. IMO both were the wrong calls. Should have been lowering shoulder ward on Cornell and a goal for Penn.

When my boys were younger and we got the magazine as members of US Lacrosse I noticed that too.

But it did slightly change as we got better and better.

 

[Golfer2019]

Does anyone use the Gait D head that the article referred to? Maybe @Golfer2019 has an idea. But the powers that be do not seem amused.

I don’t think anyone uses it. We’re a Maverick school I believe. Kids use the product provided to them via the school...generally speaking.