Change may be constant, but the rate at which it happens varies — and
in 2013 women's lacrosse is at a crossroads of change. In a time where
the focus has become making the sport more fan-friendly, bringing it
more into the mainstream media and attracting more casual fans, a call
to address stalling in the game was largely ignored in the
NCAA Rules Proposals that were presented last week.
“I'm incredibly disappointed that they didn't address the stall,” said
North Carolina coach Jenny Levy. “That's completely irresponsible of
that committee. There's not one person who was in favor of keeping the
rules the way they are, and as a committee, you have to be prepared in
some way to make a change, because it's been talked about for 10 years.”
Levy, who has long been a proponent of eliminating the ability to stall
from women's lacrosse, referenced the 1994 national title game between
Maryland and Princeton in which Princeton “stalled for three quarters of
the game on a field that had no boundaries” as the starting point of
talk regarding stalling in the game. The argument came to a head
following the 2012 national championship game and throughout the summer.
Some teams used fallball to experiment with a 90-second shot clock, and
other potential solutions were proposed at November's IWLCA meetings in
Naples, Fla.
As the NCAA Rules Committee meetings approached following the 2013
season, there was a sense that more significant changes would be made.
In the NCAA women's lacrosse rules survey, 53.5% of coaches said they
believe stalling was an issue that should be addressed by the rules
committee. The percentage is higher at the Division I level, where
nearly 70% of coaches thought stalling needed to be addressed; a shot
clock and a restraining box of some sort were the most popular
solutions. Just more than 20% of all coaches thought a shot clock should
be added to address the issue while 30.5% thought the best way to
address it would be to “define a team's offensive area and keep the ball
in” according to the survey. Among Division I coaches, those numbers
jump to 32.1% and 39.3%, respectively.
Another option included with the ways to address stalling in the survey
was to “allow defenders to move through the goal circle,” a rule that
was an official experimental rule in the fall of 2012 that was modified
and included in the Rules Committee recommendations.
“I think it will give the defense the ability to pressure the ball
behind [the net],” said NCAA Rules Committee Chair Celine Cunningham,
who is the head coach and senior woman administrator at Stevens. “The
goal was to make sure the ball can be pressured a little more without
being restricted by the crease.”
While most coaches seem happy with this particular change, citing
further balance between the attack and the defense, there are others who
don't think this change addresses the stall.
“I don't know if that was their intent, or if it was just to make it
tougher for the attack to score, but I don't think it addresses stalling
at all,” says Syracuse coach Gary Gait, who was part of a rules, safety
and game administration committee that was put together by the IWLCA.
“I think it will bring goals per game down.”
Nevertheless, there is a great divide among coaches and administrators
in deciding what is best for the game, which has resulted in a
slow-moving process to get anything done.
“We're in a time period right now where you have two bodies at work —
you have your traditionalists that do not want to see changes to the
game because there's a feeling that it's not needed and it's not wanted.
Then you have another body that is more progessive, the people who say
'how can we make this faster, how can we become more mainstream, how can
we change our game to take it to the next level?'” says Boston
University coach and IWLCA President Liz Robertshaw. “It's close to
50-50 split of people who don't want to see changes and people who do
want to see changes. Unless it has to do with safety concerns, I think
it's slower moving because people want to warm up to it.”
Then, there is a group of coaches that walks the line — a group that
thinks something needs to be done, but that perhaps it should be minimal
or that something as drastic as a shot clock is not the answer.
“I love the line that we're the fastest game on two feet, but is that
all there is to our game? No,” says Middlebury coach Missy Foote, who is
in her 32nd year coaching the Panthers. “I'd like to make sure we have
the versatility in our game that allows us to play within all the
parameters of a sport and that's a fast game and a slow game, a
go-to-goal game and a possession game. I just don't want it to become
all of one or all of another.”
Something like a box or a shot clock would rank among the biggest
changes the sport has seen in its history. In many ways, women's
lacrosse has evolved unlike any other sport, as restraining lines
weren't adopted until 1998 and there were no hard boundaries until 2006.
Unless change has been motivated by injury concerns, the process of
implementing change has been anything but fast.
“It was the right thing to do for the sport, but it took so long
because people were so afraid,” says Levy, who served on the NCAA Rules
Committee in the 1990s, of the process of adopting restraining lines and
boundaries. “You look back on it now and how ridiculous was that that
we had no boundaries and no restraining lines? Know what's good for the
game. They say they want a traditional game, but guess what? How the
game was played 10 years ago is not the way the game is being played
today.”
Cunningham noted the committee received 85 proposals related to
stalling alone, some requesting that the committee not move forward with
measures that would pose a financial cost to programs and some citing
they would not have an adequate roster size to support a faster pace of
play.
“It was a combination of things, and a lot of it came down to safety
and being able to administrate it,” Cunningham said. “We had some great
ideas from a very good group that gave great feedback, and it's
certainly something we'll consider as an experimental rule in the
future.
While stalling was a large topic of consideration, the IWLCA submitted
12 suggested rules changes to the NCAA Rules Committee. Other topics
that were addressed included solidifying field dimensions and addressing
blind picks and rough play. The draw, which was changed significantly
in the last rules cycle two years ago, was also addressed as coaches
suggested holding players behind the restraining line until possession
is called, which would mimic the current rule in men's lacrosse.
Another recommendation related to stick inspections, a concern that was
addressed in the Rules Committee proposals. The new rule eliminates the
mandatory stick checks by officials throughout the game and puts the
decision to check a stick on the coaches, who would be given three stick
checks per game, including overtime. The execution of the rule would
require the goal-scorer drop her stick immediately after scoring. At
that point, the official may perform a discretionary stick check or
allow time for the opposing team to request a stick check. If the scorer
doesn't drop her stick after a scoring play, the goal will be
disallowed and possession awarded to the other team at the center
circle.
“From an outsiders perspective, it looks like they're trying to make
things fair and clear cut,” says Robertshaw. “I look and worry more at
the perception of the game and how it's received from the outside world
and that's where I have a major hesitation with that. From a coaches
perspective, it's an adjustment and we'll deal with it. I like that
they're checking sticks after goals. I think it looks better if you hand
it to an official. I don't love the drop your stick scenario.”
There were others who questioned how this rule might play out,
including its impact on the flow and pace of the game and how frequently
officials would perform a discretionary stick check. Levy was in favor
of eliminating stick checks in overtime.
“We need to have better awareness of what the game looks like from a
fan's perspective on TV,” she said, referencing confusion over the check
of Sammy Jo Tracy's stick following her goal in triple overtime of the
national championship game. “You have 60 minutes of a game to check a
stick, and if you haven't found one that's illegal or used your stick
checks at that point, then overtime should just be overtime and just let
it be.”
Two other proposed rules include giving coaches an additional timeout,
meaning coaches will have three timeouts during regulation and one in
overtime, and putting more emphasis on a major foul on a goal scorer. If
a major foul is committed on a goal scorer — a push or a cross check
during or after the shot, for example — the goal will stand and the
scoring team awarded possession at the center circle.
“Right now there's no penalty for that foul,” Cunningham said. “In the
past, the thought process was that you got the goal, so it was ok. But
it's dangerous so we wanted to make sure we cleaned that up.”
As with any changes to the game, seeing it played out in action is
necessary to understanding its impact. Still, what was left out of the
rule change proposals seems to have overshadowed what was included in
it.
“I think it would have been fun to see our game take that next step,
and it didnt necessarily have to be a shot clock,” Robertshaw said.
“That's where I'm disappointed that we didn't see some bigger changes
knowing that we're in a two-year cycle and that we're in a crucial time
in our game in where it's going next and how the outside world perceives
us and if we're going to be seen on mainstream media or not. I don't
know if the changes we made were enough to make that possible.”
All rules proposals need to be approved by the Playing Rules Oversight
Panel, which consists of conference commissioners and university
administrators, that will discuss the rules during a conference call on
July 17.
