Faceoffs????
by ibleedgreen (2017-05-20 17:46:33)
Edited on 2017-05-20 17:50:45
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Arlotta Stadium ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

 


How can you lose 21 out of 22??

You have zero chance of coming close to winning.

Is this the worse of all time?

Does there need to be a rule change? The face IMO is far too important.

Even if we won 21 of 22, it seems unfair for the other team never to be on offense.


The NCAA's have been fiddling with the rules for
by steelhop  (2017-05-23 11:24:22)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

face-offs for the last 10 years. I thought the rules prior to the current set worked pretty well. Now, the current rules allow the complete domination of one guy over another unlike almost any other one-v-one sport.

But, I wrote this down below that the way to minimize face-offs is to put shot clock in. Make 60 seconds after hitting the box. That gives plenty of time to sub guys out and run some offensive sets.

The specialization by face-off men have made face-offs win percentages absurd. Just 10 years ago, Hopkins was winning with guys that stayed on the field. There should be no way a guy/team wins 21 of 22 face-offs. They need to get the wings back in play instead of the domination that like that.

But a shot clock helps. Take for example when the score was 2-1 - Denver at the start of the 2nd quarter. Denver held the ball, took some shots but not one would I call in a highly threatening area but it was enough to keep the stall call off. There is no reason a team should be rewarded with possession of the ball for 4 minutes without putting it on cage.


There needs to be a change of emphasis by our staff.
by kudos  (2017-05-21 12:00:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If you know it's a disproportionately important part of the game, do you spend a disproportionate amount of time developing skills and techniques in practice?

Do you spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources recruiting guys who are experts at it?

Do you spend a disproportionate amount of time emphasizing it?

Don't blame the rules.


face-offs and goaltending are 2 of the hardest parts
by steelhop  (2017-05-21 14:44:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

to evaluate in whether a kids talent scales up from high school to college. Heck, the Baptiste was going to go to F&M until the very last second when Denver called.


Rumor has it, we have a good FOGO coming this fall *
by Ccndbound  (2017-05-21 19:35:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


ND takes a FOGO most years
by dichiap  (2017-05-22 22:07:55)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Denver was lucky with Baptiste.


I'll believe it when I see it *
by mikeybates  (2017-05-21 21:21:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Talked to his HS coach today, who runs a great program
by Ccndbound  (2017-05-21 22:07:32)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Says he's legit.


They are too important- but DU doesn't win 90% vs everyone
by mikeybates  (2017-05-20 17:58:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Our FO guys should have been able to win 25-35%. Another top guy could get 40% (or better) vs. him.


rule changes
by DavidAddison  (2017-05-20 18:26:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the only time I watch Lacrosse is when ND is in the NCAA tournament. So, those that follow the sport, please tell me what would be wrong with the following two rule changes:

1) after a goal, possession given to the team that gave up the goal, perhaps behind their own net. This would eliminate or diminish the import of face-offs. While hockey has tons of face-offs too, in hockey possession turns over so quickly that center ice face-offs aren't that big of a thing (obviously they are more important in a zone).

2) if you shoot and it goes out the back line, give possession to the defense. I don't understand (unless in the distant past teams were afraid to shoot) why you would want to reward a team for flinging a shot that goes all the way out the back.

Thoughts?


Faceoffs are an important part of the game and should stay.
by vitadulcedospes  (2017-05-22 13:11:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Do we tell Brian Kelly that he shouldn't practice special teams? A great faceoff man is like a great kicker or kick returner -- a weapon who should be cherished and whom opposing coaches must plan to stop.


There is no planning to stop
by davidaddison  (2017-05-22 16:50:25)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There's no strategy. It's 1-on-1 and one guy is way better than the other. Not cool.

In softball they moved the pitching rubber back because one player could be too dominant (and no innings max in softball).


But why did the NCAA and the NBA move away from jump balls? *
by G.K.Chesterton  (2017-05-22 13:49:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I think in 1937 -but that, too, completely changed the sport
by NDoggie78  (2017-05-22 14:25:37)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

And the Indians used to play lacrosse across country.

I think at this point in time, with the sport more mainstream and entrenched than basketball was back in the 30s, no one wants to completely change the sport.

Now a shot clock, I could understand that. And no 30 second penalty - make them minimum 1 minute.


Regarding shooting
by tf86  (2017-05-21 15:11:56)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Usually when the ball goes out of bounds, the last team to touch the ball loses possession, similar to basketball. An exception is when it is ruled a shot. In that case, the team that backs up the shot, i.e., has a player closest to the ball where it goes out, retains possession. On offense, backing up the shot becomes the responsibility of the player who is behind goal line extended. That gives the offensive team an edge in retaining possession on a shot out of bounds, but it's not automatic.


Casual observer also
by SixShutouts66  (2017-05-20 18:52:09)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I'd agree with your iddeas (again as a casual observer) - or have something like a possession arrow like basketball. I would think a shot clock (perhaps 2 minutes) might be in order also.


I think he's winning about 76% for the season *
by zahm82  (2017-05-20 18:14:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Faceoffs
by Domer65  (2017-05-20 18:19:43)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

He did win about 76% of his faceoffs. However, North Carolina and Ohio State each won approx. 40% of the faceoffs against Denver and they both defeated Denver. Faceoffs probably play too big a role in the game but unless the rules change, it is what it is.


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.