BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season

The draw to me could be interesting if refs call it right. Both sticks parallel to center line and within the four inch center line. Not tilted down below knees(even though rule already states not below waist it was never called) or tilted way up, or leaned back.

This could be a big rule change if they watch it and call it.

The one part of draw they have to get rid of is going up. Why not them draw down, or to side. If I am short going against someone tall why do I want to draw up.

Hope fully that will come.

Will preface this by saying my daughter plays for SB and SB only had two games w more than one yellow card and one was vs Maryland. So my investigative instincts sense your daughter plays on Maryland.
As far as the rules.
1. Love draw rule
2. I think I'm ok w shooting rule worry about refs being able to make that decision
3. Don't like free movement.
4. Doesn't happen ( unless you play CR and her employees ). Just kiddding and all kidding aside happened against us three times and one time (last game) we would of been on other end

Hope everyone is enjoying their summer. Fall is coming Hoping this thread stays as positive.

Now as far as the rule changes

Anything with Monmouthor Bucknell

Joe Spallina rule 3.0 - 3 second violation back to being a free position, I think all the rules are fantastic,
- Enough with the freeze tag aspect of woman lacrosse, stopping everyone on the smallest violation was just silly. It let the defense recover from bad play and punished the offense

- with 22 players charging the ball every draw it looked like a cluster f@#k, and was dangerous. let the mid-fielders fight it out it's safer

-how many times have we seen a meaningful goal or fantastic save erased because of some minor foul or bad call. It's not like the shots weren't being taken so let the result stand

- lets be real, if your team commits 4 yellows you deserve to sit for a full 2

- the 3 second rule will stop the clogging of the 8 , but needs to be called correctly

- and allow these woman to run and set up there attack, it was the D that committed the foul so let everyone move on the penalty, it will quicken the pace of the game and is fare to the offense.

Monmouth: Jordan Trautman. Former head coach at Kean

She has a good background but a big jump. Notice she doesn't have to relocate. Mid level womens coaches get paid nothing. Its a shame

If she does well, it's a stepping stone to a more lucrative job.

What's Monmouth around #50 i'm guessing? There is the top 10 and then everyone else who don't make enough to keep their lights on especially in cities. $40k and some camps is ok but its not a career. Pay them!

She recruited my daughter at Kean , the only reason my daughter kept it on her list of schools was the coach. She was awesome, a great recruiter.That is why you don't pick a school for the coach only.
Good luck to her and Monmouth.

Where did your daughter wind up? Farmingdale State?

What a DIC*** must be a YJ. god forbid someone look to play D3

I have a question regarding college eligibility.

Does Fall Ball count towards a player's 4 years of NCAA eligibility? Does anyone know where to check/confirm?

No, playing a fall ball game does not count as playing a season.. ie if you play a full fall ball this year and then get hurt during the spring preseason and get a redshirt you get that year back..you can also play fall ball and transfer schools, ( with the previous coaches permission) and can play for another team that spring

Thank you

I saw an Inside Lacrosse article stating that nine players have transferred out of Louisville. Remember a year or two ago when there was outrage about the coach's alleged treatment of her players? Interesting times. I'm glad my daughter is not involved with that program.

Wrong one fall ball second of playing time counts as season.

Correct. From the NCAA page, which does not make it easy to find this information.

Redshirt: In Divisions I or II, redshirting refers to someone who is enrolled full-time at a school, but does not play for an entire academic year for the sole purpose of saving a season of competition. A redshirt does not play in any college games or scrimmage in a given sport for an entire academic year, even though that student is otherwise eligible. If you do not play in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. However, if you play in even one second of a game as a college student-athlete, you are not a redshirt. Redshirting does not exist in Division III because if you play or practice after your first opportunity to compete, you are charged with a season of participation.

Incorrect. This rule was just changed to exclude fall ball. That is the reason that Danita Stroup at Northwestern was just made eligible for a 5th year. The rule change is retroactive for all current players' eligibility windows.

Just read the article on IL and Lacrosse Magazine. 9 players is a tough loss to any program. Especially starters and contributing players and All Americans. Where does the program go now?

Had heard that but couldn't find it written anywhere.

Redshirt: In Divisions I or II, redshirting refers to someone who is enrolled full-time at a school, but does not play for an entire academic year for the sole purpose of saving a season of competition. A redshirt does not play in any college games or scrimmage in a given sport for an entire academic year, even though that student is otherwise eligible. If you do not play in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. However, if you play in even one second of a game as a college student-athlete, you are not a redshirt. Redshirting does not exist in Division III because if you play or practice after your first opportunity to compete, you are charged with a season of participation.
[/quote]

Incorrect. This rule was just changed to exclude fall ball. That is the reason that Danita Stroup at Northwestern was just made eligible for a 5th year. The rule change is retroactive for all current players' eligibility windows.[/quote]


Had heard that but couldn't find it written anywhere. [/quote]

Part of press release from NU dated 7/5/2017:

"Prior to transferring to Northwestern, Stroup competed in two dates of competition during the 2014 fall non-championship segment for Long Island University. Even though she did not represent LIU during the regular season in 2015, competition in the fall segment previously constituted a season of competition under NCAA rules.

However, NCAA Proposal 2017-12, adopted by the NCAA Division I Council last week, changes the way fall competition counts for lacrosse student-athletes and applies retroactively for students in their five-year eligibility period, allowing Stroup to recapture the season of competition previously used in 2014-15."

I was at a Philly HHH camp a few weeks ago where college coaches actually coached there commit players all on same team. Is it a coincidence all commits were at same camp? SB, NW, Lehigh, Loyola, layfette to name a few. I guess by putting a " token " player on each team it becomes a ok? I have never seen this before.

Is the above post within the rules for college coaches to do? Coach their committed team at an outside event?

My final year of following the 2013 women lacrosse class and the playing time associated with the class.

As expected not much of a change from last year with 45% of 2013 commits playing significant time for their respective teams. 62% of commits remained on the roster for their teams with the additional players representing very limited minutes. The 45% falls just below the national average of 48% but the 62% falls above the national average of 53%.

It's been an exhausting enterprise to track but I believe very useful for those looking at schools for academics plus lacrosse. Half the girls looking t schools plus lacrosse will not be playing by their senior year. It is a useful reminder to set priorities.

HALF OF THE GIRLS won't be playing by their senior year. That fact is lost on way too many parents as they push their kids into bad fits .

Valuable information, thank you!

Interesting article on D3 sports. Read the comments too.

https://www.insidehighered***

D3 lacrosse is very competitive in the top twenty, much more so than D2. The educational opportunities in D3 are great and competitive as well. NESCAC lacrosse is the class of D3 with Gettysburg, Franklin & Marshall, Washington & Lee and others joining in. These are academically competitive and influential schools after graduation with great alumni networks. Check out US Lacrosse magazines latest issue and the article on the myth of the lacrosse "free ride". If you have a smart daughter there is more money at the D3 level in many cases!

There is a great lax / school / social balance playing competitive D3. My daughter played D3 and it was wonderful. Played at the school she wanted to attend, took the major she wanted, coaches worked around her schedule and if she missed for school commits she wasn't banished. She also didn't have the 4 hour a day commit like her travel teammates have at their D1's. Roster was in the mid 20's and she played a ton.

My daughter had schools in the bottom half of D1 as options with about a .20 athletic offer. IN hindsight in worked out great. My only advice is do whats best for your daughter and not what mom, dad and their club director want

20 offers, good one...

Maybe you should read it again you a$$

I think the poster meant 20% offer

read it again.. the poster said she had a 20 % athletic scholarship offer from several D1 schools

it's .20 offer....aka 20% offer. You'll catch up.

No way she had 20 offers

Typical block head lacrosse dads. Come on guys you are giving the rest of us a bad name. The best offers she got was for 20% and the schools were in the bottom half of D1. She chose D3 and was very happy.

Carry on bashing anyone that doesn't go to Maryland, UNC or an Ivy

That was a false equivalency right there. Lower D1 offers so choose D3 means had no chance to play at Maryland, UNC or Ivies. This young lady wasn't a good enough lax player to play at those schools obviously. No biggie. I'll bet LOTS of money if she could play at Princeton or Harvard, that post would have been very different.

Ivy's are good schools but no athletic scholarship money.

You may be right as there is not really enough in the post to determine but grades do play a part in the process as well.

I think it was about choosing to play D3 for reasons that fit for them regardless if there were offers to play the bottom of D1 with athletic money. Poster never said she was a top lax player but she was a travel player.