Pros and cons of 6 Federation of International Lacrosse proposed rule changes

Looking at the Federation of International Lacrosse’s recently proposed rule changes aimed at returning lacrosse to the Olympic Games.

On Wednesday, the Federation of International Lacrosse (FIL) announced a new discipline and set of playing rules that are aimed to make the men’s and women’s game more consistent and the sport as whole more accessible to an international audience as it continues its push to have lacrosse recognized as an Olympic sport once again.

The new proposed rules were developed by the FIL Blue Skies Working Group, which is “responsible for examining innovative ways to best position the sport of lacrosse for continued growth in the 21st century, including the long-term ambition of returning lacrosse to the Olympic Games.”

The announcement was met with controversy among members of the lacrosse community, with some championing the changes as critical to the growth of the game and others claiming the new rules drastically change the game in a negative way.

Let’s examine the six major new rule proposals in an effort to weed out the good from the bad.

Note: The new proposed rules would only apply to international play, and do not apply to the sport at the youth, high school or collegiate level.

1. Game structure would be adjusted and game length reduced

All games (for men’s and women’s lacrosse) would consist of a running clock with four 8-minute periods, 5-minute halftime and 2 minutes between quarters. The clock would only stop for a timeout, end of a quarter, injury, or during a dead ball within the last two minutes of the fourth quarter

Pros: Games would only last 45 minutes to an hour.

Cons: There would be less lacrosse to watch.

Is it necessary? 

For broadcast purposes, absolutely. Game length is really quite arbitrary when you consider it. This change is solely being made to fit games into a 1-hour television block that will be comprised of roughly 32 minutes of gameplay, nine minutes of breaks between periods and the rest for commercial time. More televised games is a good thing for the sport, so the FIL made the right call.

2. Field size would be reduced and made consistent between men’s and women’s game

Fields will measure 70 meters x 36 meters and will include perimeter markings, goal circles/creases, goal line, midfield line, draw circle, substitution and player boxes.

Pros: Smaller fields provide more opportunities for countries with limited space.

Cons: None.

Is it necessary? 

For the growth of the sport, yes. Once again this is a very minor change that won’t affect much given that there will be fewer players on the field anyway.

3. A 45-second shot clock would be instituted

During each possession, teams will have 45-seconds to get a shot off and it will reset on every possession change. Both the game and shot clocks will stop for a timeout, injury, or during a dead ball within the last two minutes of the fourth quarter and reset following the end of a quarter.

The FIL did not specify what constitutes a shot, so it is not known if they will follow men’s college lacrosse rules that counts a shot as that which scores, hits the goaltender, or hits a part of the goal without going in or if the shot clock will only be reset at the change of a possession.

Pros: It speeds up the game and prevents a team from maintaining possession for a lengthy time and stalling.

Cons: It can potentially lead to sloppier shot selection and less exciting strategies such as rolling the ball to the corner to give your team time to set up for the impending change of possession.

Is it necessary?
Yes. This one may have been a little more controversial had it been introduced a few years ago, but now that men’s lacrosse has instituted a shot clock to the college game with more than moderate success, adding one for the Olympic game is a no-brainer. It is also extremely necessary given a new proposed rule that will be discussed a little later.

4. The number of players on the field and on rosters would be reduced and long poles would be eliminated

The FIL’s regulations would limit rosters for men and women to 10 players  – six on the field and four substitutes. Gameplay would be 6 vs 6 compared to men’s 10 vs 10 and women’s 12 vs 12.

While 6 vs 6 lacrosse is actually a familiar concept for box lacrosse fans, the FIL noted that offsides would still be in play and require both teams to hold back at least two defensive players (including a goaltender) and one offensive player behind the midfield line. This would essentially mean gameplay would consist of four offensive players against four defensive players and one goalie.

Pros: First, it allows the sport to be more accessible to countries with a smaller talent pool. More countries will be able to field a 10-player team as opposed to the typical 15-25 player teams currently present in field lacrosse. Furthermore, four vs four lacrosse means more space for the offense to operate and theoretically more scoring. Lastly, by eliminating the long pole and making stick size consistent, it also allows for a more accessible version of the sport.

Cons: The removal of long poles and decreasing of players greatly diminishes the effectiveness of defenders.

Is it necessary?

This one is more complicated. For the growth of the sport in countries just now introducing lacrosse, yes. For the longevity of the game, no. Lacrosse is not basketball and shouldn’t be treated as such. More scoring is good, but it is also attainable without reducing the effectiveness of the defense. The FIL shouldn’t sacrifice a key part of the sport for a marginal uptick in scoring. Strong defensive positioning and caused turnovers is still a huge part of the field game and these changes do a huge disservice to defensive players.

Reducing gameplay to 8 vs 8, while keeping two or three long pole defenders, would’ve been a much less drastic reduction. Yes, a general viewer may initially wonder why some players have longer sticks, but let’s not treat people liked idiots. It only requires a simple explanation or a quick google search.

But isn’t this version of lacrosse extremely similar to box lacrosse that is already played? In a way, yes, but there are some crucial differences that I believe are being overlooked. First, box lacrosse is played in a much more confined area (55 -60 meters x 24 -27 meters) with five offensive players against five defensive players and one goaltender so you still have a tight defensive game that resembles gameplay in hockey. Second, the ball can’t physically go out of bounds, so it’s easy for teams to regain possession on offense and allows for more scoring attempts, without reducing the importance of defending. Which brings me to another drastic rule change.

5. Balls going out-of-bounds would result in a change of possession under all circumstances

In normal field lacrosse, when the ball leaves the field of play after a shot attempt (as determined by the referee) possession is awarded to the team whose player is closest to the ball when and where it goes out of bounds. The FIL is proposing that when the ball goes out of bounds for any reason, including a shot, it is awarded to the team that did not touch it last.

Pros: The rule is consistent with other field sports with boundaries such as soccer.

Cons: Teams will be less inclined to take shots knowing that if they miss they will turn the ball over.

Is it necessary?

No! No! No! The idea of regaining possession after a failed shot attempt is unique to lacrosse and it’s understandable that the general audience may be confused at first. Yet again, this is a fundamental part of the game. If there is one rule that will absolutely negatively affect the game, it’s this one.

Lacrosse is a high scoring sport because players are not penalized for taking shot attempts. Lacrosse is not similar to other sports in this regard. Shot attempts are missed far more likely than in other field sports with boundaries. If teams aren’t able to get the ball back after a shot attempt, they are going to be less likely to take that attempt. Watching a player rip a top corner shot from 20 yards out is exciting to watch. If this rule is implemented, we’re going to see a lot less outside attempts and as a result likely less scoring.

It’s fine to cater to the general public, but this rule will completely change how the sport is played and the negative effects far outweigh any minuscule positives. Again, people aren’t stupid, they will learn the original rule if you allow them.

6. Face-offs would be eliminated after goals and possession would automatically change to the team that was scored on

The FIL’s new proposal would limit face-offs to only the start of each quarter and overtime. There would be a no face-off following a goal and instead, goaltenders would have 5 seconds to put the ball in play be either passing it or running it out of the goal circle.

Pros: It allows teams to regain possession of the ball after the opposing team scores a goal.

Cons: It prevents teams from regaining possession of the ball after scoring a goal.

Is it necessary?

Absolutely not. I will never understand why some people within the lacrosse community insist on eliminating the face-off. The only valid argument I’ve ever heard is it prevents teams who are dominated at the face-off X from getting the ball. Well, now there’s a shot clock so if you still have trouble regaining possession, get better at (a) causing turnovers, or (b) dare I say it, WINNING FACE-OFFS!

If the FIL thinks face-offs provide teams that are weaker at winning face-offs with a strong disadvantage, then let’s start handing out participation medals at the Olympics as well.

If the FIL thinks the face-off is too confusing for an Olympic audience, then let’s go ahead and remove face-offs from other sports like hockey while we’re at it.

Seriously, it’s not rocket science, people. Most lacrosse fans are sick of hearing of reasons why the face-off limits losing teams’ possessions when you can make the case the face-off allows a losing team to receive MORE possessions.

Let’s examine a common scenario. A team trails by three goals with two minutes left in the game. Given a 45-second shot clock, it would be very difficult for a team to score and regain possession two more times to potentially score and tie the game. However, if the face-off is still available after each goal, a team can score and immediately regain possession following each of their goals by winning the face-off. Difficult? Yes. Impossible, not in the slightest.

Final thoughts

The bottom line is if lacrosse fans want to see the game truly grow, the Olympics is the best opportunity to do so. In order for lacrosse to become an Olympic sport, some adaptations must be made. Lacrosse fans need to accept this and most fans likely will.

However, the FIL should continue to focus on making changes to the game that directly assist its mission of making the game more accessible, not making changes that fundamentally alter gameplay. If the FIL can find this proper balance, the sport will be better off and we may soon see lacrosse recognized as an Olympic sport once again.