2028 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the last few pages after not having been on here for a week or so and I am so sorry I did. Migraine the size of Montana. I actually came on to see what people thought about girls wearing helmets and I got caught up in this sh*tstorm.

I have had a number of conversations with experts on this. Former D1 players who now coach are pretty universally against helmets. They say it increases reckless play, leading with the head on dodges, aggressive defense through the stick, and erodes the rule-based safety (shooting space; checking rules, etc) that keep the game safe and playable.

That rings true to me. While I don't want to take away the option for a girl recovering from concussion or another injury where a helmet is required for protection, I would prefer that the rules maintain the norm of no helmets for girls and women's lacrosse.

I agree. Subjectively, I have noticed players with helmets do tend to be more reckless. I have noticed the leading with the head as well. I also think it is interesting to note that many FL girls, where it is mandatory, don't wear them for club.

They are also significantly more expensive than goggles, which puts others at a disadvantage financially.

The refs should better enforce the rules. The sentiment supporting helmets comes from parents whose kids are frequently hit in the head without any consequences to the offending players. I can’t blame them for feeling this way but it’s a result of poor officiating.

Do any moms who played the sport at a high level have their kids wear helmets? I think these moms understand the sport and my impression has been that the girls wearing helmets are from families without much knowledge about women's lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the last few pages after not having been on here for a week or so and I am so sorry I did. Migraine the size of Montana. I actually came on to see what people thought about girls wearing helmets and I got caught up in this sh*tstorm.

I have had a number of conversations with experts on this. Former D1 players who now coach are pretty universally against helmets. They say it increases reckless play, leading with the head on dodges, aggressive defense through the stick, and erodes the rule-based safety (shooting space; checking rules, etc) that keep the game safe and playable.

That rings true to me. While I don't want to take away the option for a girl recovering from concussion or another injury where a helmet is required for protection, I would prefer that the rules maintain the norm of no helmets for girls and women's lacrosse.

I agree. Subjectively, I have noticed players with helmets do tend to be more reckless. I have noticed the leading with the head as well. I also think it is interesting to note that many FL girls, where it is mandatory, don't wear them for club.

They are also significantly more expensive than goggles, which puts others at a disadvantage financially.

The refs should better enforce the rules. The sentiment supporting helmets comes from parents whose kids are frequently hit in the head without any consequences to the offending players. I can’t blame them for feeling this way but it’s a result of poor officiating.

Do any moms who played the sport at a high level have their kids wear helmets? I think these moms understand the sport and my impression has been that the girls wearing helmets are from families without much knowledge about women's lacrosse.

Most girls wearing helmets I know have anxious helicopter moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would be nice to move on from the MD/VA back and forth.

I agree. We need more Idaho lax talk.

Sadly, everything devolves into a we are better than you and there never seems to be interesting conversation. I liked the Data Guy stuff but then people start taking things so personally. Is it this bad on the other boards?

2028 thread has the special tendency to devolve to that nonsense, but there also a group that's serious about talking lacrosse, and even sharing helpful information. It's like two different conversations. We can go down the rabbit hole when the well-meaning folks get involved in responding to the personal stuff, at least half of which is just trolling.

So hang in there and engage on the content you are interested in.

13:30 here. You said it better than I did.

13:28 here. Agree with your post and you said it well.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

I have heard good things about him. Legit lacrosse background, and my impression is the girls respond to his coaching. He is the dad of a junior player, so obviously not a long term solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the last few pages after not having been on here for a week or so and I am so sorry I did. Migraine the size of Montana. I actually came on to see what people thought about girls wearing helmets and I got caught up in this sh*tstorm.

I have had a number of conversations with experts on this. Former D1 players who now coach are pretty universally against helmets. They say it increases reckless play, leading with the head on dodges, aggressive defense through the stick, and erodes the rule-based safety (shooting space; checking rules, etc) that keep the game safe and playable.

That rings true to me. While I don't want to take away the option for a girl recovering from concussion or another injury where a helmet is required for protection, I would prefer that the rules maintain the norm of no helmets for girls and women's lacrosse.

I agree. Subjectively, I have noticed players with helmets do tend to be more reckless. I have noticed the leading with the head as well. I also think it is interesting to note that many FL girls, where it is mandatory, don't wear them for club.

They are also significantly more expensive than goggles, which puts others at a disadvantage financially.

The refs should better enforce the rules. The sentiment supporting helmets comes from parents whose kids are frequently hit in the head without any consequences to the offending players. I can’t blame them for feeling this way but it’s a result of poor officiating.

Do any moms who played the sport at a high level have their kids wear helmets? I think these moms understand the sport and my impression has been that the girls wearing helmets are from families without much knowledge about women's lacrosse.

No. But it’s not same game it was in the late 1900s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the last few pages after not having been on here for a week or so and I am so sorry I did. Migraine the size of Montana. I actually came on to see what people thought about girls wearing helmets and I got caught up in this sh*tstorm.

I have had a number of conversations with experts on this. Former D1 players who now coach are pretty universally against helmets. They say it increases reckless play, leading with the head on dodges, aggressive defense through the stick, and erodes the rule-based safety (shooting space; checking rules, etc) that keep the game safe and playable.

That rings true to me. While I don't want to take away the option for a girl recovering from concussion or another injury where a helmet is required for protection, I would prefer that the rules maintain the norm of no helmets for girls and women's lacrosse.

I agree. Subjectively, I have noticed players with helmets do tend to be more reckless. I have noticed the leading with the head as well. I also think it is interesting to note that many FL girls, where it is mandatory, don't wear them for club.

They are also significantly more expensive than goggles, which puts others at a disadvantage financially.

The refs should better enforce the rules. The sentiment supporting helmets comes from parents whose kids are frequently hit in the head without any consequences to the offending players. I can’t blame them for feeling this way but it’s a result of poor officiating.

Do any moms who played the sport at a high level have their kids wear helmets? I think these moms understand the sport and my impression has been that the girls wearing helmets are from families without much knowledge about women's lacrosse.

No. But it’s not same game it was in the late 1900s

I never watched before my daughter started playing (now I find women’s college lax to be one of my favorite sports to watch). How would you distinguish the game from then to now?

[Anonymous]

1900s. That's how my kids say it. Sounds like when we talked about the 1800s... Kills me every time.

How about 1990s/early 2000s for lax moms of 14 year olds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

I have heard good things about him. Legit lacrosse background, and my impression is the girls respond to his coaching. He is the dad of a junior player, so obviously not a long term solution.

He coached a lot of those kids in Youth league who are now on the Capital 25 Blue team-- #1 club rank in the Counrty.. He definitely helped develop those kids at an early age and they clearly those girls benefitted from his coaching. Give the guy a chance for goodness sake!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

I have heard good things about him. Legit lacrosse background, and my impression is the girls respond to his coaching. He is the dad of a junior player, so obviously not a long term solution.

He coached a lot of those kids in Youth league who are now on the Capital 25 Blue team-- #1 club rank in the Counrty.. He definitely helped develop those kids at an early age and they clearly those girls benefitted from his coaching. Give the guy a chance for goodness sake!!

I’m on your side. But does anyone reasonably expect he would remain coach after his daughter goes off to college? I think that would be great, but seems very unlikely.

[Anonymous]

You clearly don’t much about Baltimore or Maryland in general. A lot of the MD parents I know are wealthier than the VA parents with fake wealth. Not only that but I believe there are more privates in the Baltimore region and they arguably place better in college admissions than DC area schools.

How can you determine whether someone has fake wealth versus real wealth unless you are privy to ther personal finance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You clearly don’t much about Baltimore or Maryland in general. A lot of the MD parents I know are wealthier than the VA parents with fake wealth. Not only that but I believe there are more privates in the Baltimore region and they arguably place better in college admissions than DC area schools.

How can you determine whether someone has fake wealth versus real wealth unless you are privy to ther personal finance?

How can you determine whether someone has fake wealth versus real wealth unless you are privy to ther personal finance?

[Anonymous]

False. D.C. suburbs are FAR wealthier than the Baltimore suburbs. I grew up in a Baltimore suburb and now live in NoVA. It’s not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

I have heard good things about him. Legit lacrosse background, and my impression is the girls respond to his coaching. He is the dad of a junior player, so obviously not a long term solution.

He coached a lot of those kids in Youth league who are now on the Capital 25 Blue team-- #1 club rank in the Counrty.. He definitely helped develop those kids at an early age and they clearly those girls benefitted from his coaching. Give the guy a chance for goodness sake!!

I’m on your side. But does anyone reasonably expect he would remain coach after his daughter goes off to college? I think that would be great, but seems very unlikely.

Who.knows? But Visi should be very grateful that they have a high quality coach and person with very little time before the season starts!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has applied to Visitation have any thoughts on announcement of new coach?

I have heard good things about him. Legit lacrosse background, and my impression is the girls respond to his coaching. He is the dad of a junior player, so obviously not a long term solution.

He coached a lot of those kids in Youth league who are now on the Capital 25 Blue team-- #1 club rank in the Counrty.. He definitely helped develop those kids at an early age and they clearly those girls benefitted from his coaching. Give the guy a chance for goodness sake!!

I’m on your side. But does anyone reasonably expect he would remain coach after his daughter goes off to college? I think that would be great, but seems very unlikely.

Who.knows? But Visi should be very grateful that they have a high quality coach and person with very little time before the season starts!!!

I agree. My daughter is a freshman now and knows some of the girls applying who play lax. One of the issues, whether people agree or not (not looking to start a debate over why you should pick a HS just reporting what she has heard), is the stability of the lacrosse team and lack of communication in comparison to other local privates. Hope the talented lax players give Visitation a hard look but Visi def needs to do a better job in recruiting and retaining their girls.