Age verification - is this going to change club lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should’ve just moved it to age and kept it simple.

Which is much more disruptive based on most kids like to play with kids in the same grade - just like they do at the rec level. Most other sports outside of soccer do not do it by age but based on the school calendar year with some modifications i.e., basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. The only reason soccer does it based on age is because that is what the rest of the world does it and there were changes to soccer about 8-9 years ago that moved it from grade to age year.

Most sports don't have parents holding kids back for two years so that they can play at higher levels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should’ve just moved it to age and kept it simple.

Which is much more disruptive based on most kids like to play with kids in the same grade - just like they do at the rec level. Most other sports outside of soccer do not do it by age but based on the school calendar year with some modifications i.e., basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. The only reason soccer does it based on age is because that is what the rest of the world does it and there were changes to soccer about 8-9 years ago that moved it from grade to age year.

Most sports don't have parents holding kids back for two years so that they can play at higher levels

If nothing else positive comes from this shift to age-banded club teams, please at least let it end to the obsession by message board junkies and sideline parents with "holdbacks" and "double holdbacks" and making unfounded and unfair assumptions about kids and parents whose situations they have zero clues about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should’ve just moved it to age and kept it simple.

Which is much more disruptive based on most kids like to play with kids in the same grade - just like they do at the rec level. Most other sports outside of soccer do not do it by age but based on the school calendar year with some modifications i.e., basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. The only reason soccer does it based on age is because that is what the rest of the world does it and there were changes to soccer about 8-9 years ago that moved it from grade to age year.

Most sports don't have parents holding kids back for two years so that they can play at higher levels

Um...not sure what you are trying to say beyond proving my right. All the other sports (outside of soccer - maybe there are others) base eligibility on age but still work within the school year to some extent. Volleyball is probably the only one off a little because it has a July 1st to June 30th age restriction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should’ve just moved it to age and kept it simple.

Which is much more disruptive based on most kids like to play with kids in the same grade - just like they do at the rec level. Most other sports outside of soccer do not do it by age but based on the school calendar year with some modifications i.e., basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. The only reason soccer does it based on age is because that is what the rest of the world does it and there were changes to soccer about 8-9 years ago that moved it from grade to age year.

Hickey does it too and nobody is traumatized.

[Anonymous]

Wish they'd do this for all years immediately. This has been needed for many, many years.

[Anonymous]

Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Why would Howard County Parks and Rec care about less money? Why would they make less money? Would they not get the same number of teams to rent fields no matter what the age cut-off? I think the clubs have to enforce this. They would not want to put a kid on a roster if the player is not within the guidelines. How is this enforced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Too bad for those undersized parents and kids who now will get run over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Too bad for those undersized parents and kids who now will get run over.

This rule will help a lot more undersized kids than it hurts...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Too bad for those undersized parents and kids who now will get run over.

This rule will help a lot more undersized kids than it hurts...

Precisely. Everyone is the same age. If you are smaller (or undersized) that is the way of life. Now, you won't have kids 2 years older than some kids playing at the same level.

I'm old, but in youth sports in my time. If you were good, you played up not down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Too bad for those undersized parents and kids who now will get run over.

Look at that word I bolded. In theory, if HOCO enforces the rule, that could result in a a bunch of clubs with holdbacks that don't fall into the 15 month window figure out the roster and might not have enough for a team. The new rules if applied start for those kids going into the 7th grade this fall (i.e., the 2029 class). It doesn't apply to those kids going into the 8th grade this fall (i.e., the 2028 class). I guess they are allowing for a year of implementation and not forcing come kids to not be able to play in spring club leagues.

Here is an example. Today, May 30th, Club A has a 2029 team (i.e., 7th graders for the spring 2024 HOCO season) comprised of 50% of kids that fall outside of the 15 month eligibility window. All of those kids wouldn't be eligible to play at the 2029 HOCO level next spring. They would be moved up to play on the clubs 2028 team (there would likely be some roster issues for 2028 teams). Now, Club A's 2030 holdbacks can back fill the 2029 roster. This then cascades down the ages. But, at some point, in theory, Club A would normally field a 2nd grade team (2034 team in spring 2024). But, this year Club A can't field a team because not enough kids at the right age tried out. That's one less entrance fee that is paid to HOCO that it normally would have received. Is it the end of the world? No. But, there is some in theory incentive for leagues like HOCO not to do that.

Saying that maybe some clubs that normally wouldn't have two 2028 teams creates another 2028 team because of roster issues for next year as some kids that were 2029 this year will be moved up to 2028 because they are no longer eligible to play on a 2029 team. And fees stay the same.

This of course, leads to the issue that if my kid was on the back end of a roster of a 2028 team, I'd certainly be aware of the situation and make sure my kid had options if some talented 2029s need to move to the "right" aged team. There is either a roster bloat for the 2028 teams or some back of the roster kids aren't making the team.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe a single girl on my daughter's top 20 club team will be affected.

Will be interesting to see how it impacts the top 5 Maryland teams and Eagle Stix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

What year is this with half your team being holdbacks? I would assume 28 or 27 and it wouldn’t impact those grades anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering over half my kid’s club team wouldn’t be allowed to play on his team this summer, I think it will definitely affect the sport- in a positive way.

Was at the futures tournament over the weekend for my kids tournament. I'd say about 75% of the parents were very happy about the changes*. There was a very vocal minority of about 25% of the parents that were clearly perturbed by the changes. Most these parents had kids that would be defined as holdbacks that wouldn't fall in that 15 month window. Some of this group calmed down when they realized their kid wasn't going to lose a year but would play 5 years at the HS level. A small set of this negative group were mad that the summer wasn't extended farther back or not implemented this fall but have a more gradual implementation - though no one could propose any realistic way to do that instead of the current rip the band aid off.

There was also a group (comprised of the positive and negative people from above) that instead of the 15 month window wanted a straight birth year system similar to soccer.

*I think I've said this before while the NLF is proposing it, it will be up to the tournaments (like Hogan et al.) and the club leagues like HOCO to agree to the changes. There is certainly an incentive for some like HOCO to not agree to the changes since the changes could in theory mean less money in their pocket.

Too bad for those undersized parents and kids who now will get run over.

Look at that word I bolded. In theory, if HOCO enforces the rule, that could result in a a bunch of clubs with holdbacks that don't fall into the 15 month window figure out the roster and might not have enough for a team. The new rules if applied start for those kids going into the 7th grade this fall (i.e., the 2029 class). It doesn't apply to those kids going into the 8th grade this fall (i.e., the 2028 class). I guess they are allowing for a year of implementation and not forcing come kids to not be able to play in spring club leagues.

Here is an example. Today, May 30th, Club A has a 2029 team (i.e., 7th graders for the spring 2024 HOCO season) comprised of 50% of kids that fall outside of the 15 month eligibility window. All of those kids wouldn't be eligible to play at the 2029 HOCO level next spring. They would be moved up to play on the clubs 2028 team (there would likely be some roster issues for 2028 teams). Now, Club A's 2030 holdbacks can back fill the 2029 roster. This then cascades down the ages. But, at some point, in theory, Club A would normally field a 2nd grade team (2034 team in spring 2024). But, this year Club A can't field a team because not enough kids at the right age tried out. That's one less entrance fee that is paid to HOCO that it normally would have received. Is it the end of the world? No. But, there is some in theory incentive for leagues like HOCO not to do that.

Saying that maybe some clubs that normally wouldn't have two 2028 teams creates another 2028 team because of roster issues for next year as some kids that were 2029 this year will be moved up to 2028 because they are no longer eligible to play on a 2029 team. And fees stay the same.

This of course, leads to the issue that if my kid was on the back end of a roster of a 2028 team, I'd certainly be aware of the situation and make sure my kid had options if some talented 2029s need to move to the "right" aged team. There is either a roster bloat for the 2028 teams or some back of the roster kids aren't making the team.

Anybody know when the new rule takes effect? If it will be in place for summer tournaments starting within the next couple of weeks, I wonder if it will actually be enforced. A lot of parents (including me) will be annoyed if I drive three hours to Delaware for a tournament and my son's team is DQ'd because of a couple of holdbacks who have been on the team forever and have not yet found a new team.