Age verification - is this going to change club lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It will not effect many in the top 5. They have a lot of older girls with fall birthdays, but still within the cutoff range. I would maybe effect 1 per team, if that.

[Anonymous]

23/24 season so earliest would be the fall. Definitely not this summer and even that is only for NLF/NAL as of right now. I am thinking that other tournaments will follow at least by next spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s unfortunate for my son who has a May 2010 birthday and started school late, so he’s in 6th grade. He’ll have to leave the team he’s been on for 3 years with all his friends and classmates. But I guess it’s a safety thing. So from my understanding once you get to HS you’ll be able to play on a team according to your graduation year? So he’ll be on a 2028 team for 7th and 8th grades and then can be back on a 2029 team in 9th since that’s his graduation year?

How is it unfortunate? You knew this could be an issue when you choose to have him tart school late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It will not effect many in the top 5. They have a lot of older girls with fall birthdays, but still within the cutoff range. I would maybe effect 1 per team, if that.

That's a pretty definitive, and concise, analysis. Good to know if accurate. Do you mind sharing how you have that level of insight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It will not effect many in the top 5. They have a lot of older girls with fall birthdays, but still within the cutoff range. I would maybe effect 1 per team, if that.

That's a pretty definitive, and concise, analysis. Good to know if accurate. Do you mind sharing how you have that level of insight?

Because my daughter has played on a Maryland travel team for several years and has friends/schoolmates that span the rosters of most of the other maryland travel teams. It is a pretty small circle actually. I can't speak to all of the grad years, only the one referenced by the previous poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s unfortunate for my son who has a May 2010 birthday and started school late, so he’s in 6th grade. He’ll have to leave the team he’s been on for 3 years with all his friends and classmates. But I guess it’s a safety thing. So from my understanding once you get to HS you’ll be able to play on a team according to your graduation year? So he’ll be on a 2028 team for 7th and 8th grades and then can be back on a 2029 team in 9th since that’s his graduation year?

How is it unfortunate? You knew this could be an issue when you choose to have him tart school late.

Don't be an a-hole. No one is thinking about this in pre-K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s unfortunate for my son who has a May 2010 birthday and started school late, so he’s in 6th grade. He’ll have to leave the team he’s been on for 3 years with all his friends and classmates. But I guess it’s a safety thing. So from my understanding once you get to HS you’ll be able to play on a team according to your graduation year? So he’ll be on a 2028 team for 7th and 8th grades and then can be back on a 2029 team in 9th since that’s his graduation year?

I don’t know why you’d want to keep moving him. I’m sure he’ll be fine with his 28 team. There will be a few boys who fall in this category. He certainly won’t be the only one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s unfortunate for my son who has a May 2010 birthday and started school late, so he’s in 6th grade. He’ll have to leave the team he’s been on for 3 years with all his friends and classmates. But I guess it’s a safety thing. So from my understanding once you get to HS you’ll be able to play on a team according to your graduation year? So he’ll be on a 2028 team for 7th and 8th grades and then can be back on a 2029 team in 9th since that’s his graduation year?

I don’t know why you’d want to keep moving him. I’m sure he’ll be fine with his 28 team. There will be a few boys who fall in this category. He certainly won’t be the only one.

He might want to play with his grade once in HS and, if similar to girls' then the summer of his rising junior year the 2028 team will likely stop playing and he'll be wanting to be seen by coaches if he's looking to play in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

I think the only NLF tournament right now for Girls is US Lacrosse Youth Nationals. So it's only impacting 1 event. I doubt all those other tournaments are going to want to go through the age verification process. They can't even handle players self-rostering and signing waivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

I think the only NLF tournament right now for Girls is US Lacrosse Youth Nationals. So it's only impacting 1 event. I doubt all those other tournaments are going to want to go through the age verification process. They can't even handle players self-rostering and signing waivers.

Youth Nationals for girls is and has been doing age verification for years and there have been several instances where girls got to Delaware and found it they were aged out and couldn't play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

I think the only NLF tournament right now for Girls is US Lacrosse Youth Nationals. So it's only impacting 1 event. I doubt all those other tournaments are going to want to go through the age verification process. They can't even handle players self-rostering and signing waivers.

NLF National Lacrosse Federation does not have girl's clubs or run girl's events through US lacrosse. Some of the NLF member clubs like Madlax and T91 do have girls clubs but the NLF is not part of those events. US lacrosse has been age based for years but good clubs never played in US lacrosse events. NLF is the best clubs in the US: Crabs, Madlax, LI Express, T91, ect..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

I think the only NLF tournament right now for Girls is US Lacrosse Youth Nationals. So it's only impacting 1 event. I doubt all those other tournaments are going to want to go through the age verification process. They can't even handle players self-rostering and signing waivers.

NLF National Lacrosse Federation does not have girl's clubs or run girl's events through US lacrosse. Some of the NLF member clubs like Madlax and T91 do have girls clubs but the NLF is not part of those events. US lacrosse has been age based for years but good clubs never played in US lacrosse events. NLF is the best clubs in the US: Crabs, Madlax, LI Express, T91, ect..

Thank you for your clarification. It gets very confusing when we don't know if we're talking about girls or boys. I believe the OP meant this thread to be for boys only but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See about 8 questions down. https://www.usalacrosse.com/nlf-usal-partnership-faqs

As the person said above it is only for NLF/NAL sponsored tournaments - with its own age verification system. Depends on what other tournaments want to do. I'm sure some will follow along and some won't. It will be up to the club director to determine what the tournament age rules as in whether Aloha Tournaments or Hogan or NXT or what ever will follow the NLF's guidelines.

I think the only NLF tournament right now for Girls is US Lacrosse Youth Nationals. So it's only impacting 1 event. I doubt all those other tournaments are going to want to go through the age verification process. They can't even handle players self-rostering and signing waivers.

NLF National Lacrosse Federation does not have girl's clubs or run girl's events through US lacrosse. Some of the NLF member clubs like Madlax and T91 do have girls clubs but the NLF is not part of those events. US lacrosse has been age based for years but good clubs never played in US lacrosse events. NLF is the best clubs in the US: Crabs, Madlax, LI Express, T91, ect..

Thank you for your clarification. It gets very confusing when we don't know if we're talking about girls or boys. I believe the OP meant this thread to be for boys only but I could be wrong.

For some of the “best” boys teams if they actually enforce it, this should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Anonymous]

What US lacrosse doesn’t address is what do the kids who have to jump up to play do when that age goes to high school? These kids have no team for a year…