Agree, 10 years ago that hit is not called. Today, I am not surprised. Any hit that looks "violent" is flagged. In the 80's and 90's that hit would barely be noticed as there were way harder and nastier hits every game.

High level? Come on. Mid

Anonymous wrote:How many more posts will there be about the hit?

Soon we will be able to move on to discussing the game between Gonzaga and Bullis. With any luck, there won't be any controversial hits.

How many more posts will there be about the hit?

Yup - the creators would be proud.

Great hit, stopped a goal. Even better the tough kid popped right back up and kept playing. High level lacrosse.

The player was joyful after the hit and still is. It was dirty.

Last two posters - nodding in agreement

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't dirty, even Cabell wasn't complaining about it. Flag was justified though, any hit that big is called now. As others noted, ten years ago it was completely fine, now it is a penalty. You need to adjust your style of play accordingly.

This is the way. It wasn't horrifically malicious but is absolutely a major penalty in the way the game is officiated now.

Earlier poster is right that the game is overall better for the intense adjudication of violent contact. Safer, higher scoring, better spectator sport.

For those saying it was clean, it simply isn't in today's rules.

For those that want an investigation, pound sand. Refs handled it as per the guidance and rules.

For anyone who says it was dirty. Answer me this.

If you are a d-man and you turn over the ball on a pass intercepted, the d-man is sprinting back to the hole like any good d-man should, and the interceptor is sprinting towards the goal to score. When they meet because they are both sprinting and trying to make a “winning play” and the interceptor is winding up to shoot at 8 yds, what is the “winning play” for the d-man? A poke check?

2 nationally ranked teams trying to win a conference championship. It comes down to 48 mins of winning plays.

A lot of ignorant comments being thrown around on both sides. I’d just like to hear what the person who calls it dirty and wants to launch an IAC investigation thinks would be the correct play. I’m all ears…

It wasn't dirty, even Cabell wasn't complaining about it. Flag was justified though, any hit that big is called now. As others noted, ten years ago it was completely fine, now it is a penalty. You need to adjust your style of play accordingly.

He basically tackled the kid from a 15 yard running start to his blind side. It’s not dirty but is the wrong sport. Honestly, football is getting rid of the same hit so now there are 0 sports that allow that hit…maybe 1…play rugby

Anonymous wrote:I was at that game with no kid involved. I have watched lacrosse for over 25 years with multiple kids who have played at the top of D1 lacrosse. No way that call gets made 10 years ago. The player was hit in the front and yes it looked violent but it was legal in my opinion. Observations: boys’ game has become less physical over the last 10 years and girls’ game has actually became way more physical.

I have no skin in the game but this is the correct view. It was a fine hit. Hit him on the shoulder to shoulder but given the "violence" of the hit it was going to get called.

In my opinion, the hit wasn’t dirty but clearly a penalty under the rules. My most unpopular opinion is that most people wouldn’t actually like the product if more physical hits like this were permitted despite what you hear on the sidelines. Modern officiating has opened up the game more and permits more offensive creativity. A 4-3 slugfest with constant big hits is actually pretty boring to watch. Basketball is the same way. More physical hand-check are led to boring games. Rules and the official’s ruling here make the game better, but the hit wasn’t a dirty play either, just like hard foul is a dirty play, but must penalized.

Anonymous wrote:I hated learning this morning that the team on Military Rd. won another DMV game.

As a former parent of a player in the DMV can one of you current parents that play them unfu$$ your team and win one?

Enough is enough.

The two team SJC and PVI matched up well both teams loaded with 2026's playing. SJC taking it 10-8 was a pretty ugly game with hard time clearing and bad decisions. Lots of turnovers! Goalie play was the best and the jack of all trades #8 for PVI all over the field doing the work of 3. Maybe the Purple Eagles of Eye Street can settle this WCAC soon with a win over SJC and PVI.

Gonzaga will have to bring it today vs a downed Bullis team who is looking to bounce back from a beat down in the 4th qtr at Landon. Depth will be the key to making this a great game tonight.

The hit was clean. It just looked horrible!