Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see so many parents who want the game to become more physically aggressive and dangerous. Are you folks aware of the declining popularity of football due to the increasing evidence of serious injury and even mortality? And, BTW, as a former ballet dancer whose daughter plays lacrosse, I'd say that both activities require comparable levels of strength, stamina, speed, agility, kinetic awareness and determination.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with both PPs. I think there are plenty of us who advocate assertive and aggressive play but who despise the illegal physicality and stick work that is manifesting with certain teams under the guidance of certain coaches. I think the comparison of ballet versus brawl is very apt. Our daughters have been fortunate to be on winning teams so we're not "afraid of losses", whatever that idiotic statement means. What we do fear, our daughters and us, is that some girl going on out-of-control aggression is going to hurt or kill someone because of the aggressor's inability and unwillingness to keep it legal.

Anonymous wrote:Some folks on this thread get it but most don't. All this talk of "swing at heads" and concussions is NOT what is meant by people who advocate for the DC area clubs and coaches to step up the physical expectations and lax skills of the girls who play lacrosse. Anything near the head should NEVER be tolerated and you don't see it from the best club and college teams unless it is accidental (or an outlier crazy player). Lets just take anything having to do with opposing players sticks near heads and put it firmly in the illegal category.

By physical, aggressive play, the kind the top DC clubs and schools are lacking, except for a few standout players many lax folks could likely name here (but lets not), below are some examples of what is meant and what clubs like Capital, Stars, Pride, etc.. and local high schools don't usually exhibit:

1.) Running full speed for ground balls and not stopping/hesitating because an opposing players is running toward it too.
2.) Boxing out and fighting aggressively with your body and stick for ground balls
3.) Aggressive, LEGAL checking of hanging sticks and sticks outside "the sphere"
4.). Aggressive, physical use of one's body to play defense, not trying to use your stick to stop someone.
5.). Holding your ground when an opposing player is headed in your direction
6.) Being able to take a shoulder and not flinching or falling down
7.) Not shying away from contact, understanding it is PART of the GAME

Watch any high level girl's/women's lacrosse game and you will see all of this and no, speed does not beat it. College games (see Maryland, Georgetown, Hopkins, GW, JMU etc.. in our area for accessible examples) clearly show women who regularly take a hit and keep on going. They don't wait to learn that in college, they learn it when they are learning the game. The college women's lacrosse game is VERY physical. Body checking (not heads) happens constantly and is rarely if ever called. Speed is a necessary and integral part of the game but speed alone is worthless against physical, strong teams who aren't afraid of physical contact . Take a look at 2018 NCAA champions JMU and listen to what their players say about smaller, weaker teams who rely too much on speed. You need both and they can't be mutually exclusive.

In fact, one of the biggest issues around here is teams that place speed above all else and end up with underweight, small, slight, weak girls. Those teams can't play a physical, aggressive game because they dont have the necessary strength or ability. Of course they are afraid of contact and going toe to toe with teams from Baltimore, Philly, LI, NY and NJ, who have players who know how to play aggressively and have the physical attributes to play that way. Fast, slight teams cannot beat a team with girls who work out, weight train and have body mass while still being fit and capable of speed. College coaches know this and recruit accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.

Agree. The USL has rules in place that need to be consistently enforced. The board seems to agree girls can be taught to play more aggressively, just do it in a responsible manner within the rules. Until the USL changes the rules it's what everyone should play by. If and when they change the rules the girls will need to adjust. My daughter is 5'8" 135 lbs in 7th grade. She is more than capable of playing physical and handling herself against the teams mentioned at her age group and has even played up several age groups. If she wanted to wear a helmet and pads and knock players around I would have just signed her up for the boys game. She'd hold her own. Responsible aggression is needed for things like 50/50 ground balls. Dangerous aggression like swinging at heads, intentional or not, is not acceptable. Speed, like in most sports, is the ultimate game changer IMO. I've seen less talented teams with athleticism and speed beat uncontrolled aggressive play all day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it..at least for now anyway. The point is that the team (s) that seemed to be called out for this type of play represent the best of the sport. Most clubs work hard to be in a position to challenge these teams. The coaches are influential to the game. I have seen dangerous aggressive play that was not well coached and uncontrolled from less skilled teams. Hard to make the argument when your issues are with the top teams as this type of play continues as they move up in the sport. They used to simply play with a mouth guard and a stick they now are required to wear eye protection. They are allowed at all levels to wear a helmet. Based on your comment you must not be a fan of the college game as it is not always a ballet. Have you watched any FIL games?

Remind us again how many college players wear helmets? I thought so, not many. There's a reason. They shouldn't have to. Personally, I hope they never do, but that's just my opinion. The USL will decide what's best for the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it..at least for now anyway. The point is that the team (s) that seemed to be called out for this type of play represent the best of the sport. Most clubs work hard to be in a position to challenge these teams. The coaches are influential to the game. I have seen dangerous aggressive play that was not well coached and uncontrolled from less skilled teams. Hard to make the argument when your issues are with the top teams as this type of play continues as they move up in the sport. They used to simply play with a mouth guard and a stick they now are required to wear eye protection. They are allowed at all levels to wear a helmet. Based on your comment you must not be a fan of the college game as it is not always a ballet. Have you watched any FIL games?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it..at least for now anyway. The point is that the team (s) that seemed to be called out for this type of play represent the best of the sport. Most clubs work hard to be in a position to challenge these teams. The coaches are influential to the game. I have seen dangerous aggressive play that was not well coached and uncontrolled from less skilled teams. Hard to make the argument when your issues are with the top teams as this type of play continues as they move up in the sport. They used to simply play with a mouth guard and a stick they now are required to wear eye protection. They are allowed at all levels to wear a helmet. Based on your comment you must not be a fan of the college game as it is not always a ballet. Have you watched any FIL games?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger problem is how do we get DC area programs to teach girls to be more aggressive? Stars, Pride, Capital, etc... have teams that can't compete at the top level because the players aren't aggressive enough and are afraid of physical contact. Will we always have to give up and make the drive to Baltimore to get the best coaching?

I think you're missing the point. There is a difference between dangerous physically aggressive play that you seem to be advocating and giving credence VERSUS legal aggressive play. When the girls are outfitted to withstand physical contact then I will change my opinion but as it stands now they have a mouth guard and a stick. I think the dangerous physical play cheapens the game. It is the difference between a ballet and a brawl.