Anonymous wrote:Is girls lacrosse going to have the identical age guidelines? I don’t think they are governed by NLF. Hopefully they adopt the same rules.

The rules for girls are already the same for any US lacrosse sanctioned event. The NLF is a aligned group of the top boys clubs and they did not follow US lacrosse. Now that they are following along with HOCO I think it will be the case at most girl's tournaments but it is really up to the organizer of each event. The NLF just happened to manage the to top events and clubs want to align with those. there is still not a high level of enforcement. I think top girl's events will also comply with US lacrosse guidelines. NVYLL already does. The important girls' event through IWCLA are still grade based for HS so that will not change.

Is girls lacrosse going to have the identical age guidelines? I don’t think they are governed by NLF. Hopefully they adopt the same rules.

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone has a middle school to play for. In fact I don’t know any middle schools who have teams? And they can’t move up to JV. Again, you don’t know the circumstances for why a kid doesn’t fit into a window, so please don’t speak like you do. No need to reply, there is no perfect situation.

Most every private K-12 of note has a middle school teams. K-8s also (Langley, Congressional, etc.). Hell, at Mater Dei, kids on the lacrosse team drive themselves to games.

Public middle schools, not so much.

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone has a middle school to play for. In fact I don’t know any middle schools who have teams? And they can’t move up to JV. Again, you don’t know the circumstances for why a kid doesn’t fit into a window, so please don’t speak like you do. No need to reply, there is no perfect situation.

Again, this is only an issue for the kids 8th grade spring in HOCO. The kid can still play with his correct aged team in all the tournaments he wants.

You are probably the same person that was whining about this when the new rules came out in May. You don't get everything you want and there are always consequences (good or bad) for doing something. Such is life.

The cut off rule was never going to appease everyone but this does the best that can be done to satisfy the most parents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2029 down. Correct?

correct. 2028s were exempt. So an off age 28 needs to move up.

That should be off age 28 playing on a 29 team would need to move up to a 28 team. An off age 27 playing on a 28 team is okay. Rules don't apply to high school.

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone has a middle school to play for. In fact I don’t know any middle schools who have teams? And they can’t move up to JV. Again, you don’t know the circumstances for why a kid doesn’t fit into a window, so please don’t speak like you do. No need to reply, there is no perfect situation.

First there is no NEED to reply to any post anywhere on DCUM. But if you do not want a reply then in my humble opinion you should not post. A reply is kind of the point of a discussion. I would never pretend to know the situation of an anonymously posted case and never stated that in any previous post. I do know that some parents do hold kids back to gain an advantage and that is not all kids but that is what created an imbalance in the first place. There is not going to be a situation that is favorable to all sides. However, if you hold a kids back for whatever reason, even a very valid reason, there will be a consequence. If that results in a player missing a spring season, I personally am fine with that. I can not speak for others. Missing a spring season in what is mostly a year round sport is a minor thing. However, several middle schools have teams and several HS programs allow an 8th grader to play. What is to me an issue is when parents think exceptions should be made based on one child's circumstances as a detriment to the rest. We had a issue over the last 10 years (sport around much longer) where age restrictions were abused to the point that those that really followed the rules where penalized. This is a great step in the right direction and hopefully discourages any future parents from reclassing for sports.

Not everyone has a middle school to play for. In fact I don’t know any middle schools who have teams? And they can’t move up to JV. Again, you don’t know the circumstances for why a kid doesn’t fit into a window, so please don’t speak like you do. No need to reply, there is no perfect situation.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say a 2030 now has to play w/2029. When 2029 goes to high school, they play spring w/their high school. The 2030 has no team to play w/in the spring. Not every kid who doesn’t fit in the 15 month window was held back for athletic reasons. For all the kids that don’t fit into the window and need to move up, this applies.

That isn't true in the least. Many can still practice with thier club. All can still play rec and those in middle achool private school can play with their school.

Anonymous wrote:2029 down. Correct?

correct. 2028s were exempt. So an off age 28 needs to move up.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say a 2030 now has to play w/2029. When 2029 goes to high school, they play spring w/their high school. The 2030 has no team to play w/in the spring. Not every kid who doesn’t fit in the 15 month window was held back for athletic reasons. For all the kids that don’t fit into the window and need to move up, this applies.

Still this is not the responsibility of the sport of lacrosse to find a home for this player. Reality is that the player is still held back. Those kids can still play with the club team in fall and summer events and may be eligible to play JV. The idea is that hopefully these become more rare. This is something any parent should consider when deciding to hold a child back. Let's be honest many who hold back kids for academic reasons are also looking to game the system for an advantage. Also no 2030 would be forced to play w/2029 instead a 12 year old would now need to play 12U instead of 10 U when they are already older than the other kids. Years ago the spring club league in MD went by U15, U13 ect..

Let’s say a 2030 now has to play w/2029. When 2029 goes to high school, they play spring w/their high school. The 2030 has no team to play w/in the spring. Not every kid who doesn’t fit in the 15 month window was held back for athletic reasons. For all the kids that don’t fit into the window and need to move up, this applies.

2029 down. Correct?

While there was some concern that others wouldn't follow NLFs lead, several big players like NXT and 3Steps have said they're going to follow NLFs rules. Further, apparently HOCO just sent out an email to coached and directors they will be following this rule. So this is basically a done deal.

Anonymous wrote: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…

What are you talking about. A kid that is playing on the 28 club team but should be playing on the 27 club team will play on the 27 club team and just have an extra year in the travel HS club portion. For recruiting purposes, it is on the colleges to figure that out and the club team to inform coaches what year the kid graduates.

Anonymous wrote: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…

The age cutoff aligns with US lacrosse and with all the DMV area HS grade brackets of September so this should not be an issue unless your kid is held back in which case why should this be US lacrosse's problem? The player could always play for the HS club team (up?) and then repeat back in HS the next season as the HS teams will still be by grad year. They just play on the Freshman HS grad year team 2X. It is not like these kids are really "jumping up" they are reclassing in HS.