MLax: Marquette, 1 at Duke, 20

[burnspbesq]

No way you saw this coming: with under nine minutes to go in Q4, Duke leads, 14-1. Yes, you read that correctly. Will have more to say after I've had a chance to watch the replay.

[fuse]

Watched the first half before finding something else to do after Duke was up 9-1.

Weird season if Marquette is ranked ahead of Duke.

Best analogy for the first half was watching Duke play a DII or DIII program.
Shots at a speed Fowler could easily see coming, and under handed cranks shots that spoke pretty clearly to me about the type of talent Marquette has presently.

Without researching, I'd guess Marquette is a fairly new lacrosse program.

[Native]

Looking as sharp as I've seen us all season.

Outstanding effort by the defense today. Holding any team – let alone a Top 25 squad – to a single goal (and a second half shutout) is not a small task.

Hopefully this is another occurrence of our guys peaking when it counts.

Congratulations and thanks to our seniors. What a way to finish.

[MCFinARL]

Watched the first half before finding something else to do after Duke was up 9-1.

Weird season if Marquette is ranked ahead of Duke.

Best analogy for the first half was watching Duke play a DII or DIII program.
Shots at a speed Fowler could easily see coming, and under handed cranks shots that spoke pretty clearly to me about the type of talent Marquette has presently.

Without researching, I'd guess Marquette is a fairly new lacrosse program.

And you would be right. This is their fourth year as a D1 lacrosse program. They have developed quite nicely and had a very good season. Very recently they took Notre Dame to overtime. But the overall talent level is not a match for Duke when Duke is playing their best.

The team is finally playing like their future depends on it--which it very definitely does. Hopefully they can carry this momentum into a successful rematch with Notre Dame, which might be enough to make the tournament. It helps a little that Loyola has been climbing back up through the rankings, so that is a better win than it was for a while.

[burnspbesq]

Well, the first seven minutes were as expected. Marquette, which came in with the number one defense in the country (in goals allowed), kept Duke in check, and its deliberate offense created a couple of good opportunities. It was 1-1 with 8:02 left in the first quarter. After that, Duke dropped the hammer. Ethan Powley had a career game against the Golden Eagles' top scorer, Ryan McNamara. Duke had seven caused turnovers in the first half. The offense consistently found gaps in the Marquette defense and the attack finished beautifully (50 percent offensive efficiency, on a night when the first midfield contributed only four goals). John Prendergast got his first career goal off a Teddy Henderson faceoff win. Two early goals from the second midfield added to the fun. Two little-used, hard-working seniors added goals in the fourth quarter; John Shaffer cashed a stepdown opportunity and Alex Prezioso dunked a rebound. Danny Fowler and Luke Aaron combined for 12 saves.

It was extraordinary on every level. Marquette is a very good team, and Duke just obliterated them.

With two goals and an assist, Myles Jones became the first D1 midfielder--ever--to record 100 goals and 100 assists in a career. He's currently sitting on 222 career points, only 31 behind the legendary Gary Gait in career midfield scoring. Duke has somewhere between two and seven games remaining; the closer that number gets to seven, the better Myles' chances of breaking the record.

Wow.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Anyone know where to find video highlights of the game? A close relative of mine actually officiated the game and I'd like to check it out.

[chrishoke]

Anyone know where to find video highlights of the game? A close relative of mine actually officiated the game and I'd like to check it out.

GoDuke.com has highlights.

[tbyers11]

Anyone know where to find video highlights of the game? A close relative of mine actually officiated the game and I'd like to check it out.

The entire game can be viewed on the WatchESPN app if you have access to that.

[DST Fan]

UNC has the #1 seed in the ACC tournament after coming back from 5 down in the fourth quarter and beating Notre Dame 17-15. Duke gets the #3 seed, based on the regular season win over Syracuse, and plays Notre Dame in the first round. It has been looking as though Duke would have to beat Notre Dame to lock up an NCAA bid and now it will have to be in the first round, rather than in the championship game.

[53n206]

Difficult to assess this team. But sometimes they look so incredibly good, and sometimes just they seen stodgy and inept on defense. If the best comes out and continues we can go all the way. Our defense must play their best.
. I love all the first-team midfielders.

[budwom]

UNC has the #1 seed in the ACC tournament after coming back from 5 down in the fourth quarter and beating Notre Dame 17-15. Duke gets the #3 seed, based on the regular season win over Syracuse, and plays Notre Dame in the first round. It has been looking as though Duke would have to beat Notre Dame to lock up an NCAA bid and now it will have to be in the first round, rather than in the championship game.

Perhaps...but some of the computer rankings have upped Duke to as high as seventh....sure would be nice to beat ND and wrap things up, but I think it's possible
we get in the tournament without beating them...

[buddy]

Perhaps...but some of the computer rankings have upped Duke to as high as seventh...sure would be nice to beat ND and wrap things up, but I think it's possible
we get in the tournament without beating them...

I think we need to win the ACC and get the AQ. Losing to ND makes us at best 10-7, with "signature" wins over Loyola, Syracuse, and maybe Marquette (which I expect to drop significantly by selection Sunday--they still have to play Denver). ND will get an at large bid. If UNC gets to the finals of the ACC. If we beat ND and lose to UNC, I would expect the cheaters to have a higher computer ranking, as well as a better "eye test"--especially since they would have beaten us twice. ACC may get 2 at large, but likely not three, and that assumes all the conference tournaments follow the chalk, which is unlikely. Losses to Richmond and Air Force (and probably Harvard) really hurt.

[duke2x]

Perhaps...but some of the computer rankings have upped Duke to as high as seventh...sure would be nice to beat ND and wrap things up, but I think it's possible
we get in the tournament without beating them...

It's playing with fire, but there's a chance you could be right. Duke is currently #10 in the RPI with #2 SOS. The RPI carries a lot more weight in lacrosse than basketball. For example, last year Duke (#5 RPI) hosted Ohio State (#12 RPI) as the #5 seed. The last at-large team was RPI #14 (Brown) that was chosen over RPI #13 (Georgetown).

Teams with lower RPI that might have a chance: Marquette, Air Force, Stony Brook, Bucknell, PSU, Rutgers, and Towson. Only Air Force has a persuasive argument over Duke for an at-large (OT win).

[burnspbesq]

I think we need to win the ACC and get the AQ. Losing to ND makes us at best 10-7, with "signature" wins over Loyola, Syracuse, and maybe Marquette (which I expect to drop significantly by selection Sunday--they still have to play Denver). ND will get an at large bid. If UNC gets to the finals of the ACC. If we beat ND and lose to UNC, I would expect the cheaters to have a higher computer ranking, as well as a better "eye test"--especially since they would have beaten us twice. ACC may get 2 at large, but likely not three, and that assumes all the conference tournaments follow the chalk, which is unlikely. Losses to Richmond and Air Force (and probably Harvard) really hurt.

Except that Carolina's bad losses, UMass and Hofstra, are even worse than Duke"s bad losses.

[budwom]

It's playing with fire, but there's a chance you could be right. Duke is currently #10 in the RPI with #2 SOS. The RPI carries a lot more weight in lacrosse than basketball. For example, last year Duke (#5 RPI) hosted Ohio State (#12 RPI) as the #5 seed. The last at-large team was RPI #14 (Brown) that was chosen over RPI #13 (Georgetown).

Teams with lower RPI that might have a chance: Marquette, Air Force, Stony Brook, Bucknell, PSU, Rutgers, and Towson. Only Air Force has a persuasive argument over Duke for an at-large (OT win).

Yup, it IS playing with fire...but I think we make it if we beat ND and lose in the finals, and depending upon how the rest of the field shakes out, we might make it with a loss to ND, but it's not advisable...

[buddy]

Except that Carolina's bad losses, UMass and Hofstra, are even worse than Duke"s bad losses.

Agreed But Carolina has one more Top 5 win than Duke at present. Beat ND and we equal them. Then maybe we can compare bad losses. (Sheesh, how I wish we had Richmond and Air Force back, or either one.)

[Indoor66]

Agreed But Carolina has one more Top 5 win than Duke at present. Beat ND and we equal them. Then maybe we can compare bad losses. (Sheesh, how I wish we had Richmond and Air Force back, or either one.)

But we all know that they cheat! :cool:

[budwom]

There's a guy over at Laxpower (good site) named Larry Feldman who does analysis based on previous years' selections, and he
has Duke's chances (now) of getting an at large bid at 58.72% (remember, precision trumps accuracy!)

That puts us in 15th place at this point...not much margin of error to be sure. I think a win vs ND would cement the deal.
(speaking of ND, what a total gack job vs the heels this weekend, ouch. )

[burnspbesq]

The bubble is not a place you want to be this year. Imagine what happens if Penn, Stony Brook, Richmond or High Point, and anybody other than Towson win the Ivy, America East, SoCon, and Colonial tournaments. There go half the at-large bids to teans you had penciled in as AQs. Bucknell? Don't go there. This is the best argument I know for a 24-team bracket. A couple of 2-3 semifinals in conference tournaments look like play-in games: Bucknell-Loyola and Villanova-Marquette for sure, and maybe Yale-Penn.

Nobody knows what to think about Duke: the Blue Devils' poll rankings range from 10 to 17, while Quint has them at number seven.

[fuse]

If you are on the committee, how do you leave out Duke?

You lose out on the narrative of a program fallen from grace, resurrected, multiple titles plus Myles Jones.

I'm in no way saying Duke is in. I am saying Duke being in the tournament is good for the sport.

[buddy]

If you are on the committee, how do you leave out Duke?

You lose out on the narrative of a program fallen from grace, resurrected, multiple titles plus Myles Jones.

I'm in no way saying Duke is in. I am saying Duke being in the tournament is good for the sport.

You have to earn it. The fall from grace and resurrection are old news. The repeat titles are two years old. Beat ND and strengthen the case. Win the tournament and clinch a spot. The committee in the past has shown slavish adherence to RPI. Some tournament upsets and we are outside looking in.

[fuse]

You have to earn it. The fall from grace and resurrection are old news. The repeat titles are two years old. Beat ND and strengthen the case. Win the tournament and clinch a spot. The committee in the past has shown slavish adherence to RPI. Some tournament upsets and we are outside looking in.

Agree Duke has to earn it and the case is shaky.

Might be old news, still storyline fodder for the tournament much the same way Laettner's shot is, or Haywood's miss.

Pretty sure they still talk about the Gait brothers every year :-)

[MCFinARL]

The bubble is not a place you want to be this year. Imagine what happens if Penn, Stony Brook, Richmond or High Point, and anybody other than Towson win the Ivy, America East, SoCon, and Colonial tournaments. There go half the at-large bids to teans you had penciled in as AQs. Bucknell? Don't go there. This is the best argument I know for a 24-team bracket. A couple of 2-3 semifinals in conference tournaments look like play-in games: Bucknell-Loyola and Villanova-Marquette for sure, and maybe Yale-Penn.

Nobody knows what to think about Duke: the Blue Devils' poll rankings range from 10 to 17, while Quint has them at number seven.

Yes, it is anybody's guess what will happen to bubble teams this year. As the sport achieves more parity, things get really tight with 10 AQs (a couple of which go to pretty marginal conferences) and only 18 spots. Any non-favorite who wins an AQ makes things that much tighter for everyone else. From that perspective, a 24-team tournament would be much better and would provide more room to accommodate multiple teams from conferences that are, overall, higher quality than others.

But there are still only 70 division one lacrosse teams. Having a third of them qualify for post-season play would be a lot--by comparison, 68 of 351 D1 basketball teams, or just under 20%, make the tournament. Much as I would like to see that happen, I doubt it will.


If you are on the committee, how do you leave out Duke?

You lose out on the narrative of a program fallen from grace, resurrected, multiple titles plus Myles Jones.

I'm in no way saying Duke is in. I am saying Duke being in the tournament is good for the sport.

I don't know that the narrative is that important any more (although it will likely be mentioned by the commentators if Duke does get in), but Myles Jones--and the potentially explosive Duke offense, which makes the game fun to watch--might tip the scales if there is, essentially, a toss-up call for the last spot. At this point, though, I suspect we may have to beat Notre Dame even to be in that spot, unless a lot of other things happen just exactly the way we would need them to--all favorites for AQs win them and as many as possible at large teams stumble down the stretch.

[Blue in the Face]

Slightly off-topic question (and I apologize if this has been discussed before). Is there a particular reason the ACC has been holding the conference tournament at somewhat random sites for the past few years? The suburbs of philly and atlanta aren't just neutral sites, they're both pretty far from all of the conference's lacrosse schools (and in the case of philly, there's no connection to the conference at all). Seems odd to me, and a bit of a poke in the eye to fans (although obviously any site is going to be inconvenient for at least some fans).

[duke2x]

Slightly off-topic question (and I apologize if this has been discussed before). Is there a particular reason the ACC has been holding the conference tournament at somewhat random sites for the past few years? The suburbs of philly and atlanta aren't just neutral sites, they're both pretty far from all of the conference's lacrosse schools (and in the case of philly, there's no connection to the conference at all). Seems odd to me, and a bit of a poke in the eye to fans (although obviously any site is going to be inconvenient for at least some fans).

1. Primary reason. Maryland was slated to host the ACC tournament the year before they left the conference. This was another way to inflict pain on Maryland before they left.
2. Recruiting. Atlanta has a lot of growth in lacrosse. Most people at the tournament will probably be kids and parents as opposed to fans. Philadelphia is closer to a traditional recruiting base but much less than NYC/Baltimore.

[Doria]

I am planning to watch the Duke-ND game, if possible (I think it will be on TV here). This will be my first lacrosse game, so thanks to this board for bringing it to my attention :)

Go Duke!

[MCFinARL]

I am planning to watch the Duke-ND game, if possible (I think it will be on TV here). This will be my first lacrosse game, so thanks to this board for bringing it to my attention :)

Go Duke!

I hope it will be the first of many--lacrosse is, most of the time, a very exciting game to watch. It's similar to soccer or hockey, but with a lot more scoring.

[53n206]

I am planning to watch the Duke-ND game, if possible (I think it will be on TV here). This will be my first lacrosse game, so thanks to this board for bringing it to my attention :)

Go Duke!

You might find it helpful to review some of the simple rules of the game. I don't know what you find that. Substitution, offsides, play around the crease, and face-offs. Perhaps you already know these facets of the game, but if you don't it might be easier to follow the flow when you're there.

[budwom]

Besides the wonderful pace and generally abundant scoring, it is also possible for teams to come from WAY behind to win because after you score
the opponent doesn't get the ball, there's a faceoff...unc was down something like five goals to ND and ran off seven or so in a row for the win.

Kind of like doing the center jump for hoops after each bucket...makes a good faceoff man absolutely critical.

[BandAlum83]

You might find it helpful to review some of the simple rules of the game. I don't know what you find that. Substitution, offsides, play around the crease, and face-offs. Perhaps you already know these facets of the game, but if you don't it might be easier to follow the flow when you're there.

My daughter was an all-state lacrosse goalie. Sadly, she didn't want to play in college.

Through her many years of play, the rules changed significantly over time. I haven't watched much men's lacrosse, but other than the obvious differences in what's allowable with regards to checking, are there any other basic rules differences from the women's game?

[Doria]

I hope it will be the first of many--lacrosse is, most of the time, a very exciting game to watch. It's similar to soccer or hockey, but with a lot more scoring.


You might find it helpful to review some of the simple rules of the game. I don't know what you find that. Substitution, offsides, play around the crease, and face-offs. Perhaps you already know these facets of the game, but if you don't it might be easier to follow the flow when you're there.

Thanks again, both of you! I will probably just browse wikipedia (which should be reliable enough in this case); I am familiar with NHL rules and kind of familiar with soccer rules, so I'm hoping that will be enough that I won't be totally lost.

It will be nice if I can add another Duke sport I enjoy watching, though I don't know how many games are streamed in my area during the season. I can still follow the recaps, though.

[-jk]

I don't claim to be a lax expert, by any means (but I'm learning, albeit slowly!). All three of soccer, lax, and hockey move in similar ways. But there are subtle, important differences - just look at the out of bounds rules between soccer, lax, and (um...) hockey. Very different tactics required...

-jk

[Doria]

I don't claim to be a lax expert, by any means (but I'm learning, albeit slowly!). All three of soccer, lax, and hockey move in similar ways. But there are subtle, important differences - just look at the out of bounds rules between soccer, lax, and (um...) hockey. Very different tactics required...

-jk

Yes, very true. I am just trying to get up to basic speed (enough to enjoy the game). Any advanced tactical understanding will have to wait. But hockey did give me enough of a grasp that I was able to enjoy watching some soccer games that my roommate's mother had tickets to, when she visited us. So I am hoping that the learning curve will be likewise generous to me.

However, if anyone knows of any good sources of general info, aside from wikipedia, that they can point me toward, I would gladly check them out. Unfortunately, I just won't have enough time between now and Friday to read a ton of detailed information. My weekly work schedule is backloaded this (TV) season.

[dball]

Yes, very true. I am just trying to get up to basic speed (enough to enjoy the game). Any advanced tactical understanding will have to wait. But hockey did give me enough of a grasp that I was able to enjoy watching some soccer games that my roommate's mother had tickets to, when she visited us. So I am hoping that the learning curve will be likewise generous to me.

However, if anyone knows of any good sources of general info, aside from wikipedia, that they can point me toward, I would gladly check them out. Unfortunately, I just won't have enough time between now and Friday to read a ton of detailed information. My weekly work schedule is backloaded this (TV) season.

Try http://www.uslacrosse.org/about-the-sport/history.aspx.

I always felt lacrosse is more similar to basketball in the way the game moves. Hockey and soccer are very similar.

[-jk]

A basic view of the basic rules: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUcZkAcUC7M

-jk

[budwom]

Unlike college hoops which I watch almost entirely with the sound off (saving me from the likes of Elmore, Vitale and Bilas), I find that
generally speaking, the college lax announcers on ESPNU do a good job of describing the game, and if you watch a few games over a period
of time, the basic important rules will become clear quickly.

[Doria]

Unlike college hoops which I watch almost entirely with the sound off (saving me from the likes of Elmore, Vitale and Bilas), I find that
generally speaking, the college lax announcers on ESPNU do a good job of describing the game, and if you watch a few games over a period
of time, the basic important rules will become clear quickly.

Sweet. And thanks for those references. I will check them out on breaks.

[Native]

Unlike college hoops which I watch almost entirely with the sound off (saving me from the likes of Elmore, Vitale and Bilas), I find that
generally speaking, the college lax announcers on ESPNU do a good job of describing the game, and if you watch a few games over a period
of time, the basic important rules will become clear quickly.

Most of the guys who commentate on ESPN played college lacrosse themselves and thus have a vested interest in seeing the sport grow. A lot of the commentary is tailored to new fans or first-timers, which is great. Makes it a lot more accessible to a wider audience.

[MCFinARL]

My daughter was an all-state lacrosse goalie. Sadly, she didn't want to play in college.

Through her many years of play, the rules changed significantly over time. I haven't watched much men's lacrosse, but other than the obvious differences in what's allowable with regards to checking, are there any other basic rules differences from the women's game?

There are a lot of differences--at least there were a lot of differences in 2004. My daughter also played high school lacrosse, with her last season being 2004, though she wouldn't have been a candidate to play in college.

Some big differences, in addition to the limits on checking: in women's lacrosse, defensive players are not allowed to move between an offensive player looking to shoot and the goal if they are not already there when the player gets the ball. There is no such rule in men's lacrosse. The men also play quarters instead of halves. And the men's sticks are allowed to have deeper pockets than the women's, so it's somewhat easier for men to dodge with the ball than women, who may pass more often instead.

[DST Fan]

There are a lot of differences--at least there were a lot of differences in 2004. My daughter also played high school lacrosse, with her last season being 2004, though she wouldn't have been a candidate to play in college.

Some big differences, in addition to the limits on checking: in women's lacrosse, defensive players are not allowed to move between an offensive player looking to shoot and the goal if they are not already there when the player gets the ball. There is no such rule in men's lacrosse. The men also play quarters instead of halves. And the men's sticks are allowed to have deeper pockets than the women's, so it's somewhat easier for men to dodge with the ball than women, who may pass more often instead.


And the women's rules include the free position restarts, which have always struck me as a little curious.

[burnspbesq]

Unlike college hoops which I watch almost entirely with the sound off (saving me from the likes of Elmore, Vitale and Bilas), I find that
generally speaking, the college lax announcers on ESPNU do a good job of describing the game, and if you watch a few games over a period
of time, the basic important rules will become clear quickly.

Agreed, and I would submit that their playing experience has a lot to do with it. Except for Anish, pretty much everyone who calls lax for ESPN is a former D1 player. Quint, Carc, Matt Ward, and Ryan Flanagan were All-Americans. In addition to being a D1 player, Mark Dixon has been a D1 official. They know what's coming at about the same time the players figure it out.

[burnspbesq]

There are a lot of differences--at least there were a lot of differences in 2004. My daughter also played high school lacrosse, with her last season being 2004, though she wouldn't have been a candidate to play in college.

Some big differences, in addition to the limits on checking: in women's lacrosse, defensive players are not allowed to move between an offensive player looking to shoot and the goal if they are not already there when the player gets the ball. There is no such rule in men's lacrosse. The men also play quarters instead of halves. And the men's sticks are allowed to have deeper pockets than the women's, so it's somewhat easier for men to dodge with the ball than women, who may pass more often instead.

I understand the safety motivation for the rule, but don't get me started on "shooting space." Especially these days: smart attackers have learned to anticipate how defenses are going to slide, and run at off-ball defenders to create a violation. Also, coming from the men's game, I'm not a fan of the free-position attempt; I think it penalizes the defense too heavily for relatively minor fouls. I'd prefer a 30-second penalty, as in the men's game.

There is more zone defense allowed in the women's game than in the past, but there are still limits, which I don't think I fully understand. You're still not allowed to just pack the eight-meter area and dare the offense to shoot from outside, but you see more of what would be labeled as "junk" defenses in basketball, like the so-called "backer zone," which has a lot of trapping principles baked into it.

The big change in the women's game comes next year, with the 90-second shot clock.

[burnspbesq]

Penn's at-large chances probably died last night, thanks to an overtime loss to St. Joseph's.

Army and Bucknell won first-round games in the Patriot League tournament, so the semis are set: Army-Navy and Loyola-Bucknell. The Patriot semis start at 4:30 p.m. on Friday at Navy; if you're in the area, it'll be a great night of lacrosse. The games will also be on CBS SN, which makes them a good lead-in to the ACC semis. Of course, some of us will be in Kennesaw ...

[BandAlum83]

There are a lot of differences--at least there were a lot of differences in 2004. My daughter also played high school lacrosse, with her last season being 2004, though she wouldn't have been a candidate to play in college.

Some big differences, in addition to the limits on checking: in women's lacrosse, defensive players are not allowed to move between an offensive player looking to shoot and the goal if they are not already there when the player gets the ball. There is no such rule in men's lacrosse. The men also play quarters instead of halves. And the men's sticks are allowed to have deeper pockets than the women's, so it's somewhat easier for men to dodge with the ball than women, who may pass more often instead.

My daughter graduated in 2011. That period 2004-2011 had a lot of rules changes.

The rule about moving between the shooter and the goal is known as a "Shooting Space" violation in Women's lacrosse. It is for safety, primarily, I believe. So that doesn't exist in men's?

On defense in women's, a zone defense isn't allowed, and within the shooting arc, a player must be within a stick length of the woman being defended. You will see a defense setting up on the arc as a result, while offensive players probe to get inside for passes or with the ball. Charges/blocking calls are common and are similar to basketball.

Are there similar defensive limitations in Men's?

[burnspbesq]

My daughter graduated in 2011. That period 2004-2011 had a lot of rules changes.

The rule about moving between the shooter and the goal is known as a "Shooting Space" violation in Women's lacrosse. It is for safety, primarily, I believe. So that doesn't exist in men's?

On defense in women's, a zone defense isn't allowed, and within the shooting arc, a player must be within a stick length of the woman being defended. You will see a defense setting up on the arc as a result, while offensive players probe to get inside for passes or with the ball. Charges/blocking calls are common and are similar to basketball.

Are there similar defensive limitations in Men's?

There is no shooting space foul in the men's game. Shots hit defenders in front on a pretty regular basis. I got zinged a couple of times during my playing days; it's a great bruise if you get hit on an an upadded area.

Zone defense is allowed in the men's game. What you mostly see is 3-3 or 1-3-2, most often by a team that needs to get control of the tempo. I can't think offhand of a team for which a zone is its base defense. Duke hardly ever plays zone in six-on-six situations. Virginia has historically played a lot of zone.

No block/charge in the men's game. The most common fouls called on the offense (which result in loss of possession) are offside, illegal screen (similar to basketball), interference (contact with a player not within five yards of the ball, which happens mostly when the ball is on the ground), and "warding off" (use of a free arm to protect the stick when in possession of the ball--happens all the time, but you can go an entire weekend of games without seeing it called).

[burnspbesq]

The latest versions of the major bracketologies have Duke comfortably in the tournament (i.e., not on the bubble). A number one SOS helps a lot, as does an RPI of 10 and only one "bad" loss (Air Force and Harvard don't count as bad losses, as both are within the RPI top 25). On those theories, a win against ND would pretty much cement a bid (worst case that would be an RPI top 10 win, and might be a top five win), and an ACC tournament win could get Duke a home game in the first round. All of this assumes no carnage in the other conference tournaments, and assumes a win over BU on Selection Sunday.

As it presently stands, in the IL bracket we're at Hopkins in the first round, and in the LaxMag bracket we're at Navy. Either of those would be tough but winnable games.

[BandAlum83]

There is no shooting space foul in the men's game. Shots hit defenders in front on a pretty regular basis. I got zinged a couple of times during my playing days; it's a great bruise if you get hit on an an upadded area.

Zone defense is allowed in the men's game. What you mostly see is 3-3 or 1-3-2, most often by a team that needs to get control of the tempo. I can't think offhand of a team for which a zone is its base defense. Duke hardly ever plays zone in six-on-six situations. Virginia has historically played a lot of zone.

No block/charge in the men's game. The most common fouls called on the offense (which result in loss of possession) are offside, illegal screen (similar to basketball), interference (contact with a player not within five yards of the ball, which happens mostly when the ball is on the ground), and "warding off" (use of a free arm to protect the stick when in possession of the ball--happens all the time, but you can go an entire weekend of games without seeing it called).

Thanks for taking the time to explain!

What is offsides in the men's game?

[MCFinARL]

I understand the safety motivation for the rule, but don't get me started on "shooting space." Especially these days: smart attackers have learned to anticipate how defenses are going to slide, and run at off-ball defenders to create a violation. Also, coming from the men's game, I'm not a fan of the free-position attempt; I think it penalizes the defense too heavily for relatively minor fouls. I'd prefer a 30-second penalty, as in the men's game.

There is more zone defense allowed in the women's game than in the past, but there are still limits, which I don't think I fully understand. You're still not allowed to just pack the eight-meter area and dare the offense to shoot from outside, but you see more of what would be labeled as "junk" defenses in basketball, like the so-called "backer zone," which has a lot of trapping principles baked into it.

The big change in the women's game comes next year, with the 90-second shot clock.


The latest versions of the major bracketologies have Duke comfortably in the tournament (i.e., not on the bubble). A number one SOS helps a lot, as does an RPI of 10 and only one "bad" loss (Air Force and Harvard don't count as bad losses, as both are within the RPI top 25). On those theories, a win against ND would pretty much cement a bid (worst case that would be an RPI top 10 win, and might be a top five win), and an ACC tournament win could get Duke a home game in the first round. All of this assumes no carnage in the other conference tournaments, and assumes a win over BU on Selection Sunday.

As it presently stands, in the IL bracket we're at Hopkins in the first round, and in the LaxMag bracket we're at Navy. Either of those would be tough but winnable games.

Agree completely about shooting space, not at all my favorite rule. A change in the rule would presumably require the women to wear more protective gear than they do now, but it would improve the game.

Also agree that, considering the current RPI, a win over Notre Dame would almost certainly get Duke in barring complete chaos in the other conferences. Duke has been helped a lot by the continued success of Loyola, which is now a Top 10 win, and Air Force, which as you note is now a Top 20 loss. I think there may even be some chance Duke might get in without beating Notre Dame, although then everything else would probably have to work out perfectly--no crazy upsets in conference tournaments, and Notre Dame goes on to win the ACC AQ.

And Hopkins and Navy as potential opponents seem like winnable, if challenging games. But then, with this particular Duke team, I can't shake the feeling that almost no opponent is too strong for Duke to beat or too weak for Duke to lose to--it may just depend on which Duke team shows up. Here's hoping the team of the Virginia and Marquette games shows up for all the remaining games this season.

[MCFinARL]

Thanks for taking the time to explain!

What is offsides in the men's game?

Basically, if a team has more than six players in the offensive half of the field or more than seven (counting the goalie) in the defensive half, it is offsides. Teams are required to include players in the penalty box against these totals.

[BandAlum83]

Basically, if a team has more than six players in the offensive half of the field or more than seven (counting the goalie) in the defensive half, it is offsides. Teams are required to include players in the penalty box against these totals.

So very similar to the women's game, except for the counting the penalty box player. That always bugged me about the women's game. If you had someone in the penalty box (say an offensive player), you could still slide another player I to the spot (move a defender up when on offense). So you are never really playing a player down, so no "power plays".

The only real impact is the extra running a player might need to do, contributing to fatigue.

That's how it was in 2011.

Interesting that a shot clock is being brought to the game. That will have a huge impact. Is there already a shot clock in the men's game?

[Blue in the Face]

Interesting that a shot clock is being brought to the game. That will have a huge impact. Is there already a shot clock in the men's game?
Only in the case of a stall warning called by the refs, which starts a 30 second shot clock.

[Doria]

Not that it's germane to tomorrow's game, but what is the rationale for counting the penalty box in offsides determination for the women's game? I understand (I guess) the difference in shooting space, though I don't--at first glance--agree that it should be different. But I don't understand the genesis for the offsides calculation difference. Is it bound up in the historical way the game evolved or something? Just wondering, as a point of interest.

(Must say, thanks again for those references. I'm slowly getting caught up and I believe I've a decent handle on rules as written, but it'll probably take a few games until I can see how the rules translate on the field with calls/non-calls.)

[BandAlum83]

Not that it's germane to tomorrow's game, but what is the rationale for counting the penalty box in offsides determination for the women's game? I understand (I guess) the difference in shooting space, though I don't--at first glance--agree that it should be different. But I don't understand the genesis for the offsides calculation difference. Is it bound up in the historical way the game evolved or something? Just wondering, as a point of interest.

(Must say, thanks again for those references. I'm slowly getting caught up and I believe I've a decent handle on rules as written, but it'll probably take a few games until I can see how the rules translate on the field with calls/non-calls.)

I really don't know. It never made sense to me. I can't guarantee its still done that way either. I can't find any specific reference to it on a Google search.

[MCFinARL]

Duke over ND 10-9 in overtime. On to face Cuse in the final on Sunday, and probably into the NCAA tournament.

A crazy game--down 6-2, Duke came all the way back. For most of the game, it was the oft-criticized defense, not the offense, that kept us in.

[budwom]

Duke over ND 10-9 in overtime. On to face Cuse in the final on Sunday, and probably into the NCAA tournament.

A crazy game--down 6-2, Duke came all the way back. For most of the game, it was the oft-criticized defense, not the offense, that kept us in.

No doubt they're in the tournament now. Before the game, the NCAA released its second (I believe) ranking of
how they see the top ten (as of now), and Duke was at number nine....SOS helps for sure, RPI was good, too.
Slimebuckets down the road didn't make the top ten...

[MCFinARL]

No doubt they're in the tournament now. Before the game, the NCAA released its second (I believe) ranking of
how they see the top ten (as of now), and Duke was at number nine...SOS helps for sure, RPI was good, too.
Slimebuckets down the road didn't make the top ten...

Yes, I agree. And Duke was helped by Loyola pulling out an overtime win over Bucknell, so that win is still a solid win.