While only glancing at the rules, it looks like they totally want to transform the men's game to make it a mix of the women's and indoor box game. I think the reasoning is completely wrong i.e. that the proposed rules changes will expand the game. I think it will do the opposite.
My biggest issues are:
1) removal of long poles will drive players to look more like soccer players (especially on defense). You won't have 6'4 Dmen any more (unless they can really run.) because they won't be able to use long pole on defense.
2) smaller rosters will only marginally expand the game at the college level. I guess the thought is that smaller rosters will push more schools to start teams? That seems far fetched given the issue on expansion is Title IX not desire. What will happen is the average DI guys that are the 18th guy on a DI roster (that plays some under the view teams usually play 23-25 guys in a game) and below will move down to DIII. Most DIII guys will be SOL.
3) How this impacts the youth divisions is probably not even contemplated. The issue with the growth in the non-lax areas is number of coaches. With smaller rosters you just made it even harder to get enough coaches. Same at the HS level, you just pushed a bunch of kids of off teams with smaller rosters. Not being on a team isn't going to expand the game.
4) make it/take it rule just reduces the ability to make a comeback.
5) 45 second rule seems way to short even with a reduced sized field.
6) Looking at the bio of the FIL - never played lacrosse, was a wrestler, this sucks because this a done deal.
I think the goal of getting lacrosse back into the Olympics with the idea that that will grow the game is absurd on its face. You will PO the traditionalist but only pick up the margins for a short time frame...much like curling gets a boost every Winter Olympics. And, this is based on that it is unlikely to even get into the Olympics.
Olympics but don't screw up our game," to sum up and paraphrase...
for speed, stick skills (with the more awkward long stick), the ability to force turnovers and to play close D. The "Olympic rules" eliminate the position and diminish the game. Me no likee
That is a good athlete that can get the ball off the carpet.
Olympics will bring in new sports with a limited number of players. I heard the goal is to get rosters much smaller. If you have a slim roster of 20 players and 32 teams (16M/W) + coaches and staff that is 1,000 more people needing housing, food, etc. That's a concern but not as bad as a roster of 30-40 players with specialties. The rules changes are designed to make the game faster and less-specialized so rosters are more streamlined.
That is the argument from 2 close friends who are very active with FIL and who coach international teams.
How that affects elbow pads and other changes - not sure.
it strikes me also as like sevens in rugby
But the proposal is losers out, rather than make-it-take-it:
"After a goal – goalies have 5-seconds to put the ball in play be either passing it or running it out of the goal circle"
"Draws – at start of each period and OT"
Fewer players, smaller field, shorter games...
The last team to touch the ball before going out of bounds loses possession. A missed shot no longer goes to the team with the player nearest the ball when it goes out, which should lead to many more change of possessions if implemented.