Dear NCAA Administrators and Rules Committee Members,

We are writing this email on behalf of many Head Coaches to express our concern regarding the implementation of the new rule “Rule 6-Green Cards in the Midfield”. We understand the importance of safety in our game and the intentions behind this rule. We respect the time the Rules Committee and NCAA has invested to develop the new rules. After being given the opportunity to play with the new rules this fall, we feel there are many unintended consequences to Rule 6 that threaten the growth, tradition and safety of our game and players who play it.

We understand the rules process and our voice within this process. However, given there was never an experimental period for this rule and we were not able to understand the full scope of the unintended consequences from this rule until playing with it this fall, we believe some of the previous feedback and surveys do not adequately represent our opinions. We hope you will consider our concerns and possible solutions below.

Below is a list of all the unintended consequences we have found from playing this fall.

Adverse Effects of Growth of the Game

Lengthening the Game - The addition of green cards in midfield increases the stoppage of the clock within our game. Something we have worked to eliminate throughout the recent years. While play can resume prior to the player who received the card leaving the field, the table operator, clock operator, and official (responsible for making sure information is conveyed to table, the right number people are on field, teams are onside, etc.) are not able to manage this process quickly.

Inconsistent Rules Throughout the Field - Rule 6, only specifies green cards in between the restraining lines. This makes fouls within this 40 yard area a green card, while the same foul outside of the area is essentially a play on. Over the years we have worked to simplify and condense our rules in order to make our game more fan friendly. The inconsistency causes our game to be confusing and frustrating for our players to compete. A one yard difference on the field drastically changes the penalty for the same foul. For the same reason, it becomes difficult for officials to officiate and for fans to understand. Also, This fall, we have seen teams on offense, inside the 30 yard line, intentionally go back across the 30, toward their own goal, to try and draw green cards, in an attempt to draw a foul, get a power play and a shot clock reset. This area between the 30’s can also be used, at the end of game, or killing a penalty as a place to safely waste time with limited pressure and attempting again to gain an unintended advantage by drawing fouls.

Development and Growth of Officials - Lack of officials and quality officials is a challenge in our sport. Lacrosse continues to be growing rapidly but our officials are not growing at the same rate. The constant change of rules makes it difficult for officials to continue to grow in their training. Additionally, it is not making it easy to add new officials to the ranks as they are constantly having to learn new rules.

Different Rules Across Levels - The rules between youth, HS, college, international and pro are all different. While there have been many changes that have been beneficial to the growth of our game (i.e. shot clock, free movement, running through the crease) and not implemented across all levels, we believe consistency where we can have it is very important. We want our game to continue to grow and young athletes to fall in love with lacrosse. As it is now, the lack of consistency in the game from one level to next, can make it hard and frustrating for athletes of the sport.

Negative Impact on TV - For reasons listed above (lengthening of game, lack of consistency in rules leading to game becoming harder to understand for average fan and to officiate consistently), our game is becoming less TV friendly. Our governing body has worked extremely hard over the years to grow our game and the exposure of our game. This new rule will impact that previous work. We would like to add, we do not value TV and growth over safety. We believe there are ways to ensure the safety of our players and continue to push our game forward (we will expand on this later).

Adverse Effects on Tradition and Integrity of the Game

The Draw - The draw is a crucial part of our game. This can impact the outcome of the game. Over the years, we have changed the rules to ensure safety of players around the draw (limiting people on circle, holding restraining lines until possession, etc.). This is an area of our game where our players have to compete. To have players penalized for competing for a 50/50 ball with a 1 minute penalty is detrimental to the integrity of our game. The egregious fouls that may occur on the draw, should be carded by a yellow card. Any other penalties that occur out of just competing for the draw should continue to be penalized by possession to the other team. 

Transition Play - Given the new rule, it has changed the way the game is played in the midfield, specifically in between the restraining lines. It has eliminated the impact of the ride in our sport. This is another component of our game that can alter the outcome of a game or a championship. We stand by protecting the players and their safety, and again believe this can be achieved by yellow carding major fouls in midfield. As we understand it, the purpose behind the green card was in large part to eliminate the dangerous play in the midfield. In our fall experience, we have found that many of the green cards are being called for plays that are not inherently dangerous. These include holds, incidental contact or box outs going for a loose ball, and at times the minimal physical contact in midfield that is often initiated as much by offensive player as the defensive. 
As a note: We do believe going offsides on your defensive end should stand as a green card as this is a delay of game. 

Inconsistent Calls - In any sport, you will deal with inconsistent calls. The issue with this new rule is two fold: 1. The same foul carries different weight on different parts of the field outside of the CSA and 2. Fouls that do not pose a safety concern (like a hold) within the midfield are being given a green card while more serious fouls outside of the area are just a whistle/play on. These calls can determine the outcome of the game and that takes away from the integrity of our game. 

From our experience this fall, these rules are still being “ironed out” and there is no consistency from game to game in how the officials are interpreting the rules. When we first implemented “self starts” there was some lack of clarity on the rules. Similar to the green card, the self start rule was not consistent throughout the game as the rule changed during the last two minutes of a half. Games were won or lost based on this early in the season. Our players dedicate too much time to their sport, to have a game that could be the difference between a championship, making postseason, etc.  be won or lost because we have not had the time to thoroughly work through the implementation and unintended consequences of a rule.  

Effects on Safety

Increased Game Duration - Potential to cause more fatigue and diminished player control/decision making. There is a greater risk of injuries from collision, collapse and fatigue. 

Increase Physicality in Different Areas - Because the penalty for a foul differs in different areas, players are incentivized to be more aggressive in the defensive/offensive ends. Teams will strategize to increase the aggressiveness in these areas of their ride, players will take more risks in these areas because they know the penalty is different.

Student Athlete Input

Finally, and arguably most importantly, these drastic and significant changes to the sport have been made with little, if any, input from the most affected,  the student athletes. Over the last several years, the NCAA has made a concerted effort to rightfully include student athletes in decision making processes that affect their experiences as student athletes. See “voices for change”

The fact that the student athletes' opinions have not been solicited leads to a very strong argument that these rules should be better vetted and are not timely for the 2024 Women’s Lacrosse season.

Given the above, we have a few recommendations below  that we hope the committee will take the time to review and consider:

1. Allow all stakeholders the proper time to make sure we get this right. Without concrete evidence, or data,  it is dangerous to implement changes that could potentially have unintended consequences. Continue to look at the unintended consequences of  rule 6. We should gather as much information as possible by:  soliciting feedback from fall contests; survey the coaches, officials and players; make adjustments, so the rules have the effects that the rules committee intended; and gather data on length of game, number of green cards issued; what fouls the green cards were issued for and number of green cards off the draw verse in transition, etc. 

2. Allow coaches, officials and players more time to adjust and understand any new rules and their interpretations. 

3. Continue to utilize yellow cards, they are and have always been a great tool to deter over physical play. 

4. Solicit student athlete feedback.

If the rules are not changed or delayed, based on the above suggestions, we hope our concerns will  be taken into consideration when implementing and interpreting these rules. Many of us have been on the rules committee prior and understand the dedication and time spent to both grow our game and keep it safe. We all care deeply about the safety, tradition and integrity of our game. We welcome any dialogue on these matters.

Thank you for your time in reading our letter and your consideration of our concerns and solutions.