Talk:Lacrosse/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

History

The almost complete lack of information on the games origins is sad. I play with Onondadas for years, and to them Lacrosse is still more than a sport.

The game was developed by the Six Nations, Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas, Akwesanse, colectivly call the Iroquois. It was often used for land disputes, witch is why it was called the "little brother of war," it was used insted. It was also played all year round, frozen rivers were often utilized.

Every on of the Nations had there own style stick, the one closed to the ones we use now was the Akwesanse, it was actualy used Until Brine came out with the L-88(I believe), the firts plastic stick. In Box lacrosse there are still players that perffer the all wood style very simmilar to the Akwesanse.

Another Intesting fack traditionally you will never see a women playing lacrosse. On the Onondaga reservation it is consider bad luck for a girl to even toach a lacrosse stick. I would never see a mother carring her sons stick, it just didnt happen.

They still play traditional style games today. They are reffered to as medicine games. They are played for the well being of the communtity and also play in honnor of specific clan mothers.

I have researched none of this information, it is all first hand experiance. What I have seen and have been told by the people who created the game. Hopefull someone who has more time will be able to to add more information of the true origin of the game. As in not a Canadian Cricket Club —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.123.72 (talk • contribs) 00:03, April 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • The article says "Lacrosse was named Canada's National Game in 1859" and later it says that in 1867, George Beers, codified the game. I am removing the 1859 thing since Canada confederation was in 1867. Add correct info if you can cite a source. Cafe Nervosa | talk 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


In that case, maybe you can review the information and see if it's indeed factual. I know nothing about how the natives played, but the bloody description of the "little war" they have seemed a bit wild westish and fanciful -RudyB


There is actually a History of Lacrosse page that is sadly lacking information. Perhaps the historical information on this page should be merged into that page, and the History page should be expanded. I will do what I can to expand on the History section. Comments? --DO11.10 19:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "lacrosse is the continent's oldest sport", but an Economist article says that there is an ancient Mesoamerican game called ulama. The game, which is still played today, has a continuous history going back almost 4,000 years. (see http://www.urbanhonking.com/truefan/archives/2004/05/ulama.html) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.40.145 (talk • contribs) 18:20, December 1, 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be oldest mainstreem sport- I don't know about elsewhere, but our high schools here in New England don't go out to root for their ulama teams. - RudyB

Mainstream...? Well, talking in a continental level, lacrosse is far from mainstream... it's actually pretty marginal even in the USA. The sport is definitely not the oldest in the continent, and the "mainstream" adjective is debatable. It may be said that it is the oldest organized competition game, but that would still be debatable... the mesoamerican ball games had well defined rules. I'm going to change it to "one of the oldest", and maybe somebody will come up with a better way to define this sport. Luiscolorado 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, the 5 iroquois nations were (East to West) Mohawk, Oneida, Ononodaga, Cayuga, Seneca. Later the Tuscorora (sp?) were added. Akwesasne refers to a settlement on the St. Lawrence River I believe. These were not the Iroquois names for themselves, but were applied by other tribes, just as the word Iroquois is a french derivation of an Algonquin word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruggerjvd (talk • contribs) 11:46, March 13, 2006 (UTC)

Using hands

There is no information about using your hands to catch the ball, deflect the ball, etc. Is it allowed? -- 210.49.97.131 11:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. Only the goalie is allowed to use his hands. Deflection off the hands doesn't matter, it still counts as it being deflected by the person. However, I'm pretty sure you can't stick your arm out to stop it. If you get hit by it, that's a different story.
Catching it with your hands is just a bad idea in general, since over time players get very good at using their sticks. Using your hands would be more of a crutch, instead of helping you. X audax 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Touching the ball with your hand is illegal, unless your hand is on your stick (if so, it is considered part of your stick) or you are the goalie, who may bat away, but not catch or throw the ball with his hand APW 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lacrosse Around the World

Very little mention is made in this article regarding other countries that play lacrosse. The sport in particular has been played in Australia since 1870's. Women's lacrosse was created in the United Kingdom. The rules of lacrosse and much of the article represent the USA version of the game and does not reflect the international rules and perspective. Ozdaren 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm... No mention of the World Games? I haven't read every word of the article yet, but judging by the discussions I've skimmed through it seems that fact is missing. It needs to be in here, and maybe a list of all the champions. No? J-Dog 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad, I did find the World Games mentioned, although I think we can still add more. I'll work on that. I did add a bit to show that it's not all about the N. American continent. Hope this helps move towards a more honest representation of who widespread the game really is. J-Dog 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Domination" of Division I

It seems there is some non-neutral POV additions surrounding the "domination" of Division I lacrosse. It is silly to believe that some of these listed teams that are rarely ranked #1-3 and have not won a title can be considered "dominating" Division I. Maryland is frequently in the final 4, but haven't won the title since 1975, and aren't close to dominating D1. Navy has been strong, but have never won the title and apart from a recent year or two, aren't a perennial final 4 staple or top 5 team either.

On the contrary, I would be tempted to delete this "dominating" wording altogether, as the parity of lacrosse increases and no teams truly dominate the division anymore. Virginia and Hopkins have consistently been #1/2/3, although both have had a disappointing year or two in the past five. Syracuse, Princeton, and Maryland (consistent #1-6 in past decade) have been bi-polar at times as well. Duke is coming on strong, but a few years ago they were a consistent 4th place ACC team. No team is really dominating the division anymore. I would replace the entire sentence listing the six dominating teams. I would replace it with a table or chart showing the final 4s, runner-up, and national titles of each team in the past decade -- this would give a much more accurate indications of the strength of current teams and the top current D1 schools.

There is quite a bit of non-neutral POV in this article, you can simply go through it and easily pick out a certain college or two that have been hyped up through additions. This really doesn't need to be an advertisement for your favorite school. I have not deleted anything yet as I am going to see if anyone has any further suggestions and I need to gather some information if I am going to create a more reflective item in its place. Scott930 01:06, 09 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your comments and aims.Sfahey 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There have only been 4 teams that have won national championships. I changed the dominating teams to those as they have credentials. USNA has as much stake as Loyola College does in being in that list.

Syracuse has won 9 National Championships and has been to the Final Four 24 straight times. That's domination! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.13.140 (talk • contribs) 15:52, April 1, 2006 (UTC)

There have been 7 programs recognized as NCAA champions in Division I Lacrosse: Cornell, Virginia, Maryland, Johns Hopkins, North Carolina, Syracuse and Princeton. Also, Syracuse has technically won 8 national titles. Their 1990 title was ruled as "vacated" as a result of Paul Gait playing while ineligible [[1]] . In the future please put your name and date stamp on the page and please do more research before posting. Phimu222 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

A glossary might help. For instance the word stick-checks, I have a good idea of what it means, but a definition might be useful.

meatclerk 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to use the word "squaws" instead of simply "women?" Why is important to use the word "braves" instead of "men?" I can't see what this kind of terminology adds to the article, since it is obvious we are talking about Indians in any event. But, on the contrary, having a special word to mean "Indian woman" tends to indicate that Indians are fundamentally not the same as Europeans. Referring to young Indian men specifically as "braves," a word with strong military connotations, is also undesirable. (European settlers were also likely to spend a certain portion of their lives in military affairs, but we rarely speak of them as "militiamen" unless in certain very specific contexts.) I believe the use of these terms is ill-advised in an encyclopedia, and plan to remove them unless some other editor can show me the error of my ways.--Craigkbryant 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

These changes have now been made. "Squaws" is replaced by "women," "braves" by "young men." --Craigkbryant 14:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I oppose this edit. Why overly P.C.-ify what was otherwise an accurate statement? Just who do you expect to be offended by the term that you deleted? "Squaw" and "brave" are not negative terms. I respectfully suggest reversion. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging me on the talk page. I don't see it as overly PC, for the reason that I am not requesting some kind of new, special term to refer to Indian men and women. In fact, I am doing just the opposite: calling women "women" and men "men." Why wouldn't we want to do that? Why, in fact, would we feel we need a special word--borrowed from an Algonquian language--to refer to all Indian women in North America? The answer is simple: to create and emphasize a distinction between Indian women and "normal" women, which is to say, white Europeans. Calling people "squaws," particuarly in 17th, 18th or 19th century North America, means you don't have to think about whether you would think about or deal with "women" in the same way. "Squaw" is not a special role particular to Indian societies (like "medicine man" or "chief"), and so there is no call for a distinct vocabulary item to refer to these people. Consider whether we would be comfortable using a word like "negress" to refer to, say, Coretta Scott King or Condoleezza Rice.

Of course, it's possible--perhaps even easy--to carry this sort of thing too far. I might mention the gracious German "Herren and Frauen" I met on vacation last summer, and (probably) no one would take exception. But the moral qualities of words are not some kind of absolute, independent of usage and history. We can try to argue that "squaw" is not a negative term, but it is part of a five-century legacy of dehumanization and, not to put to fine a point on it, genocide. You may mean no disrespect in the world when you use it, but you can't escape that legacy.

Fine, you might say, then we will reclaim the word by using it in a positive way--by using it to talk about the history of this wonderful sport, lacrosse. So I'll close my argument by asking: why would we need to? Why do we need a special word that means "Indian woman," but not a special word that means "colonial European woman?"

The case with "brave" is similar, but less extreme. "Brave" is a word with a strong military context (Europeans get to have "soldiers" to defend them, Indians get "braves"). We would find it odd to refer to European settlers as "militiamen" outside the specific contexts of drill and combat, even if they were, say, at a marksmanship contest or wrestling match, or out hunting. Warfare was a part of life for young Indian males. It wasn't for Europeans? Then why a different word?

I stand by the edit and consider that it is only appropriate for the world-class, neutral encyclopedia that Wikipedia aspires to be.

Best, --Craigkbryant 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree.Sfahey 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Squaw is definitely a highly offensive term in Canada (there was recently a national controversy over whether a magazine had been right to quote someone who used the word to describe the premier of Alberta's wife), which makes it offensive in at least half the countries in which First Nations people live. As for brave, I too see no use for it, and agree that it seems dehumanizing. Man is obviously more appropriate. John FitzGerald 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The word Squaw is offensive because it is a word denoting female genitalia. It is like calling an American or Canadian woman a cunt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.237.37 (talk • contribs) .

Well, according to our very own article on the subject, that's erroneous. Powers 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Site Plugs

Can we please only have external links that are non-commercial and neutral, rather than adding in personal favourite teams or personal business (eg photos site)? Lukeoz 11:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Name of the game

I corrected an error on the main page, having to do with the name of the game in the original native language. In Ojibway, the word for lacrosse was Baggataway, which translated to "bump hips". Also, the Iroquois did not refer to Lacrosse as "Little Brother of War", that was the Cherokee translation of the phrase I do not know. I am fairly certain that the Iroquous word Tewaarton does not mean "Little Brother of War", but I do not know the translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruggerjvd (talk • contribs) 11:50, March 13, 2006 (UTC)

Ball speed

A hockey broadcast I'm listening to just ran an ad claiming the hockey puck is the fastest object in sports, but then they also claim that Molson's tastes good. Whatever.

I found some numbers, but nothing for the lacrosse ball which I suspect is faster than the 103 mph Al Macinnis slap shot. I haven't played Lacrosse myself, but that's an awfully long lever arm.

  • Jai-Alai 302.5 km/h
  • Badminton 289 km/h
  • Golf ball 270 km/h
  • Squash 241 km/h
  • Tennis 228 km/h
  • Table tennis 178 km/h
  • Hockey puck 165 ish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaxEnt (talk • contribs) 19:08, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

Change of Lacrosse from redirect to disambiguation

I really disagree with changing Lacrosse from a redirect to disambiguation when I think one of the other disambiguation solutions is more applicable in this case. Viewing the "what links here", it appears if almost all the links are referring to the sport. If you do a google search, I'm sure the majority of results would also refer to the sport. I never heard of the satellite or the car by the name until August. I think the better solution in this case is to move Lacrosse (sport) back to Lacrosse and then put a link on the page to Lacrosse (disambiguation). Read Wikipedia:disambiguation for more information on how to perform disambiguation. In this case, I strongly believe Lacrosse (the sport) is the primary topic. RedWolf 06:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

There are at least 42,000 hits on Google for the satellite. It's not an unknown entity. The car itself is new. -Joseph 11:17, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting it was an unknown entity. Searching for the sport on Google returns 1,890,000 hits. RedWolf 17:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is no way I can fix that since I am not an admin. -Joseph 18:35, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC) Eh?

Changing of external link.

An IP user changed the History of Lacrosse link, as can be seen here (don't want to give the URL potentially undue google rank, know what I mean?). Can someone review this link? It seems to have some info, but I really don't know anything about Lacrosse, as I just came to this article checking on another IP that has been engaging in vandalism.--Drat (Talk) 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the link. I'm not sure what you wanted but it seems accurate and fine. It has good info and I think its good. --Yarnalgo 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I forgot all about this. The point I was making was that they changed it from one link to another link, meaning that the first link is no longer in the article. What was that one like?--Drat (Talk) 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Lacrosse/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

There aren't enough references (only 2), violating 2a and 2b on WP:WIAGA. That also leads to questionable statistics, details, numbers, years, etc., violating 1a, 2d, and 4a. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Native American attitudes toward lacrosse

Earlier today I added a phrase to the lacrosse article indicating that the game was originally played by Native American men as a means of pleasing the Creator (in their view). This was deleted and I was sent a nasty note telling me not to commit vandalism. Give me a break. If you want references from actual Native Americans who INVENTED this game and still play it, as to what the game means to them and why it was originally played, I will gladly provide them. Don't just send out snide messages claiming it's "vandalism." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.237.37 (talk • contribs) 18:22, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

Long-stickers

It says "One midfield and defesemen" can carry longer sticks. Does that mean that two or four players can carry them? As in, one midfielder and all defensemen or one midfielder and one defensemen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizznot (talk • contribs) .

  • A team can have four players on the field at all times with long-sticks. All three defensemen have long-sticks at all times. Not a rule, just widely practiced srategy. When the ball is in the deffensive end, usually a short-stick mifielder, or middie, subs out and a long-stick middie subs in. This is done without the use of a time out, or "on the fly". When the ball is cleared out of the defensive end, the long-stick middie subs out, and the short-stick middie subs back in. Length of long-sticks are a max of 72 inches. Hope this helps clear things up. J-Dog 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Should also be noted that in Major League Lacrosse you can only have three long-sticks on the field at one time—midfield or defense. --Yarnalgo 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Globalization

Ozdaren (talk · contribs) has added a tag to the article indicating it's too US-centric. I don't think that's the case at all. I think it covers Canadian and US lacrosse equally, and mentions international lacrosse at the end. Considering that the sport originated in North America, is still dominated by North American teams (US, Canada, and native teams alike), I really don't see much opportunity for expanding the international section. Powers 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this also mean Football (Soccer) should be focused on the UK as that is where the sport began? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozdaren (talk • contribs) .
Considering that soccer is not today dominated by the UK, I don't think your analogy holds. Look, I'm not against this article taking a more global view; I just don't see much opportunity to do so. What can be said about Australian or British lacrosse that isn't already mentioned in the article? I'm not asking to be adversarial; I genuinely don't know. Powers 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's OK I don't find you to be adversarial. What I'm attempting to do is make the article a general one about the sport. Other info such as NCAA lacrosse etc should form a part of a US lacrosse article. Being a lacrosse person from Australia (if you couldn't tell already..) I just see this from a non US set of eyes. Any way it doesn't seem to be a burning issue with too many people. Perhaps let this run for another week or so and then see what the consensus is. If there is really no discussion then perhaps the status quo should remain. Ozdaren 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacrosse v USA lacrosse

The article is titled Lacrosse. It only really covers lacrosse in the US. It does mention the history of lacrosse from its modern origins in Canada. Aside from that the article focuses on the US. This includes US college lacrosse and professional lacrosse. There is a definite bias towards this area. It also only briefly mentions women's lacrosse. At the 2002 world championships Australia came 3rd after Canada at the men's worlds. The Australians narrowly missed out on competing against the US. Currently Australia is the world women's champions. If you look at the article it should use neutral language to describe the sport, perhaps describing it through the eyes of the rules used by the International Lacrosse federation. Instead it is focuses heavily on the US. What about UK lacrosse, there are many clubs that are well over a 100 years old. A similar situation exists in Australia. The sport is also growing in Europe, in particular Germany. Perhaps the article can be split into a more neutral general spiel about the sport and then have links to the current competing countries. Globalisation occured 135 years ago when the sport was successfully introduced to the UK and Australia. Ozdaren 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacrosse is USA Lacrosse, UK Lacrosse is a variation of Lacrosse and should be treated as such. Rlk89 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a fairly short-sighted and maybe even arrogant comment there! Lacrosse is Lacrosse, USA Lacrosse is a variation of lacrosse as is UK and Canadian and Australian etc... This article should be written from an international viewpoint. Even if Americans consist of probably 75% of the world's players, Wikipedia is an international resource and so articles should be written bearing this in mind. Articles regarding specific variations of lacrosse in the USA, for example NCAA, MLL, NLL, high school can and should have their own articles under the Lacrosse category. Listing ten different American states as burgeoning lacrosse communities seems superfluous, and is best located in a dedicated article about Lacrosse in the USA.
Admittedly I am Aussie as well, but I think for an article that is nominating for "Good Article" standard, that a general "Lacrosse" article should be just that, a general, non-regional article about the sport in an international sense. Lukeoz 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fastest game on two feet/Introduction

I think there should be some mention in the intro about lacrosse as the 'Fastest Sport on Two Feet' as it is known around the world. Furthermore, I find the listing of game durations at the different levels is rambling and awkward. Any thoughts? Wwwhhh 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Wwwhhh that the game durations creates an awkward start. --Tjr9898 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone took this out for being uncited:
Billed as the 'Fastest Sport on Two Feet'
But as I recall that's definitely used in ads for the New Westminster Salmonbellies and other British Columbia lacrosse teams; so it's definitely billed somewhere, if not worldwide; I'll see if I can dig up some bumpf from the teams/divisions/promotions that use the slogan.Skookum1 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A search on Google returns 15,000 results, the bulk of which were about Lacrosse.[2] --Kmsiever 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood. A Google search is not a reliable source, however. There's also the point I made in the edit summary that it's misplaced as well. The subject of the article should be as close to the first word of the article as possible. "Billed as the Fastest Sport on Two Feet" sounds too much like advertising copy to be placed first, and I'd be wary of putting it anywhere in the lede. Powers T 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting Google is a reliable source, but it is considered reliable for determining notability. If anything, it shows the phrase is popular. I do agree though that a better source should be found. --Kmsiever 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of box or field lacrosse is the Canadian Nat'l Sport?

I know, you'd think it would be hockey, but lacrosse is the official national sport; I'm just not sure whether it's box or field lacrosse that's the "official form". Came here looking for appropriate category tags for the New Westminster Salmonbellies, also noting while researching them that the Coquitlam Adanacs (formerly the New Westminster Adanacs AFAIK) doesn't have an article; I'll check the cat tags at the Victoria Shamrocks and the Vancouver Burrards articles; whops the Burrards don't have an article either but leaving redlinks in place as reminders. But I think this article should mention that it's Canada's official national sport, and provide listings of Canadian teams/links; I note the US-bias tag and find it kind of ironic; mind you, many pro players in Canada get their experience in the NCAA, so.....Skookum1 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the 1994 National Sports of Canada Act [3], both hockey and lacrosse are the national sports of Canada (ice hockey in the winter and lacrosse in the summer). The bill does not specify a form of lacrosse, although box lacrosse isn't played much in the summer. =) Powers 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Box lacrosse is only played in the summer, as far as I know. Its offshoot indoor lacrosse is played in the winter. John FitzGerald 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not being a hockey fan (very un-Canadian, and proudly so), it had slipped my mind that hockey had been added by legislation as a national sport in '94; it was an irony of Canadian identity until then that the national sport was something most people didn't watch or care about (even though ice hockey began as "lacrosse-on-ice"). Out here in BC, until the boom in rec centre construction with increased suburbanization in the '70s and '80s, hockey never used to be a big sport (despite the local obsession since the Canucks came along), and lacrosse and rugby and soccer were the main outdoor sports (and baseball, when it wasn't raining...); volleyball and basketball the main indoor sports (hence Steve Nash). One of our neighbours and his brothers had been Salmonbellies, and his nephews were star players in my time (family name was Delmonico; Herb was also one of BC's first bodybuilders), hence what little knowledge/awareness I have of the sport until the last few years when I wound up coffeeing with some of the New West guys and was friends with the team's trainer/physio....anyway, just felt that a mention of Lacrosse as (one of) Canada's (two) national sport(s) should be made in the article, although will have to think of the wording given lacrosse's long standing as the only national sport/ and not sure what year it was first legislated as the national sport in; also should be mention of the role of First Nations/Native American athletes and teams like the Iroquois Nationals in the sport.Skookum1 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I started the Iroquois Nationals article and added some info to this article. The '94 official sports act stated hockey and lacrosse, not sure if lacrosse was official before that. I'll add a cite to the article if it's still missing, will check now. heqs 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely the national sport beforehand; that was drilled into us in high school as one of the national ironies (a few of our teachers had axes to grind on various counts); not sure what year it was enacted by statute, but it could very well have been right from the start of Confederation, given the history of the sport, especially in "Old Canada".Skookum1 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

I have created a proposal for a new WikiProject about lacrosse. Please check out the temporary project page at User:MrBoo/WikiProject Lacrosse and sign your name if you are interested.

Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Position (team sports)

This evening I added team sports to the Position disambiguation and started to write the position (team sports) article. My start is mainly links to Wikipedia articles and sections. Perhaps it should eventually include a general discussion of something like player specialization.

From this article on lacrosse, I think goalkeeper may be the only official position (it is "designated") among conventional positions, and may be the only position that is highly specialized. Right?

Maybe position (team sports) can use a general characterization that fits several "Goalkeeper sports" (my term of the moment) and one that fits several "Server sports" (my term), where the particular sports can simply be listed. I'm not sure. Look at what I wrote for volleyball as a "server sport".

Cricket and the three biggest North American team sports all have one specialized articles devoted to field(ing) positions. Association/soccer football has that too (although it is a goalkeeper sport). So I simply linked to those specialized articles. --P64 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One clue to thinking about this might be how left-handed and right-handed players mix on the field. Do some positions need right-handed and some need left-handed players? Or different positions might be defined in the rules but not covered in this article. Concerning the length of the sticks, it seems from the article that there are limited differences as a matter of strategy --and tradition, if middle and low levels follow what the high level teams do. --P64 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)