Quick Sticks: LaxxTV Announces 2013 Schedule


Editor’s Note: While there are a couple NCAA D2 games towards the end of the season, it is great to see an MCLA heavy broadcast schedule. LaxxTV will be featuring live games on their website throughout the season. This is a fantastic opportunity for the MCLA to get some well-deserved publicity and exposure nationwide. Very exciting stuff! 

We will be adding all of these games to our 2013 TV schedule, so make sure to stay tuned so you can catch all the games being broadcast on the TV and streamed over the internet.


LaxxTV Announces 2013 Schedule

Richmond, VA – LaxxTV is proud to announce live professional webcast and replay coverage of the upcoming 2013 season.  Including games from the MCLA & NCAA, LaxxTV is changing the way you follow lacrosse.

“After our first year, we are even more committed to giving fans more access to live & tape delay games throughout the United States which is why we selected these games.” Says co-founder Will Oakley.  Oakley continued, “ We are excited to improve upon our coverage last year and continue to grow the game of lacrosse.  Our setup will provide our users with a great user experience and allow them to see a wide variety of teams play.”



Portland v. Portland StPortlandMCLA D2


Oregon v. Western OregonEugeneMCLA D1


Fraser v. OregonEugeneMCLA D1


California v. NortheasternCaliforniaMCLA D1


Boise State v. WashingtonSeattleMCLA D1


Minnesota-Duluth v. Cal PolyMinnesotaMCLA D1


Cal Poly v. Arizona StateMinnesotaMCLA D1


Minnesota-Duluth v. Arizona StateMinnesotaMCLA D1


California v. Sonoma StateCaliforniaMCLA D1


Dominican v. Chestnut HillDominicanNCAA D2


Arizona v. WashingtonSeattleMCLA D1


Southern Oregon v. WhitmanPortlandMCLA D2


Sonoma State v. Oregon StateCorvallisMCLA D1


SCAD v. Missouri BaptistAtlantaMCLA D2


Kennesaw v. Missouri BaptistAtlantaMCLA D2


Chico State v. Oregon StateCorvallisMCLA D1


UMD v. MissouriDuluthMCLA D1


Brigham Young v. OregonCaliforniaMCLA D1


Brigham Young v. CaliforniaCaliforniaMCLA D1


St. Thomas v. Western OregonMinnesotaMCLA D2


St. John’s v. Western OregonMinnesotaMCLA D2


St. Thomas v. St. Johns’MinnesotaMCLA D2


Oregon v. IdahoBendMCLA D1


St. Johns’ v. NDSUMinnesotaMCLA D2


Portland v. Western OregonSalemMCLA D2


Minnesota v. St. John’sMinnesotaMCLA D2


Minnesota v. St. ThomasMinnesotaMCLA D2


Dominican v. WhittierDominicanNCAA D2


Minnesota v. UMDMinnesotaMCLA D1


Oregon v. Oregon StateSalemMCLA D1


St. Cloud State v. Minnesota-MankatoMankatoMCLA D1




NDNU v. DominicanKezarNCAA D2

These games will be available on the LaxxTV platform. In addition, LaxxTV is offering for teams to utilize the LaxxTV platform to stream their games to help provide their fans access to their games.

“We are continuing to provide teams and fans 24/7/365 access to high level lacrosse. “ says co-founder Panchito Ojeda.  “We are excited about giving back to the game that gave us so much throughout our lives.  Growing our sport through online media is our mission and we believe this ought to get us one step closer to accomplishing that mission.”

About LaxxTV

LaxxTV is changing the way you follow lacrosse by providing online streaming of games, access to all the news and information through its news aggregation and intuitive way to talk about pressing issues in lacrosse in the LaxxTV forums.


    • Personal preference is one thing. Effectively cheating by having a pocket that skirts the rules is another.

      I think creativity started to outpace regulation, and I like guys trying to find advantages. But I also like the rules to help foster a game of skill and passing.

      This seemed to be a middle ground. Personally, I’d prefer to see even wider heads down the line, and less restrictions on stringing. Think that could work?

  1. I heard at one point they thought by having the donut guys could slash harder by having more torque. Personally I think it’s one of the dumbest rules out there. Second, I completely agree with the getting rid of the back of the stick check. For me it was hit or miss with a stick. Some of them had basically no hold and rattled when the ball was in the stick, but in the back of the stick it got stuck, while others would fall right out of the back of the stick but I could barely get the ball out of the pocket if I tried. 

  2. Fascinating post…the first rule is really untenable (my 1984 laserlite has a 4 inch in diameter butt end!)…the second rule should have been kept.  And, why did they change it with almost no notice!

  3. I’ve never heard anything about the 3.5 in rule…very interesting.  Don’t really see any advantage to having a donut but whatever they say.  

    Now the second rule is a heaven sent.  The FOGOs on my team and the others in our league have had an absolutely miserable time trying to get the ball to come out of our already warped heads.  You can only bend/bake/boil a head so many times before it serves no purpose at all.  This way, we won’t be penalized every other faceoff because the ball won’t come out of the back of the head.

    I’m all for speeding up the game and making turnovers “easier” but that back rule was a pain in the butt.

  4. No butt end?  Wouldn’t that be a safety issue?  I remember in a game an opposing player had only tape to cover the butt end (similar to the pink taped above) and he came to box me out on a gb and his butt end found my hip.  I had a hefty quarter sized welt that cut me later to find out that it was intentional on his behalf to expose the end.  Yes, it’s up to us to have integrity to play the game right, but there are those out there who will do anything to gain an edge, even if it comes to the expense of player safety.

  5. I’d like to understand what advantage or issue is created by a larger but end or 

    “donut”?  While I an understand the desire to modify some of the rules as they relate to sticks and speed of the game, it seems that few of these rules are needed or even well thought out.

  6. I agree that the 3.5″ circumference rule needs some clarification. As you said most shafts are just under that without a butt end to begin with. I think it’s also a safety issue because the smaller circumference could lead to sticks being able to slip through face masks in my opinion. Hopefully there is a more thorough explanation on these rule changes soon.

  7. I am not sure you are reading the circumference for the tape correctly. The officials will not measure around the shaft. They will simply hold up their tape measure and measure across the shaft. 3.5” taped end is actually really big. So from one side to the opposite side can not exceed 3.5”.  I hope you are able to understand what I am saying.

  8. Someone really does need to push Hind & Zimmerman for clarification on the Butt End rule.  Seems rather silly to not allow a normal butt end cap that doesn’t widen the stick any more than it has to.  Also, wouldn’t number 3 in the picture above be illegal, as the tape isn’t covering the whole hole? It was my understanding that not only the edges had to be covered, but the hole itself as well.