|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Sept 23, 2010 16:04:30 GMT -6
So I was talking with Chris Scheuermann(yes we don't hate each other) and the topic of the 10 count and 15 count came up. So my new genius idea was that instead of people counting in their heads for the most part we should get a timer on each side that will be set to 10 and 15 seconds. When a ball is thrown the counter on that side only has to click a button which will then reset the clock to 10 or 15 seconds. If the clock hits 0 the balls will be given to the other team.
Therefore, there will be one set way of keeping track of the time. Not one person counting as fast as they possibly can and another counting as slow as they can.
Just an idea let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by svcard27 on Sept 23, 2010 16:12:05 GMT -6
as mccarthy stated, we were talking and he proposed this idea. this is probably the best idea ive heard when it comes to the counting problem. i think we can all agree that we have both benefited and been hurt by a poor count and this solves that problem. i dont know why we havent thought of this before.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Sept 23, 2010 16:40:35 GMT -6
fyi we invested in a shot clock this summer. we'll hopefully figure it out to get it working during games.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Sept 23, 2010 17:06:32 GMT -6
Do you have two of them stokes?
|
|
|
Post by svcard27 on Sept 23, 2010 22:30:56 GMT -6
what was the cost stokes? just curious and thinking about bringing it up to the team, because i really do think this is a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Sept 24, 2010 9:34:09 GMT -6
I'm not exactly sure on the cost of the shot clock. It was a lot, I can tell you that. But, we only have one at the moment. We're going to try and get a second, that's all I know.
|
|
|
Post by svcard27 on Sept 25, 2010 15:59:40 GMT -6
i think the problem we're looking at bomis is the fact that nobody can consistently count to 10 or 15... apparently we've forgotten how to do something we learned in kindergarden. with a shot clock, there wouldnt be any issues.. there arent any other sports where time is critical to the flow and outcome of a game, that doesnt use a shot clock.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Sept 25, 2010 19:12:39 GMT -6
DePaul can rent shot clocks, I believe. We also have access to reliable and functional scoreboards. But I still stand by that a good and fair official is more reliable than a fancy machine and magical electricity. Whoever reffed our last game at nationals did their job right. Introduced the staff, did the hand motions for counting, etc. I was really impressed. I wish i could remember who it was.
Bomis, I am also typing up an official's conduct handbook. I plan to get it done in time for our hat tournament next Saturday.
You know, whats so hard with getting a laptop and running a shot clock program? You could have one computer running one side and another for the opposite side. Or one computer could do both sides. The shot clock ref can count in sync with the timer and whistle when time is up.
I don't know why I'm defending the shot clock rule, which i deeply hate, but i figure laptops are much easier to come by than a $100+ shot clock thingie.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Sept 26, 2010 21:18:19 GMT -6
yeah, using 15 real seconds instead of 15 thousands in my head is way different. 15 actual seconds is very fast during game play so if we used a real clock it would probably have to be slightly increased to about 18 or 20 seconds. And I agree that we shouldn't require team to have a physical shot clock. As long as the counting is consistent on both sides i couldn't give a rat's buttox how fast or slow they counted.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Sept 27, 2010 13:24:23 GMT -6
In regards to my previous statement, I feel that way simply because we're basically going to play exactly the same regardless of the clock situation.
But thinking back to last school year the final score of the GVSU vs CMU match during nationals was 2-1 (I think). As far as I can remember there wasn't much standing around. Granted this is from my point of view and not CMU's, but as far as just standing around I've seen worse (old school Delta, no offense but WKU last year). Sometimes the teams are just so evenly matched that the games are something that they just gotta grind through. But in the end I fully agree with you that having an actual clock is best, but most likely not possible at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by sweeter9 on Sept 27, 2010 15:22:33 GMT -6
Any memory of the GV-CMU game nationals that i have (no thanks to a ball thrown by #66 from 20 feet away that was cushioned by my face) is not of one that was a slow paced, boring game. The game was actually more exciting to me because any player that got out was HUGE. I think there is a fine line between a 'dragged out affair' and a competitive, low scoring game.
With that being said a clock would be great but in the situation that we are in, it is just not realistic. Consistency is key for now.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Sept 27, 2010 16:07:33 GMT -6
I'll be the first to admit that when we get in a pinch, our strategy is to slow the game down completely. We knew we weren't going to beat GV at nationals last year, so our strategy was to slow the game so GV couldn't rack up an ungodly amount of points on us. I'm not going to lie, our loss to GV (0-4) felt like such a win to us, because we were able to keep the score so low. It may be lame, but it was the best idea we could come up with at the time. As for our game against UK on Saturday, there was no excuse for the game to be slowed down as much as it was, it was a very evenly matched game, but it just seemed like half of our guys were afraid to make a move. Everyone is hungry for a win now, so you will not see a snail-paced version of WKU again this season
|
|
|
Post by KFitz on Sept 27, 2010 18:23:18 GMT -6
Stop Clocks would help with consistent counting. But if you want to fix the problem of a slow paced game, give the captains of each team shock collars controlled by the refs.
|
|