|
Post by Jack Attack on Feb 15, 2011 4:36:27 GMT -6
So, in short, this is a revision to the rulebook that has been brewing in my mind for awhile. I strongly dislike the Shot Clock rule, as I think it mandates play incorrectly and fails to effectively discourage teams from playing slowly and lethargically. These rule set ideas are an attempt in earnest to better address this and various other issues. Zigmister helped a great deal and was avidly drafting this proposal with me in Google Docs, and Aleks Bomis and a handful of others provided input. Read carefully, ask questions and contribute! Remember, change is often a good thing!
Rule Change Proposal for 3.3.4 Shot Clock by Jack Attack, Zigmister, et al.
Preface: The purpose of this proposal for the removal of [3.3.4 Shot Clock] and the subsequent replacement of said rule with [3.3.4 Stall Clock] and [3.4.7 Stalling Violation] is to: a) work towards eradicating current issues involving the Officiating of the current 3.3.4 Shot Clock rule; b) facilitate more consistent, continuous, and aggressive dodgeball play during the course of the match between each team, which may allow for a more exciting spectacle of dodgeball battle; c) place the mantle of game tempo onto the actual players playing the game, and not use the Officials to control the match; d) penalize teams who avoid activity and restrict play, for the purpose of slowing a match down and winning points by running out the Clock. Additionally, [4.3.3 Stall Clock Judge] has been added for the management of the Stall Clock and the signaling of Stalling Violations.
Proposed redefinition of the [3.3.4 Shot Clock]
3.3.4 Stall Clock
3.3.4.1 Definition - During play, a silent 20 second rolling Stall Clock shall be in effect for both teams. The Stall Clock is not in effect for a Team that does not possess or control balls in their zone. For Penalties and Warnings resulting from failure to reset the Stall Clock, see [3.4.7 Stalling Violation].
3.3.4.2 Consistency - The Stall Clock should coincide with the game Clock. The twenty seconds of the Stall Clock are twenty seconds of the Game Clock, and are to be counted as such. To aid in this, Stall Clock Judges shall use a timepiece that displays seconds.
3.3.4.3 Resetting the Stall Clock - To reset the Stall Clock, the Team must make a Legitimate Active Play.
3.3.4.4 Legitimate Active Play - an action by a player and/or team to honestly facilitate active play. It is the responsibility of the Players to maintain action and a minimum pace of play. Types of Dodgeball Plays include:
3.3.4.4.1 Making an visible effort to make a catch.
3.3.4.4.2 Moving into the Neutral Zone or around the Court in order to better facilitate Active Plays.
3.3.4.4.3 Making a Direct Throw or Group Direct Throw at the Opposing Team, in a Legitimate Attempt to eliminate an Opponent.
3.3.4.4.3.1 Legitimate Attempt Zone - a Direct Throw within range of a Target, which may allow the Target to make a play on said Direct Throw. This range may be up to a step and a lunge in any of the 3 dimensions, in order to make a Direct Catch. A Target does not have to make a play in order for the Direct Throw to be considered a Legitimate Attempt, but may only be within the previously specified range.
3.3.4.4.3.1 The Stall Clock Judge does not have to notify the Team of an illegitimate attempt, and may proceed counting on pace.
3.4.7 Stalling Violation
3.4.7.1 Definition - Failure to make a Legitimate Attempt at resetting the [3.3.4 Stall Clock] will be considered a Stalling Violation.
3.4.7.2 Warning for Stalling - The first Stalling Violation results in a Warning for Stalling. Each team is allotted one Warning for Stalling during the course of the Match. No penalty is incurred for a Warning for Stalling. Stalling Violations following the Warning for Stalling result in a Stalling Penalty.
3.4.7.3 Stalling Penalty - Following a Warning for Stalling, each subsequent Stalling Violation results in a Stalling Penalty. Stalling Penalties grow in severity with each ensuing penalty.
3.4.7.3.1 Lack of Players - If the Offending team does not have enough players to satisfy the Stalling Penalty requirements, the Offending team forfeits the current Game Point to the Opposing team. Play is reset as if the Game Point were finished in a regular manner. The Game Forfeiture counts as that level of penalization. For instance, if a Team received a Second Stalling Penalty but had only one player remaining, the Game Point is forfeited and the next level to occur would be the Third Stalling Penalty.
3.4.7.3.2 First Stalling Penalty - The first Stalling Penalty incurred by a Team results in forfeiture of all balls controlled by or lying in the zone of the Offending team to the Opposing team.
3.4.7.3.3 Second Stalling Penalty - The second Stalling Penalty incurred by a Team results in forfeiture of all balls controlled by or lying in the zone of the Offending Team to the Opposing Team and the removal of one player from the Offending Team from play and placement of said player in the Offending Team’s Jail. The Captain of the Offending Team is to choose which player to remove from play.
3.4.7.3.4 Third Stalling Penalty - The third Stalling Penalty incurred by a team results in forfeiture of all balls controlled by or lying in the zone of the Offending Team to the Opposing Team and the removal of two players from the Offending Team from play and placement of said players in the Offending Team’s Jail. The Captain of the Offending Team is to choose which players to remove from play.
3.4.7.3.5 Fourth Stalling Penalty - The fourth Stalling Penalty incurred by a team results in the forfeiture of the current Game Point to the Opposing team. Play is reset as if the Game Point were finished in the regular manner. Each Stalling Penalty incurred following the fourth Stalling Penalty results in the same penalization of forfeiture of the current Game Point.
3.4.7.4 Resetting of Stalling Penalties - After the First Half of play, Stalling Penalties reset to the [3.4.7.3.2 First Stalling Penalty] level of penalization for teams who incurred Stalling Penalties during the course of the First Half of play. For instance, a team that had received the First Stalling Penalty in the First Half of play would not receive the [3.4.7.3.3 Second Stalling Penalty] after committing their first Stalling Violation in the Second Half of play, and would instead incur the [3.4.7.3.2 First Stalling Penalty] again.
3.4.7.5 Non-Clock Stalling Violations - Non-Clock Stalling Violations may be called at the discretion of the Head Official. These Stalling Violations are to be called in the case of players showing overt or gross Stalling behavior, such as sitting on the Court floor and similar lethargic inaction.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Feb 15, 2011 5:10:03 GMT -6
This proposed rule would alter all the little shot clock phrases in the rest of the document, but a revised Officiating section is proposed with it:
4.3.3 Stall Clock Judge 4.3.3.1 Each Team shall have One Official dedicated to oversee that Team's Stall Clock.
4.3.3.2 Primary Duty - The Stall Clock Judge's Primary Duty is to officiate the Stall Clock for the Team they oversee. If a team does not possess or control balls in their zone, the Stall Clock is not in effect. [3.3.4 Stall Clock]
4.3.3.3 Area of Responsibility - A Stall Clock Judge may assist an Official by providing additional information related to a Play in question, but should not do so when this act prevents the proper enforcement of the Stall Clock.
4.3.3.4 Signaling the Stall Clock
4.3.3.4.1 Equipment - In order to maintain proper pace, the Official shall use a Timepiece that displays or counts seconds accurately. [4.1.2.5]
4.3.3.4.2 Timepiece - The Official should keep the Timepiece at face level, in such a way that it will be easy for the Official to both watch for Legitimate Active Plays and observe the Timepiece.
4.3.3.4.3 Counting - The Official counts from One (1) to Twenty (20). The Official uses the Timepiece to internally count to twenty, counting the seconds as they tick by. 4.3.3.4.3.1 Notification of Enumeration - Individual team members may reasonably ask what the Count is at any given time, and the Official should notify the Team of the current Count during any Stoppage of Play.
4.3.3.4.4 Signaling Fifteen Seconds - When the count reaches fifteen (15), the Official shall vertically raise the hand not holding the timepiece. Keeping the whistle in their mouth, the Official silently but visibly counts off the seconds by bringing the hand back down over their chest, then back up to vertical to signal a second.
4.3.3.4.5 Resetting - Each Legitimate Active Play resets the Stall Clock and the Official resets the count.
4.3.3.4.5.1 Legitimate Attempt Zone - The range that may allow the Target to make a play on a Direct Throw. This zone forms a 3-dimensional bubble around the player. In the up direction, the Target may make a play within the full reach of their arms. The rest of the zone may be up to a step and a lunge in any direction, in order to make a Direct Catch. A Target does not have to make a play in order for the Direct Throw to be considered a Legitimate Attempt, but may only be within the previously specified range.
4.3.3.4.5.2 Judging an Active Play - It is important that the Official recognize that a team is unquestionably stalling on a fundamental level and call it as is. An active play is not just simply a play made to reset the Clock; it is actively playing the Game in order to secure a Point. It is not the intention of the Rule to prevent a team from regrouping for an imminent push, nor is it to penalize a player for failing to complete a catch. The Rule is present to maintain a minimum rate of action, whether that be defensive catches, offensive throws, or a certain amount of zone conquests. An entire team standing apathetically waiting for the sands to run down is not fun to watch and not fun to play against.
4.3.3.4.5.3 Consistency - Stalling should be called consistently throughout the Match, regardless of the amount of time remaining on the Game Clock.
4.3.3.4.6 Violation - If the Count reaches twenty (20) and a Legitimate Active Play [3.3.4.4] has not been made, the Official whistles and signals a Stalling Violation. [3.4.7]
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Feb 15, 2011 7:36:11 GMT -6
The official needs to count out loud! It's hard enough to pay attention to everything going on in a game. If you throw in another visual thing that people have to pay attention to, it will not be a good outcome. I like the idea of the penalties, but how much different from the shot clock is this really? I feel like it's adding on 5 seconds to the shot clock and then implimenting greater penalties.
I think if we change what we consider a playable ball then the shot clock is just fine. And I'm alright with adding in those penalties to the shot clock rule.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Attack on Feb 15, 2011 10:07:14 GMT -6
Counting out loud is essentially referees coddling the players, though. In no other sport do officials remind players of the game clock, shot clock or otherwise. I think the counting out loud often results in the back-and-forth/"it's their throw" kind of play, which is frankly boring and sort of contradictory to what good dodgeball should be, which is continuous and homogeneous.
Yeah, it would make players be more aware of things, but honestly, there's not really much to be aware of already. And by this rule iteration, stalling would only really be called when teams are really, really play slow and stupid, because of the addition of stuff like catches and movement to qualify as resetting the stalling clock. Additionally, adding 5 seconds to the clock rule would go a long way I think, and players/teams would probably be well aware when they are riding the line of stalling.
I forgot to mention... I encourage everyone to check out the NCAA rulebook on wrestling and read the rules on Stalling Infractions. That was a large part of my inspiration for this.
Anyway, thanks for the input, Mike! Let's keep discussing this.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Feb 15, 2011 10:55:23 GMT -6
But in other sports that have shot/play clocks, there is a visible clock for teams to see. We don't have that luxury in dodgeball.
Once again, I'm in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" camp. I do agree that we need to change the rule regarding the legitimacy of throws, but I'm fine with the rest of the way the shot clock is.
|
|
|
Post by mgonzo46 on Feb 15, 2011 11:45:10 GMT -6
Even if we don't use this entire rule change, we should at least look into adding the rules for resetting that are suggested.
|
|
|
Post by trippiedigv12 on Feb 15, 2011 15:54:37 GMT -6
I support Jack Attack's rule alteration, but I would also point out that as the game is currently officiated, we would almost never reach the point of a second stalling penalty, no matter how slow and unsportsmanlike the pace of play. Officials simply would prefer to warn and continue to warn rather than administer harsh penalties. Obviously, that would make the proposed penalties for third and fourth violations academic. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.
I think the current shot clock violation is already a HUGE deterrent to stalling. 95% or more of shot clock violations are caused not by failure to comply with the rule, but because the player with the lone ball or two balls are unaware of the imminent violation. The issue is not that the shot clock is inadequate, but that what we call "resetting" can be done by the laziest measures possible.
The real question is what we want to do with the shot clock/stall clock to force players to do. Right now, we force you to at least throw at feet or in between players. That's a common strategy. It's hard to get anyone out when you're intentionally bouncing the ball three feet in front of someone, but that's the most common throw in dodgeball.
It's one thing if we consider this very common throw to be stalling, but the truth is players who throw the ball in front of the feet of other players aren't stalling play: they are resetting their clock in an attempt to satisfy action requirements. Of course, the other team can just bounce the ball at the feet of the original thrower. And this happens all the time. We call it strategy. Fans call it boring.
We have to be careful to write the rule so that teams with the ball disadvantage can still make solo throws, but I say: make them throw at least at a blocking ball. This is a happy median for strategy: resetting the shot/stall clock, and allowing the defensive player to attempt a difficult drop catch if he so chooses. I think if we can eliminate the intentional throw at the ground in front of opponents feet, the game would be better for it.
This is coming from a professional worm-killer.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Feb 15, 2011 16:19:50 GMT -6
Numbering error - "3.3.4.4.3.1 The Stall Clock Judge does not" should be 3.3.4.4.3.2
On the Legitimate throw: 3.3.4.4.3 includes that the throw has to be a legitimate attempt to eliminate an opponent. And while Yes a thrower could throw within the zone and technically get a reset, they aren't guaranteed a reset by the Judge. If that judge finds the throw to be more stalling than a throw that didn't have the accuracy to hit the person, then they should call it as stalling.
This rule puts the stress of pace of play on the players, and the Judge is the one that enforces it. 4.3.3.4.5.2 - If the judge knows that making a play to reset the clock is, by definition, stalling they will be able to call it more effectively when it happens.
But the harsh penalties, by my thoughts, are what's really going to keep teams as a whole from stalling.
|
|
|
Post by KFitz on Feb 15, 2011 16:23:27 GMT -6
If you don’t feel like reading what I wrote here are the cliff notes: I agree with this proposal, because I believe that it truly could extinguish the dreaded game of stall ball.
I strongly believe that this could fix, or at the very least put us on the path of fixing the slow paced game play that seems to have spread throughout the league. But I believe that the entire rule should be considered not just the concepts of resetting the clock (although that is certainly one of the most valuable parts.) The only problem I have ever had with this game is that there is nothing that can be done to speed up the game play of another team. There are certainly methods that can temporarily provide a jolt of life i.e. Stein is infamous for his ability to get under the other teams skin and often leads to an emotional throw against a significant catcher. Or Kent State has what I call the “Dodo technique” where if a team refuses to throw we will just stand ridiculously close (like 3 feet max) and attempt a very very very low percentage catch, so we essentially drive our own team to extinction. (Anyone who saw the final point between Kent & EMU at the UK Invite would have witnessed this “technique”.) My point is that if a team has 9 balls and they only feel like throwing 1 every 14 seconds currently there is no way to prevent it, (other than dying of boredom and getting a medical timeout) Not only is there no way to prevent it but it is rather evident that it can often lead to success. By controlling ball maintenance (the number of balls you provide the opposing team and ensuring you always have more to provide immediate better odds of a defensive strategy and greater potential for an offensive attack) teams can essentially slow down the game and control the pace. I would cite the GVSU vs. WKU game at Nationals last year, where WKU severely limited their losses, and (if I recall correctly) either won a point or at least came closer than they ever have to scoring against the hard hitting GVSU. That’s only an example of where slow play was an aid. But I would submit that hypothetically Kent were to play a strong armed Michigan team (i.e. CMU) I think it’s not entirely abstract to believe that if (not saying they would (I have never played CMU)) slowed down the pace of the game, given enough time the sheer velocity that Sweet, and Fisher or Fitz throw that they could probably eliminate Kent by throwing 2 balls every 14 seconds at a single player. Therefore leaving CMU with 8 balls to block an incoming 2, which is a relatively easy task. However given the new ways the clock can be reset, maybe an attempted catch would cause additional throwing before time expired (that’s right gentlemen catches even dropped ones gain even more importance!), which could lead to advancements on both teams, which again rests the clock, which surely results in additional throws, again the clock is reset. And eventually what you have is a plausible snowball effect where the clock is rarely ever a factor, in what remains a competitive high paced game of Dodgeball. But as I said the rule should not just be accepted as the new ways for the clock to be rest but in its entirety.
For one thing even if nothing else in this proposal is accepted I believe that the Shot clocks name (even if nothing changes about it) should be renamed the Stall clock, because in my mind any tool associated with stalling should have a negative tone associated with it. If you are consistently waiting to throw based on the seconds of a clock then you are stalling. Is stalling a method of play? Yes, currently it is. Is it successful? I believed I provided a couple examples earlier to claim that with the right physical talents it can be. IS IT HOW THE GAME DESERVES TO BE PLAYED? To this I say the answer (although subjective) is No. I will back that statement not only by mentioning that during and after almost every tournament someone (often including myself), somewhere, on or off the forum is complaining about the opposing team stalling for various periods if not entire points during the match. Sometimes this is clearly a result of frustration associated with the loss, and sometimes it’s a legitimate regret that the game wasn’t enjoyable (often it’s both). Even disregarding that evidence I would like to state that I have been to dozens (not an exaggeration) of non NCDA tournaments and practically none of them had any forum of shot clock or stall clock, when the ref believes a team is stalling they inform them they have to throw most of these were competitive tournaments that rewarded money for a victory. (I could be very wrong but, last time I checked GVSU hasn’t received any direct pay checks from the league for winning the past several National Championships). If A shot clock wasn’t needed in Junior High, in High School, in various tournaments outside of the NCDA, then I don’t see why a community of college students needs a shot clock in the current rulebook, not with the pride and the respect that every team has towards the game of Dodgeball as well as the pride how far the NCDA has come.
While many people may believe that this stall clock and the current shot clock will provide the same outcome (that was my immediate thought as I read the proposal). I honestly believe that due to the silent count and the progressive severity in the violations it will force teams to remain a high octane level of activity throughout the entire match, especially very competitive teams in a tight game worried about providing the other team with the easy advantage. You might think that the possibility of an advantage such as a free point to the other team is unfair and represents a possibility that the best team won’t always win. To that I would claim that with the current shot clock system providing the stall ball possibility that the best teams don’t always win anyways. Or truly that the best teams ever always win with any system, that’s why I love a good upset.
I admit, I have hated the shot clock ever since the first time I played a tournament, I won’t pretend to hide that, however I accepted that it was a necessary evil due to horror stories I had heard from some of Kent’s veteran players where teams would just wait the entire game for all the balls. And I am thankful that it’s not that bad anymore. But that being said I hardly consider the current system ideal, or even very good for that matter. Does this proposal have foreseeable and unforeseeable problems with its current format? Of course, If there is one thing I learned this year through Zigmas’s work with the rule book it is that at one point or another virtually all of the rules we play by at an NCDA tournament have been questioned and are constantly under revision to give a clearer understanding as well as a greater on the court experience. (If I’m correct) The NCDA is under a decade old it would be outrageously foolish, and shamefully naive to think that we currently are anywhere near finished changing the NCDA’s format of Dodgeball. (Don’t take that statement to mean that if you don’t agree with this proposal I think you’re a fool. What I do mean is that I think there is considerable merit behind this idea, and don’t want to see it swept under the rug, because it involves change without, real examination, or even several open minded test trials.)
I’m not going to pretend that I know what’s best for the league, or that I’m right about anything I just posted. However I had some free time, and I felt strongly on the subject.
Cheers, Kyle FitzPatrick
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Feb 15, 2011 17:08:18 GMT -6
Sorry for the length of this post,
My point is that if a team has 9 balls and they only feel like throwing 1 every 14 seconds currently there is no way to prevent it, (other than dying of boredom and getting a medical timeout) Not only is there no way to prevent it but it is rather evident that it can often lead to success.
I think by this point in my career I've played every team besides Northwestern State, Kansas State, and Nebraska. I haven't seen a single team play like this. Not one. Even WKU's extreme stalling last year at Nationals wasn't like this. Now, I could see how a team could do this, but it would take a solid 5-10 minutes of throwing a solo ball to accomplish that. This would lead to catches from the opposing team, and it's not like the opposition would just allow that to happen.
For one thing even if nothing else in this proposal is accepted I believe that the Shot clocks name (even if nothing changes about it) should be renamed the Stall clock, because in my mind any tool associated with stalling should have a negative tone associated with it.
I agree that "stalling" should have a negative light to it, but I wouldn't call what CMU or OSU or WKU (the three main examples of the slow down play) do stalling. I'd say it's a solid smart defensive technique. Last year neither OSU nor WKU had the power arms (no offense) to go full speed toe to toe against CMU, MSU, GVSU, or SVSU. OSU did their trademark slow game, and it worked great as it upset SVSU and they played their way into the semi-finals. It's just smart play. Look at professional soccer teams that often play for draws on the road, they'll clog the middle of the field against a stronger opponent and play a more defensive oriented game to get a point. Look at football teams that have a 7+ point lead. You don't see them throwing every down, stopping the clock on incompletions. They pound the ball up the middle and run the clock down. Basketball teams with leads don't jack up threes with 25 seconds left on the shot clock, they slow it down and waste time. I could go on and on to every sport that uses time to settle the game. It's just smart play defensive oriented play. Is it kinda annoying to play against? Yes. But it's a good way to win a game.
While many people may believe that this stall clock and the current shot clock will provide the same outcome (that was my immediate thought as I read the proposal). I honestly believe that due to the silent count and the progressive severity in the violations it will force teams to remain a high octane level of activity throughout the entire match, especially very competitive teams in a tight game worried about providing the other team with the easy advantage.
The silent count just gives players one more thing to have to think about. We don't have visual shot clocks like basketball players do, we don't have giant student sections who count down when the clock is running out like basketball players do, we just have maybe a hundred people and two shot clock refs. I already have to worry about keeping track of 10 balls, leading my team, what the guy in front of me is doing, what the people on my cross are doing, and what I personally am going to do. I shouldn't have to keep a mental track of a fifteen second clock in my head. And we certainly shouldn't have to be penalized players for missing the shot clock. Like Greg already said, most shot clock violations are just players either not being able to get a throw off due to pressure, or players simply not hearing the shot clock go off. With a silent clock, there'd be even more violations in my opinion.
If A shot clock wasn’t needed in Junior High, in High School, in various tournaments outside of the NCDA, then I don’t see why a community of college students needs a shot clock in the current rulebook
Once again, in middle school/high school basketball in most places there isn't a shot clock. There is one in college basketball. Why? Because they can afford the shot clocks at all the arenas. We can't afford shot clocks. Also in middle school/high school dodgeball you weren't really playing for fun and playing for the win, you were just trying to get out the opposition. And don't tell me you didn't have some people just holding on to balls back then, because recently Sweeter and I played at our high school and kids would sit for minutes with balls because they'd be too afraid to throw them. Bryan Lynch (who was teaching at the time) would occasionally throw in a shot clock due to slow pace of their play.
If you're playing just for old school fun then yes, I'd see why you'd want to change the game. But for the teams looking to play for fun and for competition, then I think that the shot clock should remain the way it is. The legitimacy of throws should be changed to that it must be an intentional throw to get a player out (whether it be inaccurate, blocked, caught, dodged, or a hit) but the rest of the rule should remain the same.
This is just my own opinion on the subject. If you read this, then props to you. If you're just reading this, then my opinion is that we need to change the legitimacy of throws but keep the rest the same. Thank you for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by KFitz on Feb 15, 2011 18:48:22 GMT -6
I'm too tired of typing to continue the formal method of response, so I’ll defend my statements crudely and briefly.
1) Thankfully there is not a single team in the league that plays matches to that extreme, but I have always been unsettled that to the extent of my understanding of the rules there is nothing to truly prevent such an extreme play style. Sadly I have seen points in a match come to such an extreme.
2) I don't believe that any teams (at least not any I have played recently) stall the entire game, and as frustrating as it is to play against I understand and respect a team’s ability to play to their strengths. And I understand the logic behind securing the win. . . But I feel that there are examples when securing the win is a very drawn out and over done. Again I understand that there is great variation among different teams as to what is the value of a win.
3) The primary reason I would enjoy a silent count is because it would be reminiscent to no count at all. And I believe that no count would bring back a little more chaos into the playing styles of the game. Because I agree I think at first there would be more violations until a faster looser style of play might be adapted. However that seems unlikely, so I agree with Jacks statement on making the official less of a scapegoat, and the goal of making the game so that a count would not be necessary.
4) Some people are going to stall in Dodgeball no matter what the venue; however at times I feel as though the current shot clock caters to that playing style more then it prevents it, however that is only my opinion so i can't support it.
I personally think that this change would make the games more competitive (the only drawback I felt when reading it) as well as more fun.
But I do understand the points you made earlier, and that my ideas are probably in contrast with the majority of the teams in the league. That being said I’m glad it can be discussed rationally rather than disputed.
|
|
|
Post by sweeter9 on Feb 15, 2011 19:12:12 GMT -6
I agree with Hiller. We need to just change the legitimacy of throws to where it has to be a serious attempt at getting someone out. The definition of a 'serious' attempt can be anything from a catch, dodge, hit, or id say within a foot of the person on any side. Teams who just 'clear the clock' will make mistakes, throw inaccurately and get caught. It will encourage team throwing and get the game to move more quickly.
Although this is completely unrealistic, the only true way to solve the problem would be to put a 5 second clock on every person holding a ball. We do this during practice sometimes and even against WKU at nationals last year (i think). It turns into chaos and it is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by willhack on Feb 15, 2011 23:35:34 GMT -6
One reason that I think we couldn't afford a silent shot clock, even if it were visible with a quick glance away from the court, is the danger of looking away even for a moment. It's true that other sports do fine with visible shot clocks; but in those sports, there isn't a very real danger of getting hit in the head if you check the shot clock.
I'm also not a big fan of 3.4.7.5 on random calls at the ref's discretion, for reasons of semantics. I love it when a guy goes up to the line and sits down, just daring the opposition to throw at him. But this is probably not a hugely important point.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Attack on Feb 16, 2011 9:42:32 GMT -6
Thanks for all the feedback, guys. I read every comment and am very happy to see you all discuss this at length. To be honest, my primary hope for this was to simply facilitate honest and productive conversation between players and captains so that you guys can eventually improve the rulebook. There's an obscene number of players in this league now, and that means there's a strong number of people who understand this game well. Putting two and two together, there is ample opportunity of lots of us to come together and collaborate to really make the rulebook excellent and something we can all agree on equivocally.
As far as I'm noticing, there seem to be two distinct factions in this discussion; (1) those that mostly support the current ruleset regarding the shot clock but would like to see a measure of broad changes to it and more clarity as to what constitutes legitimate attempts, and (2) those who are mostly against the rule and have a distaste for slow play (or by this proposal's rhetoric, "stalling"), also believing that the current shot clock rule predominates the way the game is played to an unnecessary degree. There are obviously many merits as well as disadvantages to both to both stances, but combining the merits of both is the ideal situation here. I would respond to some of the points now, but I want to give other people the chance to read and chime in before I contribute more. Keep discussing this, cause I like where it's going.
|
|