|
Post by adeperro on Nov 7, 2011 13:17:19 GMT -6
The shot clock rules do not address what happens after a timeout is called mid-game. Specifically, does the shot clock simply stay at where the timeout was called or does it reset? For example, if one team's (Team A) shot clock is one second away from violation and the opposing team (Team B) calls a timeout, is it fair to make team A's shot clock still one second away from a penalty? That seems like an unfair tactical advantage. In the duration of one second, a player from Team A would have to run as far up as possible and make a "legitimate" throw towards the opposing team, Team B. I understand the style of gameplay regarding this matter currently coincides with the rules of shot clocks in other sports, but I do believe it would be more practical to amend, or in this case, create, a certain set of rules specifically for this situation.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on Nov 7, 2011 14:21:59 GMT -6
I don't know that 'unfair' is the right term to use, since both teams have timeouts. Maybe 'imbalanced'?
One thing I find interesting is that dodgeball is the only game I know of where you can call timeout in the middle of gameplay when you are not in control of the situation. In basketball, for example, you need the ball to call a TO, or the ball can't otherwise be in play (eg, a FT situation). It seems to me there are two situations where a team could clearly have this kind of control:
1) They have all 10 balls. 2) They have their opponent backup up into their zone.
I can see reasons to mess with the rule and to leave it as is, but those would probably be the ways I would suggest. Having some sort of shot clock cap (ie, if called at 6-10 it starts up at 5) would leave the officials having to worry about split-second decisions about whether TO was called before a hit or catch. Eliminating that sort of thing would ease the burden on officials and be one less thing for teams to gripe about.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan C. on Nov 7, 2011 15:48:10 GMT -6
I totally agree with something like this. Instead of resetting the shot clocks or fighting about it, just in a shot clock cap like cg has proposed. It is enough time to run up the court and get a decent throw in and not have to fight or put stress on the refs to determine if it was a playable ball or not. It is just a dirty play and should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Nov 7, 2011 20:35:56 GMT -6
That is the whole point of calling a timeout mid-game. The team has to make a legit throw from their end of the court without getting caught or getting a shot clock violation called on them. It's major game strategy.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on Nov 7, 2011 22:18:51 GMT -6
That is the whole point of calling a timeout mid-game. The team has to make a legit throw from their end of the court without getting caught or getting a shot clock violation called on them. It's major game strategy. I think everyone agrees with that, but I guess that's the question. Should it be? Dunno whether it should or shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Nov 8, 2011 1:29:50 GMT -6
Why not? It's strategy when a guy dives for a ball in basketball just gets their hands on it and calls timeout so that it is not considered a jumpball. I just find it funny how when something happens in a game that someone doesn't like they automatically want to change the rule.
|
|
|
Post by 2tired2dodge on Nov 8, 2011 4:06:10 GMT -6
The situation occurred when they had 3 against our one person. This could have been a game changer for them as it brought the overall score to 1-1. While I do agree, It is a viable strategy and will likely not be changed, it is kind of a scumbag maneuver. BUT I will say it frees up a lot of balls if its 10 vs 1 when one person has 8 balls.
I think the idea of rolling back to 5 or 7 when the shot clock is between 6-10 is a viable idea, but as Mcccarthy said, it absolutely takes away from the original strategery of it all. It likely will not be changed. Maybe if we enforced a rule in which strategic timeouts could be used? Or maybe who ever is left should consider this situation before hand and start throwing on 7-8? Makes sense to me.
In finality, if it is used by you, don't be butthurt if it gets used against you. When OSU was up 2-1 and we had 13 people on the court against their one, we did it back to EMU. They made a throw that went in the rafters that was "ehhhh" on the legitimacy scale. But they still whined.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Nov 8, 2011 10:29:40 GMT -6
SAM HILLER, YOU MY FRIEND ARE A SCUMBAG. HAHAHA
HAHAHA "Ehhh" on the legitimacy.
|
|
|
Post by willhack on Nov 10, 2011 14:12:49 GMT -6
I like it. Good use of strategy.
|
|