|
Post by hiller 87 on Mar 28, 2013 12:36:11 GMT -6
I have two reasons why I think a team should have the ability to decline a balls over (just like declining a penalty in football):
1. Say it's down to one player for the opposition and he's an amazing catcher but not as great a thrower. You could get the balls over, and he could get a catch or get a catch and get hit, and suddenly that balls over is a detriment to your team. If you had the ability to decline the balls over you could make the opponent throw at you, and it could be an easy catch.
2. This past weekend at BGSU we had a comfortable 3-0 lead with just over 10 minutes left. BG got I believe three balls over violations against them in a short span, and it wasted a lot of time. We already had 6 or 7 balls, they had only 3 players left to our 12, it was pretty much decided. However, both teams had to retreat to the baseline and talk over who to throw at, etc etc and it took a couple extra minutes. In basketball you can call a "rolling timeout" where you don't huddle, but you get your starters out for your benchwarmers. I would decline the balls over as a way to save time in a big lead or to not murder a newer team when the game is already decided.
The only thing I haven't decided with my proposal is if teams would return to the baseline and play would start immediately, or if people would just continue playing and it would be a captain yelling "decline" within 3 seconds.
I can go into further detail if people want.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Mar 28, 2013 12:53:06 GMT -6
Oh okay, when you first said you wanted to bring this option up, I thought you meant the team who had the shot clock violation should have to right to say "No thanks, I'm good, I'll keep my balls." haha
I actually like this idea a lot. It doesn't have to be utilized if a team doesn't want to, but the option is there for those rare cases. I'm in favor of this.
I do think play should be paused for this though, and then reset, I don't like the idea of play continuing just because not everyone may hear the call and it is a nightmare for both benches to be yelling at you (the official) asking, "WTF?!". It should be treated as a time out, the balls will remain on the same side, but both teams will have to return to baselines.
I think the shot clock of the violating team shouldn't be reset to zero though, it should be reset to half of their clock (8 secs, for a 15 count, and 5 secs for a 10 count). This way the team who violated the clock will still have to throw first, but the other team will be rewarded with a completely reseted clock. Just my thoughts though.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Mar 28, 2013 13:01:10 GMT -6
Now that I've thought about it more, I definitely agree with the reset and your idea that the team will need to throw first again. Good ideas Felix!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 28, 2013 13:57:37 GMT -6
Wouldn't the other team just go ahead and roll all their balls over anyways? Theres no rule against getting ride of everything in your zone. I'v seen teams just roll them all over like it was a balls over.
I like the idea of it, but it could lead to some complications.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on Apr 6, 2013 8:48:29 GMT -6
I have two reasons why I think a team should have the ability to decline a balls over (just like declining a penalty in football): 1. Say it's down to one player for the opposition and he's an amazing catcher but not as great a thrower. You could get the balls over, and he could get a catch or get a catch and get hit, and suddenly that balls over is a detriment to your team. If you had the ability to decline the balls over you could make the opponent throw at you, and it could be an easy catch. There is no situation I can think of where it makes any strategic sense to decline a shot clock violation. Say Team A declines a shot clock violation in each of the following situations: If Team B is winning, they'll decline a violation as well. Everyone stands around bored, and Team A loses. Dumbest - plan - ever. If the score is tied, they'll decline a violation as well. Everyone stands around bored, and OT is forced, turning it into a 6 v 6 when Team A had Team B on the ropes. Second dumbest - plan - ever. If Team B is losing, Team B should recognize that they need to throw, otherwise Team A will sit back and do nothing. This being the case, there will be no shot clock violations in the first place. If a team has 5+ players on the court and the 5 can't tag out one guy, the 5 don't deserve to win - the team should sub in someone who'll actually make a throw. Those teams didn't "have to" talk over anything. It's on the captains to be leaders, focus their players, and eliminate unnecessary discussion. Not every stoppage in play needs a five-minute strategy session. Officials can have things ready to go in all of 10 seconds. It's not the refs or the rules holding up play.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Apr 6, 2013 11:39:49 GMT -6
Those teams didn't "have to" talk over anything. It's on the captains to be leaders, focus their players, and eliminate unnecessary discussion. Not every stoppage in play needs a five-minute strategy session. Officials can have things ready to go in all of 10 seconds. It's not the refs or the rules holding up play. Agreed, when I officiate I routinely stress that a shot clock violation is not a timeout; i usually say so in the pregame captains' meeting. I like to get whistle the game in as soon as people return to the baseline. It's a simple thing to help keep the game on schedule
|
|