2020-21 Rules Changes - no shot clock once again

If you’re losing and a team just holds the ball, and you just stand there and look at them - and then say it was the right move after losing the game - that’s something LOLOLOLOL

That was nothing but a “well I’ll show you” moment for both coaches, and then a complete spin in the postgame to try to defend sheer stupidity by the losing coach. Then the butt hurt AD posts the video on Twitter to call out the stalling, but failed to mention his team was LOSING and just stood there and watched.

Oh yeah, this was also a win or go home tournament game LOLOLOL - point proven coach, now go enjoy the offseason. How utterly ridiculous and stupid.
 
Last edited:
If you’re trying to hold the ball , I’m pressing full court and trapping half court all night. End of stall ball. If the other team is 25 points better, I’m doing what I can to give my team a chance to win in the last 2 minutes.
 
BASESWIMPARENT said:
We have this argument all the time on here. It would improve the flow and it would force kids to improve their ball skills but you will find that a lot of people on here believe that it is ok for the less talented, less fit team to have a chance. So we pass the ball around for two minutes, run sets, can't score off the ball, grab and hold on the cuts. I used to go to GCL games. Cannot do it anymore. Way, way overcoached. Used to play in the 80's. Did not have a shot clock. Never saw a need. Went into the service in the 90's came back in the 2000's. Totally different game. I think with the NBA trying to provide a minor league type opportunity, you will see two different games develop. Those that have asperations to be Pros anywhere (a friend my son's graduated high school early and went to play professionally in the Phillipines) and those that love the game and want to play in high school and college.
Click to expand...

Finally someone being honest - "people on here believe that it is ok for the less talented, less fit team to have a chance" - so they want a shot clock so the more talented team will always win. Screw those losers who aren't as talented - just get better. We'll sometimes that's not an option. This gives those lesser teams a shot at winning. Its legal and part of the game. Those talented teams need to go play defense - simple as that. This is high school basketball, there are always less talented teams no matter how hard they practice, especially with all the all-star transfer teams around. Get a life and let the kids enjoy the game and try to win. To the kids, a win is a win and nobody wants to get blown out.
 
toestubber said:
Finally someone being honest - "people on here believe that it is ok for the less talented, less fit team to have a chance" - so they want a shot clock so the more talented team will always win. Screw those losers who aren't as talented - just get better. We'll sometimes that's not an option. This gives those lesser teams a shot at winning. Its legal and part of the game. Those talented teams need to go play defense - simple as that. This is high school basketball, there are always less talented teams no matter how hard they practice, especially with all the all-star transfer teams around. Get a life and let the kids enjoy the game and try to win. To the kids, a win is a win and nobody wants to get blown out.
Click to expand...
. ???
 
The coach made a decision he felt gave his team the best opportunity to win . No different than any other strategy he employs.

I once worked a game where that strategy did in fact work. Team A held the ball the last 2 minutes of the third period and first two minutes of the 4th period while their the best player was on the bench with 4 fouls. Shortened the game, limited the opponent’s opportunity to score.... Team B, ahead 6 points at the time (scored 10 in a row after the aforementioned player left the game) for some reason allowed them to hold the ball.

Many criticized the coach (comes with the territory), most praised him as shortening the game presented his team with the best opportunity to win the game.

And I'm still waiting for that list of all those games that teams held the ball all game.... or for three quarters.... or for a half.... or for a single quarter.... (I won't hold my breath)
 
carefree93 said:
agreed - I think the biggest reason for this slow down style is because of coach control. They’re more concerned about their jobs than developing basketball players. Players today have the same amount of skills, you could argue even better with the addition of so much specialized training, they’re just not allowed to use it.
Click to expand...

You have to be very skilled to try and control tempo, or as you put it, “hold the ball”.
You would choose this strategy against a much bigger or more athletic team. Slowing the game down results in fewer possessions and a closer game, and a chance to win.
 
carefree93 said:
If you seriously don’t see the difference between strategically slowing the game down vs. not even playing the game, then I can’t help you. Again, just being obtuse and argumentative for the sake of being obtuse and argumentative. You can’t have rational dialogue with people who do that.
Click to expand...

It's a good think I don't get my feelings hurt easily, otherwise I might start slinging insults at people on an internet forum.

I asked you two legitimate questions that you chose to not answer. I wonder why?
 
Ok here it is. Everybody's seen Hoosiers right? Well the real life Hoosiers (Milan High) held the ball for long time in the Indiana state championship game. Guess they should have run up and down and got beat by 20. I should would miss the movie if they had done that.
 
You’re advocating not playing the game as a way of competing, and don’t see an issue with that. Then tell me how I’m the one who is making the illogical argument.

If you want to move on, then move on. But not playing isn’t competing. It’s just not.
 
carefree93 said:
You’re advocating not playing the game as a way of competing, and don’t see an issue with that. Then tell me how I’m the one who is making the illogical argument.

If you want to move on, then move on. But not playing isn’t competing. It’s just not.
Click to expand...

Can we agree on the definition of competing? That it is striving to win the game? That you are doing everything you can do to win?

If you are 100 points better than me in a normal number of possessions of a game, but I can limit the number of possessions to 4 each, does that give me a better chance to win where anything in 4 possessions can happen (thus striving to win)?

If you have 1000 dollars and want to win 35000 at roulette, you don't play multiple bets of 20 each. The house edge will eventually catch up with you. Your best hope is to bet 1000 on one number and hope for the best. Of course it is unlikely, but doing so gives you the best chance to win.
 
I don’t agree that competing is doing nothing. Strategically slowing down the game is lightyears different than both teams standing and staring at each other.
 
carefree93 said:
I don’t agree that competing is doing nothing. Strategically slowing down the game is lightyears different than both teams standing and staring at each other.
Click to expand...
So you're saying both teams have decided to not do anything, but yet you are placing the blame just on one team. This goes back to what many people have already said to you. If you don't want a team you're playing to slow the game down then force them to speed up. If you stand there and don't move up to guard them and allow them to hold the ball then you are complicent in the game being slowed down.
 
carefree93 said:
I don’t agree that competing is doing nothing. Strategically slowing down the game is lightyears different than both teams standing and staring at each other.
Click to expand...

If a team ran a motion offense without once looking at the basket, and instead kept the ball for a last second shot for 30 seconds, would that be ok to you? or a minute? two minutes? and entire quarter? where do you draw the line that they are no longer competing?
 
Philly_Cat said:
So you're saying both teams have decided to not do anything, but yet you are placing the blame just on one team. This goes back to what many people have already said to you. If you don't want a team you're playing to slow the game down then force them to speed up. If you stand there and don't move up to guard them and allow them to hold the ball then you are complicent in the game being slowed down.
Click to expand...

Agree - the entire time I’ve said both teams are at fault and both coaches should have had consequences for that abomination.
 
multisportdad said:
If a team ran a motion offense without once looking at the basket, and instead kept the ball for a last second shot for 30 seconds, would that be ok to you? or a minute? two minutes? and entire quarter? where do you draw the line that they are no longer competing?
Click to expand...

They are actively playing the game. How many times do I have to say that there is no comparison between working a good shot for 30 seconds, or even long longer, to standing there and doing nothing. You all continue to ignore that point, which frankly, is really odd.

So you think competing is standing and staring at one another. It’s a little weird, but the vast majority of the world would disagree with you. How you think you have an opinion that you think is widely accepted is beyond me.
 
carefree93 said:
They are actively playing the game. How many times do I have to say that there is no comparison between working a good shot for 30 seconds, or even long longer, to standing there and doing nothing. You all continue to ignore that point, which frankly, is really odd.

So you think competing is standing and staring at one another. It’s a little weird, but the vast majority of the world would disagree with you. How you think you have an opinion that you think is widely accepted is beyond me.
Click to expand...

So it's the standing you don't like.

Would you agree that running a motion offense risks the possibility of turning the ball over?

If I can stand and hold the ball, without being pressured, why would I risk turning it over?

and as far as even longer goes, why punish a team that is adept at handling the ball and chooses to move the ball around for 2 minutes looking for a good shot? Especially if they are playing against a more athletic team?
 
This is pretty freakin simple, and for the life of me, I have no clue how this can’t be grasped by the majority of people responding to me on this thread:

There absolutely should be either rules or consequences in place to ensure this abomination of competition cannot occur when teams purposely refuse to play the game. There is a massive chasm between using clock strategically compared to some of the abominations we saw this past season of staring at each other for quarters on end.

If this isn’t clear to you, well, I’m not sure what to say.
 
carefree93 said:
This is pretty freakin simple, and for the life of me, I have no clue how this can’t be grasped by the majority of people responding to me on this thread:

There absolutely should be either rules or consequences in place to ensure this abomination of competition cannot occur when teams purposely refuse to play the game. There is a massive chasm between using clock strategically compared to some of the abominations we saw this past season of staring at each other for quarters on end.

If this isn’t clear to you, well, I’m not sure what to say.
Click to expand...

This is a much nicer way of calling me obtuse.

I am sensing a pattern here. People ask questions that you won't (or can't) answer, and you attempt to insult those that disagree with you.

I will end with 'If this isn’t clear to you, well, I’m not sure what to say.'
 
carefree93 said:
This is pretty freakin simple, and for the life of me, I have no clue how this can’t be grasped by the majority of people responding to me on this thread:

There absolutely should be either rules or consequences in place to ensure this abomination of competition cannot occur when teams purposely refuse to play the game. There is a massive chasm between using clock strategically compared to some of the abominations we saw this past season of staring at each other for quarters on end.

If this isn’t clear to you, well, I’m not sure what to say.
Click to expand...
Oh it's being grasped by everyone. You're just not getting people to agree with you is all.
 
You’re literally arguing with me that you think it’s fine for two teams to play a game by not playing. That’s your cup of tea. I certainly don’t get it why anyone would sit in a gym and literally watch people standing around, but if that’s what you like, that’s what you like. A little strange if you ask me.

Just save yourself some money and time, throw a relative in the corner, hand them a ball, and look at them for 90 minutes. And just call it basketball.
 
carefree93 said:
You’re literally arguing with me that you think it’s fine for two teams to play a game by not playing. That’s your cup of tea. I certainly don’t get it why anyone would sit in a gym and literally watch people standing around, but if that’s what you like, that’s what you like. A little strange if you ask me.

Just save yourself some money and time, throw a relative in the corner, hand them a ball, and look at them for 90 minutes. And just call it basketball.
Click to expand...
Who stole your woobie? It happened once in the tournament this year - get over it. The coaches caught their heat, rightly or wrongly. No need to implement something like a clock to avoid the 1 in thousands occurrence. Or we would have an awful lot more suggestions.
 
Talk some sense said:
Who stole your woobie? It happened once in the tournament this year - get over it. The coaches caught their heat, rightly or wrongly. No need to implement something like a clock to avoid the 1 in thousands occurrence. Or we would have an awful lot more suggestions.
Click to expand...

Thats one of many reasons to analyze needing a shot clock. I don’t have the majority opinion that the shot clock should be implemented for more scoring and more exciting basketball. People keep attributing that to me and I have no idea why. People are so stuck responding to the “need more scoring” crowd they can’t think one second out of the box.

For the 8 millionth time, I think a shot could needs more focus because of the following:

1) it gives the players more freedom to use a wider range of their basketball skills - imo, coach control is one of the biggest issue in the decline of player development
2) in turn, that develops a more complete basketball player, which imo is better for the game, as there are too many players that don’t have multi dimensions to their games
3) it slows down the picking of the big strong football player to fill an “enforcer” role on the teams and leagues where they are allowed to abuse each other with no repercussions - develop the basketball players
4) it slows amount of fouls and free throws in end of game situations because you can use the clock to get more possessions, and
5) it prohibits coaches from holding the ball for an unlimited period of time

None of this has anything to do with my enjoyment or prohibiting teams from competing. IMO, all of these things better the product on the court. Why you keep attributing all of these others things to me is a mystery.
 
carefree93 said:
This is pretty freakin simple, and for the life of me, I have no clue how this can’t be grasped by the majority of people responding to me on this thread:

There absolutely should be either rules or consequences in place to ensure this abomination of competition cannot occur when teams purposely refuse to play the game. There is a massive chasm between using clock strategically compared to some of the abominations we saw this past season of staring at each other for quarters on end.

If this isn’t clear to you, well, I’m not sure what to say.
Click to expand...

And I described a rule to you that was in place previously that had consequences for refusing to play the game.

It was a terrible rule that wasn't enforced early on (because coaches didn't want it enforced), was despised when it was, was tweaked through the years until it eventually evolved into the current 5 second rule. (it was scrapped because it was a bad rule)

I guess you just know better. (I'm still waiting for that list of all the "numerous games" that this occurred in last year)
 
Last edited:
multisportdad said:
So it's the standing you don't like.

Would you agree that running a motion offense risks the possibility of turning the ball over?

If I can stand and hold the ball, without being pressured, why would I risk turning it over?

and as far as even longer goes, why punish a team that is adept at handling the ball and chooses to move the ball around for 2 minutes looking for a good shot? Especially if they are playing against a more athletic team?
Click to expand...
Can’t stand if the defense aggressively comes out and pressure. Stall ball is usually the result of the defense refusing to guard. The big, talented team needs to push the tempo if they can.
 
carefree93 said:
Thats one of many reasons to analyze needing a shot clock. I don’t have the majority opinion that the shot clock should be implemented for more scoring and more exciting basketball. People keep attributing that to me and I have no idea why. People are so stuck responding to the “need more scoring” crowd they can’t think one second out of the box.

For the 8 millionth time, I think a shot could needs more focus because of the following:

1) it gives the players more freedom to use a wider range of their basketball skills - imo, coach control is one of the biggest issue in the decline of player development
2) in turn, that develops a more complete basketball player, which imo is better for the game, as there are too many players that don’t have multi dimensions to their games
3) it slows down the picking of the big strong football player to fill an “enforcer” role on the teams and leagues where they are allowed to abuse each other with no repercussions - develop the basketball players
4) it slows amount of fouls and free throws in end of game situations because you can use the clock to get more possessions, and
5) it prohibits coaches from holding the ball for an unlimited period of time

None of this has anything to do with my enjoyment or prohibiting teams from competing. IMO, all of these things better the product on the court. Why you keep attributing all of these others things to me is a mystery.
Click to expand...
Really only number 5. Everything else has other roots and/or solutions if desired. There may be big strong players who lack skills just as there are players with skills who lack size - but it's not "enforcers" like pro hockey. You really grabbed a bone and are shaking it until it's dead. Guess what? It's dead. Please don't do the 8 millionth and first time. But I bet you can't stop. But I can. Since you don't post on anything else, I guess this is goodbye. lol
 
Talk some sense said:
Really only number 5. Everything else has other roots and/or solutions if desired. There may be big strong players who lack skills just as there are players with skills who lack size - but it's not "enforcers" like pro hockey. You really grabbed a bone and are shaking it until it's dead. Guess what? It's dead. Please don't do the 8 millionth and first time. But I bet you can't stop. But I can. Since you don't post on anything else, I guess this is goodbye. lol
Click to expand...

it’s a different philosophy - win at all costs vs more developmental. i slant towards more developmental as I feel it produces a better game in the long run.

i think coaches that employ this philosophy are more concerned about themselves than they are about their players and the game. You’re allowed to disagree.

this whole debate EXISTS because it’s happened so much over the years, locally and across the country. This wouldn’t be such a polarizing topic if it “rarely happens” - reality has created this argument, not me.
 
carefree93 said:
it’s a different philosophy - win at all costs vs more developmental. i slant towards more developmental as I feel it produces a better game in the long run.

i think coaches that employ this philosophy are more concerned about themselves than they are about their players and the game. You’re allowed to disagree.
Click to expand...
Having a game between teams that are so far different talent wise that one has to employ a strategy to limit the amount of possessions to the extreme that you've been touting, is a game that neither team honestly is gaining anything developmentally wise by playing each other. But for whatever reason they are playing each other. Most of these matchups aren't purposely created by either coach. Most times it's a league game they must play or a tournament game they were forced into.

So knowing that, you say you're for development first. Well that's not going to happen in this type of game. But it especially isn't going to happen if they do what you want, which is to just play straight up and one team win by an insane amount. Honestly, that type of game not only isn't positive developmentally wise, it's more detrimental to all of the players involved, with one team gaining bad habits due to the ease of play and the other not being able to do anything.

Sooooooooo, if you say you're for development, shouldn't you be for teams doing the stall technique? At least that limits the damage to the development of all players involved on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top