Any chance for a shot-clock yet?

You mean like soccer (the most popular sport in the world), hockey, lacrosse, and all the other timed team sports? Or just American football, which needs it because every piece of action is a separate play? So actually it's not at all typical but more of an exception.
LOL...And all of those sports have rules and consequences for stalling.

Why? Because you have to have some mechanism to ensure that not playing the game doesn't provide an advantage to a team. That's why all of these rules are put into place.

Ohio HS Basketball doesn't have a shot clock or a stalling rule. And that's just dumb. If there's no shot clock adoption, there has to be some type of stalling rule implemented that a ref can utilize with a technical foul.

IMO, that leaves too much room for interpretation for the refs to maintain consistency of the call. A shot clock makes it much easier.
 
I actually think shot clock helps the underdogs chances of winning games
"It hurts the weaker team" is another myth of the shot clock.

People think these weaker teams that slow the games down are always pulling upsets. Even when these slow down games occur, the better team is still almost always winning.

The purpose of a shot clock has absolutely nothing to do with trying to equalize talent, as that's an almost impossible task. Again, another moot argument that people give credence to that is based on people opinion's.
 
You don't create or avoid rules because of talent differences. Sports are competitive ventures, and finding the best talent will always be key (but doesn't always equal success).

Rules, whether the adoption or the neglect of, should never give any one team an advantage. At the core of competitive sports, that just makes no sense to do that.
 
What are the rules and consequences for stalling in soccer?
Not to mention it's the least reliable approach to winning, which is the ultimate consequence, yellow cards can be given in cases where a ref thinks it's unreasonable. And no, I don't know the rules for every global league in the world, as I'm sure it's inconsistent.

So instead of agreeing and saying the above poster is wrong, which he is, there are consequences for stalling and not playing the game in all 3 sports he mentioned, whereas in Ohio HS basketball, no rule or consequence currently exists.
 
Not to mention it's the least reliable approach to winning, which is the ultimate consequence, yellow cards can be given in cases where a ref thinks it's unreasonable. And no, I don't know the rules for every global league in the world, as I'm sure it's inconsistent.

So instead of agreeing and saying the above poster is wrong, which he is, there are consequences for stalling and not playing the game in all 3 sports he mentioned, whereas in Ohio HS basketball, no rule or consequence currently exists.
There is not a rule in soccer saying a team can't hold possession of the ball the entire time. Matter of fact some of the best clubs make that a point of emphasis to hold possession.

Every time someone mentions a reason shot clock is bad you just say that's a myth then make your own opinion claiming it is some fact.
 
There is not a rule in soccer saying a team can't hold possession of the ball the entire time. Matter of fact some of the best clubs make that a point of emphasis to hold possession.

Every time someone mentions a reason shot clock is bad you just say that's a myth then make your own opinion claiming it is some fact.
Refs have the authority to take it to the point of a yellow card. There are rules established for its purpose. If the ref doesn't call it, the ref doesn't call it. The point being, there ARE rules and consequences where people have said or insinuated there are none. Not true.

Soccer games are also substantially longer than basketball games. In fact, almost 4x as long from time on the playing field. Soccer isn't basketball.

What did I post that was opinion? Literally nothing. Not one thing.
 
Not to mention it's the least reliable approach to winning, which is the ultimate consequence, yellow cards can be given in cases where a ref thinks it's unreasonable. And no, I don't know the rules for every global league in the world, as I'm sure it's inconsistent.

So instead of agreeing and saying the above poster is wrong, which he is, there are consequences for stalling and not playing the game in all 3 sports he mentioned, whereas in Ohio HS basketball, no rule or consequence currently exists.
The only time a ref will give a yellow card for "stalling" is if a player kicks or throws the ball away to make it longer to retrieve for a restart. If the ball is in play the team controlling the ball can literally stand there with the ball at their feet if the defending team allows them too.
 
Refs have the authority to take it to the point of a yellow card. There are rules established for its purpose. If the ref doesn't call it, the ref doesn't call it. The point being, there ARE rules and consequences where people have said or insinuated there are none. Not true.

Soccer games are also substantially longer than basketball games. In fact, almost 4x as long from time on the playing field. Soccer isn't basketball.

What did I post that was opinion? Literally nothing. Not one thing.
Refs will not card a team or player for simply possessing the ball.
 
OK - so there is some gray area for soccer. Every other sports has something in place.

And again, soccer is 4x as long, has stoppage time, allows ties at times, and has a separate mechanism for deciding winners (shoot-outs) that is completely different from the typical sequence of play. It can't be looked at in a vacuum.
 
OK - so there is some gray area for soccer. Every other sports has something in place.

And again, soccer is 4x as long, has stoppage time, allows ties at times, and has a separate mechanism for deciding winners (shoot-outs) that is completely different from the typical sequence of play. It can't be looked at in a vacuum.
Hockey as long as you keep the puck moving you also can hold the puck, which is what some basketball teams do. If a team is applying defense on a team holding possession and the offensive team can keep possession how is that not skillful?
 
OK - so there is some gray area for soccer. Every other sports has something in place.

And again, soccer is 4x as long, has stoppage time, allows ties at times, and has a separate mechanism for deciding winners (shoot-outs) that is completely different from the typical sequence of play. It can't be looked at in a vacuum.
No stoppage time in HS soccer. They do stop the clock for goals, injuries, situations where the ref will card someone, and anything else the ref wants to stop the clock for (dealing with unruly fans for example).

What does the length of time have to do with anything? Soccer is also played with more players and on a much larger playing field.

Ties only happen in regular season. In the tournament, extra time (overtime) periods (up to 2) are used to settle ties, and then shootouts.

There is no gray area in soccer. And teams can essentially stall the clock much like in basketball. If the defending team wants to stop that they can pressure the ball.
 
Hockey as long as you keep the puck moving you also can hold the puck, which is what some basketball teams do. If a team is applying defense on a team holding possession and the offensive team can keep possession how is that not skillful?
Where did I say it wasn't skillful? That has nothing to do with a shot clock argument.

So if you're really good at playing keep-away, that's what the sport should be? Again, that makes absolutely no sense. If that's what you want to play, go start a keep-away league. That's not what either sport is.

Fact - hockey has a delay of game penalty for stalling. Undisputed.
 
Where did I say it wasn't skillful? That has nothing to do with a shot clock argument.

So if you're really good at playing keep-away, that's what the sport should be? Again, that makes absolutely no sense. If that's what you want to play, go start a keep-away league. That's not what either sport is.

Fact - hockey has a delay of game penalty for stalling. Undisputed.
When you deliberately hold the puck against the board or the goalie holds it. Basketball also has rules in the 5 second penalty when a defender is guarding the player in possession.

I don't see how preventing a team from scoring points is a bad strategy if it is your best chance to win the game, then again I guess some people would just rather lose it seems.

Whether we want to believe it or not there is going to be talent disparity between teams where it is in the best interest of a team to work the ball as best it can to find a clear shot and limit possessions.

Will the flow of the game be better with a shot clock? Maybe I guess but I am also not sure as there are some teams right now that try to go quick offensively and it looks bad on the court. Similar to football teams that think they have to go 5 wide in football and pass every play with kids who cant throw or catch. The coach could be a great coach but you don't always have the kids to make that work.

Edit*- I should add I am not completely opposed to a shot clock, I am just not sure how I see it as the best option either. A lot of pros and cons in my book.
 
When you deliberately hold the puck against the board or the goalie holds it. Basketball also has rules in the 5 second penalty when a defender is guarding the player in possession.

I don't see how preventing a team from scoring points is a bad strategy if it is your best chance to win the game, then again I guess some people would just rather lose it seems.

Whether we want to believe it or not there is going to be talent disparity between teams where it is in the best interest of a team to work the ball as best it can to find a clear shot and limit possessions.

Will the flow of the game be better with a shot clock? Maybe I guess but I am also not sure as there are some teams right now that try to go quick offensively and it looks bad on the court. Similar to football teams that think they have to go 5 wide in football and pass every play with kids who cant throw or catch. The coach could be a great coach but you don't always have the kids to make that work.

Edit*- I should add I am not completely opposed to a shot clock, I am just not sure how I see it as the best option either. A lot of pros and cons in my book.
The average length of possession in basketball is already less than the proposed shot clocks time. On average, that means the flow and pace of the game really won't change.

It will prevent some teams from holding the ball at half court (typically in the tournament) and will also prevent some teams that run motion (or even just passing it around) for a minute or so to chew up the clock before taking a shot. So teams that like to take the air out of the ball when ahead won't be able to do that any longer in the shot clock world.

In agree with what you're saying. Somehow preventing the other team from scoring, no matter the method, is somehow a bad strategy.
 
The average length of possession in basketball is already less than the proposed shot clocks time.
Seriously this is like the 250th time you've said this, and it literally is a moot point in the shot clock argument.

The point of a shot clock is that both teams have an equal amount of time to generate offense (or defense). It has nothing to do with how quickly you shoot. It creates a uniform and consistent pace and flow for the game. Again, that's the POINT of a shot clock that you continue to ignore and push aside.

That's why it really doesn't matter if the shot clock is 24, 35, 40, 45, or 50 seconds. The impact is that both teams are playing by the same rule.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how preventing a team from scoring points is a bad strategy if it is your best chance to win the game, then again I guess some people would just rather lose it seems.
I agree with you if you're doing something to prevent it, like actually defending, or changing defense, or applying pressure. I have always said BOTH coaches should be fired if they allow a game where a team holds the ball for an entire quarter.

It's hilarious that people say holding the ball is preventing a team from scoring points, yet playing defense isn't. As backwards as it comes. There's an obvious difference between time management strategies and blatantly not participating in the game itself. The latter is WHY these rules have to be made.
 
Last edited:
Seriously this is like the 250th time you've said this, and it literally is a moot point in the shot clock argument.

The point of a shot clock is that both teams have an equal amount of time to generate offense (or defense). It has nothing to do with how quickly you shoot. It creates a uniform and consistent pace and flow for the game.

That's why it really doesn't matter if the shot clock is 24, 35, 40, 45, or 50 seconds. The importance is that both teams are playing by the same rule.
Both teams are already playing by the same rule(s).

If the average possession is already less than the proposed shot clock times then the flow and pace of the game is already uniform and consistent.

If you don't want a team to hold the ball or even not pass it around....pull your defense out to guard them for crying out loud. It's not rocket science.
 
Both teams are already playing by the same rule(s).

If the average possession is already less than the proposed shot clock times then the flow and pace of the game is already uniform and consistent.

If you don't want a team to hold the ball or even not pass it around....pull your defense out to guard them for crying out loud. It's not rocket science.
Hence, the inevitable proposed change. There is currently no rule. At all.

Rules aren't put in place because of opinions. The people making this recommendation aren't concerned with people's opinions of the game. Rules set a standard for play in the sport, and that's what this would do.

If you can't grasp that, you never will. You're arguing these points like they are my opinion.
 
I agree with you if you're doing something to prevent it, like actually defending, or changing defense, or applying pressure. I have always said BOTH coaches should be fired if they allow a game where a team holds the ball for an entire quarter.

It's hilarious that people say holding the ball is preventing a team from scoring points, yet playing defense isn't. As backwards as it comes. There's an obvious difference between time management strategies and blatantly not participating in the game itself. The latter is WHY these rules have to be made.
Holding or maintaining possession of the ball is preventing a team from scoring. If they don't have the ball they can't score. Duh.

Of course playing good, sound defense also prevents a team from scoring.

Both things can be true at the same time.

But it sounds like you're now for preventing stalling as a main reason in implementing the shot clock. A few days ago it was just by product.

Wish you could make up your mind
 
It is a by-product.

Rule creates a standard and consistent pace for both teams. By simple logic, that eliminates stalling just from sheer implementation of the rule. But that's not the point of the rule.

Again, pretty damn simple to comprehend for all other people on the planet.
 
Hence, the inevitable proposed change. There is currently no rule. At all.

Rules aren't put in place because of opinions. The people making this recommendation aren't concerned with people's opinions of the game. Rules set a standard for play in the sport, and that's what this would do.

If you can't grasp that, you never will. You're arguing these points like they are my opinion.
Lack of a rule does not equate into a need for the rule. If someone is holding the ball there are options for a defense to stop that from happening already in place.
 
It is a by-product.

Rule creates a standard and consistent pace for both teams. By simple logic, that eliminates stalling just from sheer implementation of the rule. But that's not the point of the rule.

Again, pretty damn simple to comprehend for all other people on the planet.
Back to a by product again. That was fast.

There is already a standard in place.
 
Lack of a rule does not equate into a need for the rule.
It does if the rule is needed.

You act like they're just making up a rule for the hell of it. It's pretty obvious why this rule is being discussed in most states that don't have it. I guess all of those people are crazy and you are John Wooden.
 
Back to a by product again. That was fast.

There is already a standard in place.
What's the standard?

There literally is no standard. Each team can do whatever they want, when they want. That's not a standard. In fact, that's the opposite of a standard.

Common sense 101.
 
What's the standard?

There literally is no standard. Each team can do whatever they want, when they want. That's not a standard. In fact, that's the opposite of a standard.

Common sense 101.
Get the ball across mid-court in 10 seconds. There is a 5 second rule in place. There is a backcourt rule in place. Defenses can guard them whenever and however they want.

Your desire is for the shot clock is based on opinion and preference for style of play.

Denial, 101
 
Get the ball across mid-court in 10 seconds. There is a 5 second rule in place. There is a backcourt rule in place. Defenses can guard them whenever and however they want.

Your desire is for the shot clock is based on opinion and preference for style of play.

Denial, 101
Why would I deny my true intentions for having a shot clock?

What do I have to gain from denying what you say I'm denying?

If I wanted it to change because I like a preferred style of play, I would just say that. Why would I try to hide that?

You make zero sense. You act like I'm trying to subvert the establishment with some secret code to get this approved. If I wanted all games to just be run-and-gun games, I would just say that.

When have I ever taken the round-about approach to any topic on this forum?
 
.
Top