Mercy Rule Help

[UNIgiantslayers]

In Iowa at 35 pts, it stops for free throws when mercy rule is in effect, which I've always thought was odd. They have to get the lead down to 20 for the running clock to stop.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

In Iowa at 35 pts, it stops for free throws when mercy rule is in effect, which I've always thought was odd. They have to get the lead down to 20 for the running clock to stop.

CA had the mercy rule. It was 40 points and once the clock starts it only stops for injuries or TO's. It starts and runs when the ball is made live and once it starts there is no scenario where it goes back to normal for the remainder of the game. This was 5 years ago, since I moved from CA, so some things may have changed.

[packersowner]

Starting the clock at the end of the timeout period seems to make the most sense. Otherwise, this encourages a coach to take the remaining timeouts simply to stop the clock during the free throw.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by packersowner

Starting the clock at the end of the timeout period seems to make the most sense. Otherwise, this encourages a coach to take the remaining timeouts simply to stop the clock during the free throw.

What's wrong with that? I hate the "mercy" rule. Whether on the winning or losing end, it's an opportunity to get some kids more playing time than they might otherwise. I wouldn't want to cut that short. I wouldn't call timeout if ahead by 40, but i would understand if the losing team didn't want to get the game cut short. I think it should only be in effect by mutual agreement. How do other coaches feel?

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

What's wrong with that? I hate the "mercy" rule. Whether on the winning or losing end, it's an opportunity to get some kids more playing time than they might otherwise. I wouldn't want to cut that short. I wouldn't call timeout if ahead by 40, but i would understand if the losing team didn't want to get the game cut short. I think it should only be in effect by mutual agreement. How do other coaches feel?

If you are waiting until you are getting blown out by 40 to get playing time for the end of your bench, that's on you.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

If you are waiting until you are getting blown out by 40 to get playing time for the end of your bench, that's on you.

Where did I say or imply that I did that? And, I don't get the point. My point is I don't care what the score is, I want to play a full game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Where did I say or imply that I did that? And, I don't get the point. My point is I don't care what the score is, I want to play a full game.

Well, you're the only one.

Amazing how 2 free throws can take a minute when the clock's running.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

What's wrong with that? I hate the "mercy" rule. Whether on the winning or losing end, it's an opportunity to get some kids more playing time than they might otherwise. I wouldn't want to cut that short. I wouldn't call timeout if ahead by 40, but i would understand if the losing team didn't want to get the game cut short. I think it should only be in effect by mutual agreement. How do other coaches feel?

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Where did I say or imply that I did that? And, I don't get the point. My point is I don't care what the score is, I want to play a full game.

You weren't implying it with this?