30 Years Behind
 

Well, that's one opinion. The powers that be have tinkered with the pace of play for years. Remember the hashmarks, where we would step in and command, "Play!"?

Maybe it depends on where you find the beauty of the game.

Just say no to "no zone". It does not promote good defense at all and just creates arguments in every league I've done where one coach teaches a help side defense and nobody else has figured out how to teach it. And your stopping the game every possession when the kid with no attention span drifts away from his man.

Drop the age for the big kid rules to 11+, at least on the boys side.

What are you talking about? It seems as if three sports have been mashed together: baseball, because baseball umpires command "Play!" whenever the ball is dead, football, because football fields have hashmarks on which the ball is spotted, and basketball.

The shot clock would reduce the need for any other pace of play rules, because a team that plays under time constraints all game long, whether from the shot clock, or from the game clock when there is less time on the game clock than on the shot clock, will not be likely to stall and drag down the pace of play. The shot clock still gives a team the opportunity to play fast or slow, but it limits how slow the game can be, to reward both good offensive and good defensive play.

It's not an opinion it's fact. It's evolution. Competitive games require shot clocks (period). The beauty of the game is making it so teams have an incentive to attempt to score. It's not the 90's and no one gives a crap about defensive "fundamentals". Points wins games. Show me a team that has won by scoring less than their opponents and I'll say I'm wrong.

He's talking about the rules as they used to be.

The shot clock is needed where the game is *more* abouth the entertainment and where you can recruit who plays for you.

At levels where it's all about who lives close and chooses not to participate in another activity, then the teams should be allowed more freedom to compete as they see fit -- and if that means a slowdown, so be it.

You are going to make MTD go up into his attic. There was a time when courts had hashmarks along each side line. If a team held the ball beyond them and made no attempt to penetrate, and the defense sat back, we would, at some point, step in and tell the defense to come out and "play." Or so I remember it.

Well, if you say so, it must be true. I alway thought that if you played sound fundamental defense and held your opponent to fewer points than you scored, you'd win.

I like bob's response about when/where a clock is needed--sounds like a reasonable distinction.

I never said it's not needed for all levels. I said it's needed for competitive levels. Any play for fun, or participation leagues don't need it. If a league is competitive then the expectation is the kids will get better and move on and up, where shot clocks are used, say college. So get them used to it. I wouldn't use it below 9th grade (and in some cases even in 9th grade). But by the time you get to varsity or competitive travel, shot clock is necessary.

That's just nonsense. A very, very small percentage of HS players play NCAA basketball. Why gear the game for them rather than the vast majority who will not play after HS?

Because MOST, if not ALL, HS players want to play college basketball.

In Cali boys =35 girls=30 and for boys visible 10 count. No back court count for girls

How is that even relevant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would be in favor of shot clocks if we use it to eliminate a bunch of other rules. If we eliminate the closely guarded counts, it would be a step in the right direction. ... we need to eliminate the ability to sub after the last of made free throws. We need to eliminate calling time out after a made basket by the scoring team .... But hey that’s me

In Massachusetts, we use a 30-second shot clock for all high school/prep basketball, and for the main 5th-8th grade intercity leagues. It's been that way for at least a decade, possibly quite longer, so it's second nature to all officials, table crews and teams/players involved in at least moderately serious basketball. And yes, the game is wayyyyy better because of it.

I went to a Division I boys state semifinal in Conn. between the supposed top two teams in the state, and the stalling started in the second quarter. It was atrocious. I was getting antsy just watching and felt so relieved that nobody has to endure that nonsense in Mass.

We still use a visible 10-second count for boys games, because though the shot clock starts on a legal touch, NFHS rules dictate that the 10-second count doesn't begin until team control is established inbounds. These are not always at the same time.

No 10 seconds for girls when a shot clock is being used. They can dribble out all 30 in the backcourt if they want.

The game is more difficult to officiate, because you have one more thing to constantly be aware of -- and one more thing for the table to screw up -- and the learning curve will be steep if it is instituted nationwide, but it absolutely makes the game better and more fun to officiate.

Very funny definition of opinion and fact.