I have a couple of questions. First, can anyone quote me chapter and verse as to what the running clock rule is under KHSAA rules? Secondly, in all the leagues that I have ever seen use a running clock when the differential gets too great, I have never seen the trailing coach have the option of declining the running clock, and I would like to see them have that option. While it is rare to come back from a 25 point deficit (the level that it is at for a lot of AAU leagues) I witnessed it in a game last week where a team was down 25 in the second half, but the other team's two best players, who had scored almost all their points, both had 4 fouls early in the third quarter. The leading team held the ball as long as they could every possession, knowing that the clock would continue running until the lead had been brought back down to 15. This was clearly a case of the winning team abusing the rule to hold on to a win. Wouldn't it be better if the losing coach had the option of declining it? Besides this reason, even in games that I am involved, I still want my kids to have their time on the court. Am I alone in this?

If the losing coach had the option to decline it, there'd be some idiot "never say die" coach out there with his starters in getting their brains beat in by 70 getting kids injured. Bad idea all around. Blowouts are insufferable. Get 'em over with ASAP.

But a Basketball "Blowout" probably doesn't have the same injury concerns as a Football one does. Much more likely to get back in a game down 35 in BB than in FB, IMO.

The KHSAA rule has no "point of return". If a 35-point game somehow becomes tied, the clocks still running.

But a Basketball "Blowout" probably doesn't have the same injury concerns as a Football one does. Much more likely to get back in a game down 35 in BB than in FB, IMO.

 

Oh, I thought we were in football.

 

I would still say there will be players who will get uptight and take out frustrations on the winning team. I've seen it too often. Just get these blowouts overwith. In terms of "much more likely" on the comeback scale, I'd say 1 out of every 100 might come back from that deficit in football. In hoops it's maybe 3 out of 100, at least on the high school level.

By this logic, why not just end the game then, when it gets to a 35 point lead? If the concern is the risk that the losing team takes cheap shots at the leading team, you should just end it then. If you don't want your kids to keep playing hard - which I think is the appropriate mindset - then just end the game at the 35 point mark.

 

I just don't attribute cheap shots to the size of the lead. Not that I've never seen cheap shots in blowouts, but I've seen more in games when there wasn't a running clock, or mercy rule, put in place. It has more to do with the temperament of the players than the size of the margin, and it is the job of the officials to keep it under control, regardless of the margin.

I have a couple of questions. First, can anyone quote me chapter and verse as to what the running clock rule is under KHSAA rules? Secondly, in all the leagues that I have ever seen use a running clock when the differential gets too great, I have never seen the trailing coach have the option of declining the running clock, and I would like to see them have that option. While it is rare to come back from a 25 point deficit (the level that it is at for a lot of AAU leagues) I witnessed it in a game last week where a team was down 25 in the second half, but the other team's two best players, who had scored almost all their points, both had 4 fouls early in the third quarter. The leading team held the ball as long as they could every possession, knowing that the clock would continue running until the lead had been brought back down to 15. This was clearly a case of the winning team abusing the rule to hold on to a win. Wouldn't it be better if the losing coach had the option of declining it? Besides this reason, even in games that I am involved, I still want my kids to have their time on the court. Am I alone in this?

 

 

I've seen Estill County come back from about 23 points down in the 4th quarter to send the game into OT and eventually win.

 

Unless your a powerhouse of a team taking on a little school/team then it's hard to keep any one down that much in the last quarter.

My biggest problem with this rule isn't about potential comebacks being negated, but that on each side it limits the backups and bench players who have put in a lot of hard work in practice from getting extended minutes.

 

It should be all about the kids. Sadly it isn't.

I've seen Estill County come back from about 23 points down in the 4th quarter to send the game into OT and eventually win.

 

Unless your a powerhouse of a team taking on a little school/team then it's hard to keep any one down that much in the last quarter.

 

23 is not 35. It's a helluva lot easier to get a lead under 10 when you're coming from 23 down. Only takes a handful of stops. Coming back from 35 down is a whole 'nuther story.

By this logic, why not just end the game then, when it gets to a 35 point lead? If the concern is the risk that the losing team takes cheap shots at the leading team, you should just end it then. If you don't want your kids to keep playing hard - which I think is the appropriate mindset - then just end the game at the 35 point mark.

 

I just don't attribute cheap shots to the size of the lead. Not that I've never seen cheap shots in blowouts, but I've seen more in games when there wasn't a running clock, or mercy rule, put in place. It has more to do with the temperament of the players than the size of the margin, and it is the job of the officials to keep it under control, regardless of the margin.

 

As I note above, there's a big difference between 23 and 35 down. The odds of some HS team rallying from 35 down to come back is astronomically against. I mean, you're more likely to hit the lottery.

As I note above, there's a big difference between 23 and 35 down. The odds of some HS team rallying from 35 down to come back is astronomically against. I mean, you're more likely to hit the lottery.

 

Or at least the Split the Pot.

Edited November 4, 201312 yr by scon36
correct

Remember this from a couple of seasons ago?

 

Indiana team wins after trailing by 29 in fourth quarter ? USATODAY.com

 

I'm not a fan of a running clock in basketball at any level, and I concur with all the reasons against it already stated by others in this thread. I can see it in football, but in basketball let the kids play it out under normal clock circumstances. Ultimately no one loses. It's more practice and game time experience. If the coach feels it's an insurmountable lead, then there's no harm in giving his bench more playing time. If the team is up for the challenge to make a comeback then more power to them. It's a good chance to work on strategy. A varsity high school game only usually lasts about an hour and a half to begin with. You do more good using every bit of the clock that you can versus trying to just get the game over with.

 

BTW... Coach Rick from South Dearborn is an '82 grad from Covington Catholic, and just previous to his coaching assignment in Indiana was the head coach for the Beechwood Tigers in Ft. Mitchell, Ky where he lead them to a couple of not so typical fine seasons for their program. He'll be bringing his team to compete in this season's Lloyd Invitational Tourney in Erlanger, Ky

After reading the posts of those favoring the running clock, I gotta say I was a little surprised at the rationale. I thought the running clocks advocates were people that were concerned with the fragile emotions of the losing team, not wanting to have them feel so "defeated", but it turns out most of the running clock proponents are more concerned with the increased risk of injury when there is a blowout. In response, my point is still that I think an injury from a hyper aggressive dirty team in a close game is more likely than an injury resulting from a player on a losing team in a blowout being frustrated. I always try to refrain from specific examples to prove my point, but this time it begs it.... I would venture to say that Covington Latin has more 35 point losses in its history than most schools in Kentucky, and I have never seen or heard of a Covington Latin player acting out in anger and frustration from getting blown out and causing an injury.

After reading the posts of those favoring the running clock, I gotta say I was a little surprised at the rationale. I thought the running clocks advocates were people that were concerned with the fragile emotions of the losing team, not wanting to have them feel so "defeated", but it turns out most of the running clock proponents are more concerned with the increased risk of injury when there is a blowout. In response, my point is still that I think an injury from a hyper aggressive dirty team in a close game is more likely than an injury resulting from a player on a losing team in a blowout being frustrated. I always try to refrain from specific examples to prove my point, but this time it begs it.... I would venture to say that Covington Latin has more 35 point losses in its history than most schools in Kentucky, and I have never seen or heard of a Covington Latin player acting out in anger and frustration from getting blown out and causing an injury.

 

Probably because they expect it? It's a little different story at some podunk school in the middle of nowhere that doesn't have academic achievement to hang its hat on.

So why wouldn't we allow Covington Latin to decline a running clock, if the coach wanted to get their kids a full 32 minutes of game time?