I don't consider the collegiate or professional levels to serve as good examples. That's an entirely different level of play (if you don't think so I reference UK this year with their high school McDonald's All-Americans who haven't come close to elevating their level of play as is necessary) or some of the players who have gone to the NBA too early and ended up having very little or no career there.

 

At the high school level I think that the team that is having the ball held on them must force the action and I think it fair to assume that team has superior talent or the other team wouldn't be holding the ball on them.

 

Not to say that I don't absolutely HATE IT when somebody does it to my team (LOL).

How many of us remember when the officials used to force the defense to come out and play man-to-man when the opponent held the ball?

How many of us remember when the officials used to force the defense to come out and play man-to-man when the opponent held the ball?

 

I know you can't see me but I'm raising my hand.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I know you can't see me but I'm raising my hand.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

And me :taz: :taz: :taz:

....when a team starts holding the ball with 3:40 left in the game. That's the only way the visiting team could stop Madison Central's comeback tonight. Sad.:isurrender:

 

I have read a lot of the comments here, both pro & con. Valid points. BUT let's say a shot-clock rule is instituted & competent operators are available (the real issue), what would be a good limit: a minute, 50, 40, 35 secs. I lean toward a h/s shot clock but would like to hear some views about timing. I would prefer a 40-second clock. Thoughts?

I have read a lot of the comments here, both pro & con. Valid points. BUT let's say a shot-clock rule is instituted & competent operators are available (the real issue), what would be a good limit: a minute, 50, 40, 35 secs. I lean toward a h/s shot clock but would like to hear some views about timing. I would prefer a 40-second clock. Thoughts?

 

1 minute is fine with me. No effect on the game other than eliminating a complete stall.

How many of us remember when the officials used to force the defense to come out and play man-to-man when the opponent held the ball?

 

I think the phrase: officials shall not allow the game to develop into an action less contest comes to mind. Sometimes even when there is action it can be pretty "action less"

Assuming you have electric run to the backboard, than to the scorers table and hopefully there is room at the scorers table for another body.

"Wireless"

If you were that upset why didn't you leave? You also didn't mention the Trinity beat you without their best player.

I have no idea who their best player is or whether he played or not. And, I'm not upset about a loss to the #1 team in the state considering MC graduated all 5 starters from last year and 7 out of the first 8 in last years rotation. Only 2 of MC's players even saw the floor last year and that was for very limited minutes. What I do know is I was proud of MC for their effort for all 32 minutes. If I was sitting on the other side I would be embarrassed at my team for laying down and refusing to "compete" for the win. And, in case you missed the point of the thread, a shot clock would advance the game forcing "both" teams to continue to play until the game is over.

I guess passing and dribbling aren't part of "playing the game"

If you ever watched a game that Al Hatcher coached in, you would have wanted a shot clock long before now.

I have no idea who their best player is or whether he played or not. And, I'm not upset about a loss to the #1 team in the state considering MC graduated all 5 starters from last year and 7 out of the first 8 in last years rotation. Only 2 of MC's players even saw the floor last year and that was for very limited minutes. What I do know is I was proud of MC for their effort for all 32 minutes. If I was sitting on the other side I would be embarrassed at my team for laying down and refusing to "compete" for the win. And, in case you missed the point of the thread, a shot clock would advance the game forcing "both" teams to continue to play until the game is over.

 

More like the other team didn't do what you think they should have to give your team a better chance of winning. How absurd is that? You don't want team to hold the ball against you then teach your kids to play better defense.

 

Maybe Coach Feldhaus should start demanding that opponents only play pre-approved offensive sets :ohbrother:

 

FWIW a few years ago Ballard did exactly the same thing to Trinity so I've been on both sides of it. Still don't want a shot clock.

 

FWIW a few years ago Ballard did exactly the same thing to Trinity

And,what were your thoughts about it while you were watching ?

And,what were your thoughts about it while you were watching ?

 

I watched Apollo beat Mason County in the 2006 Sweet 16 by playing a deliberate, slowdown game. Held the ball for extended periods of time every chance they got.

 

What I thought was "Apollo is doing EXACTLY what they have to do to win the game. I wish Mason County would take a few more chances on defense". And that's what I told anyone who would listen.

 

And it didn't make me yearn for a shot clock.

And, I'm not upset about a loss to the #1 team in the state considering MC graduated all 5 starters from last year and 7 out of the first 8 in last years rotation. Only 2 of MC's players even saw the floor last year and that was for very limited minutes. What I do know is I was proud of MC for their effort for all 32 minutes. If I was sitting on the other side I would be embarrassed at my team for laying down and refusing to "compete" for the win. And, in case you missed the point of the thread, a shot clock would advance the game forcing "both" teams to continue to play until the game is over.

 

I watched the stream, which was pretty awful, and it didn't look like Trinity sat on the ball so much as waited for Madison Central to attack & got some breaks off that, plus a few points when they broke the press. But MC missed an awful lot of foul shots toward the end, as Coach Feldhaus lamented in the Richmond Register, while the Rocks weren't exactly distinguishing themselves at the foul line either. And who says the Rocks are #1? I bet that is not a consensus.

 

And while Trinity's personnel, missing 2 starters & a bencher, was as inexperienced as MC's, I agree with your implicit point: the team on the floor is the team, period. If the Rocks had only 7 guys on the varsity bench, they were the Rocks. That's what Szabo & all good coaches say.

 

I will also say that Coach Feldhaus will be teaching his crew a lot from this game. Madison Central is not going away anytime soon.