The irony of the argument is the offense quit playing….this seems more on the surface of a team quitting on defense. Not a shot clock issue.

 

Why would we compel one team to change their strategy because it wasn't working out for the other ? Seems like the argument is circular.

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.

 

You have a legitimate, debateable topic that has been on here previously. The discussion has merit and will never get unanimous support either way. The problem, whether intentional or not, is that it is being pereceived as "sour grapes" by most. It never bodes well on here when it appears teams lose because of refs or other things such as this, when in reality, in almost every game other factors that the losing team could control didn't take place.

 

Bottom line, when a team gets down quite a bit in the game, they laid that egg. Trying to blame someone or something else just doesn't ring true.

 

Every team usually throughout the season has a game (usually more than one) they let get away from them, got outplayed, has an unfavorable matchup, etc.

 

Until tourney time it really doesn't matter a lot, except for seeding in districts with more than two quality teams.

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

 

That we need to get in their face and get the ball back.

Ok, I have to share this story since it has to do with the title of the thread.

 

I was at a varsity girls game on Saturday. Offense is playing stall ball to get the clock down. No one is up on defense and I mean no one. The offense is standing out there dribbling the ball around and there are like 3 women in the crowd yelling and screaming over and over for the 5 second call. Mr. lawildcat is one of the refs and he tells me later that he is out there thinking, where is my wife because I know she is dying right about now. He was right. I'm looking all around trying to find these women so I can go up and explain the rules to them but someone beat me to it. :isurrender:

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?

 

Would sure be a lot cheaper to paint hash marks back on the floor than add shot clocks!

 

I've never been a big shot clock fan. I actually like seeing teams try to win by playing different styles.

 

I would actually rather see us go back to calling fouls, traveling and double-dribbling, but that's probably a whole 'nother argument. :lol2:

All this talk about shot clocks and their impact on the outcome of the game has got me thinking about some of the many stories I've heard over the years about some clock operators, in general. How some of them were extremely slow to start the clock, or others were quick on the draw...usually to the benefit of the home team.

 

It's always made me wonder if someone, somewhere, at sometime, has been able to hook up a rheostat to their clock. Your team down heading into the fourth quarter? No problem, just turn the dial and add a tenth of a second to every second being played. Your team up, and you want to end the game sooner? Turn the dial the other way, and subtract a tenth off each second. I seriously doubt anyone in the crowd is going to be looking at action on the court and say "Hey, that play took 9 seconds, and 10 came off the clock!" And unlike football, there's no chance of the officials catching it, because they're not keeping track of the time themselves.

All this talk about shot clocks and their impact on the outcome of the game has got me thinking about some of the many stories I've heard over the years about some clock operators, in general. How some of them were extremely slow to start the clock, or others were quick on the draw...usually to the benefit of the home team.

 

It's always made me wonder if someone, somewhere, at sometime, has been able to hook up a rheostat to their clock. Your team down heading into the fourth quarter? No problem, just turn the dial and add a tenth of a second to every second being played. Your team up, and you want to end the game sooner? Turn the dial the other way, and subtract a tenth off each second. I seriously doubt anyone in the crowd is going to be looking at action on the court and say "Hey, that play took 9 seconds, and 10 came off the clock!" And unlike football, there's no chance of the officials catching it, because they're not keeping track of the time themselves.

 

Way to go Cincy.. you've just added one more thing for the conspiracy theorists to worry about... its already bad enough that I wonder when I'm at the gas station if I am really getting 1.0 gallons of gas for my $3.59, or have they played with the instrumentation so it LOOKS LIKE I'm getting 1.0 gallons but I'm actually only getting 0.9 or 0.8 gallons. Now you've added one more thing for me to be suspicious about....