Is this a new rule? Or is there such a rule. Reason I asked we had a running clock in our game last night.

They had them last season. Once a team gets down by 36 block runs all the time.

Is this a new rule? Or is there such a rule. Reason I asked we had a running clock in our game last night.

 

35 is the magic number.

Is this a new rule? Or is there such a rule. Reason I asked we had a running clock in our game last night.

 

I think the first year was 2012-2013.

Thanks everyone. You learn something every day....:lol2:

Thanks everyone. You learn something every day....:lol2:

 

Can't believe GRC hasn't been involved in one of these the past 2 seasons.

If that was the case back when I was coaching, the games wouldn't have been 45 minutes long.

As far as I remember the rule last year was down 35 in the second half means running clock the rest of the game (except on free throws and timeouts) even if the margin falls below 35 at some point. Not sure if its changed.

As far as I remember the rule last year was down 35 in the second half means running clock the rest of the game (except on free throws and timeouts) even if the margin falls below 35 at some point. Not sure if its changed.

 

Still the rule, I believe, with the additional provisio that the clock will stop for an injury or a player bleeding.

Can't believe GRC hasn't been involved in one of these the past 2 seasons.

 

We didn't win that many games, but were competitive in most of them. Barely lost twice to MoCo last year. In both games we had a 14 or 15 point lead going into the 4th Q. Then we couldn't throw it in the ocean.....:lol2: In the finals of the district they only beat us by 1 point. 60-61.

I hate this rule. It's well-intended, but totally ill-founded, IMO. Speaking as a basketball coach and broadcaster, here's why I hate it:

1) If I'm the losing coach, I need the floor team for my team. The last thing I need is less time to work on things....(obviously!) The running clock actually contributes to keeping the losing team from improving.

2) If I'm a sub, this rule steals my playing time. I've worked as hard as anyone, now here's my chance to play, and it slips away with a running clock. This goes for the subs of both teams. This is actually why I hate the rule the most; these kids have been living for moments like this!

3) It deprives the fans, many of whom are family of the players. There's grandma in the stands for the one game she'll get to all year, and she sees a lot less of Little Johnny than she expected.

4) It teaches so many wrong things, taking away from the good things that competition can teach. The winner is deprived of the opportunity to show grace in winning; the loser is basically being told that it's not all about "how you play the game". The imparted message becomes that this gam should not have been played because the two teams were not equal...that competition for the sake of competition, sportsmanship, and effort means nothing.

5) It teaches the players nothing about life. Life doesn't have "running clocks".

 

I could go on, but you get the idea.....

I like the rule. If I'm the losing coach I would want the game over as quickly as possible. I've been beat like that before and it's no fun. Really no fun coaching when your on the winning team either. Floor time is not going to help you unless it's practice. If you play your subs, chances are your gonna get beat worse. As for family, I would want the game over also. Parents just complain about getting embarrassed more than playing time. The only ones that get short changed are the subs on the winning team. But if your subs 8-12 you probably are JV players and have your own schedule of games.

I agree with you Colonel. Simply put it teaches kids how to respond to failing. If coaches can't handle the beatdown then they shouldn't schedule the game.

I agree with you Colonel. Simply put it teaches kids how to respond to failing. If coaches can't handle the beatdown then they shouldn't schedule the game.

 

So, you think the rule was instituted for coaches? come on.

No. I think it was instituted to shield kids from embarrassment, which I think is sending the wrong message. If kids do not want to be embarrassed on the basketball floor or any other playing field then they shouldn't come out for the team or they should spend more time working on their games. Kids need to learn that what they get out of competing depends on what they put in to it. They shouldn't be shielded from the consequences.