Shot Clock

[Dinny Breen]

Food for thought

Article - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beat-the-clock/

In the early 1950s, basketball contests were too frequently boring, slow-moving, low-scoring affairs in which one team grabbed an early lead and then spent the rest of the game simply holding on to the ball until the clock ran out.

The league predictably tinkered with the rules a bit (primarily by expanding the lane from six feet to twelve feet in width, thereby reducing congestion under the basket and forcing teams to rely more on distance shooting), but by 1954 the NBA's economic viability was in serious trouble as paying customers began walking out of some dreadfully dull games. The New York Times reported that "professional basketball's existence was in jeopardy" as fans became disgusted with the "continual stalling and intentional fouling," losing interest as teams sometimes required half an hour to play out the final four minutes of a contest. As John Taylor wrote in The Rivalry, his survey of the "golden age of basketball":

[The] game was still frequently boring, degenerating all too often into what were known as "freeze-and-foul" contests, with the team in the lead playing possession ball to run out the clock and the losing team fouling to try to recover, the game stopping each time it succeeded. In one notorious example of "stall ball," as it was also known, on November 22, 1950, between the Minneapolis Lakers and the Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons, the final score was 19-18. The Pistons coach, Murray Mendenhall, had decided not to run the ball but simply to hold it and wait until the end of the game to score the winning point. He succeeded, but fans were reading newspapers in the stands; some walked out and demanded their money back, others swore never to buy another ticket to a professional basketball game.

The solution to this dilemma was another rule change, one which might seem simple and obvious to today's fans, but which was revolutionary for professional basketball at the time. Danny Biasone, the owner of the NBA's Syracuse Nationals franchise, argued that the league needed to place a limit on how long a team could hold the ball, thereby preventing one side from stubbornly hanging onto the ball until they were fouled (or until the clock ran out) and forcing both teams to play the game at a faster pace.

The implementation of this change — what Taylor described as "the single most important innovation in basketball since James Naismith invented the game" — was the 24-second clock. From 1954 onwards, every time a team gained possession of the basketball during a game, they had to attempt a shot within 24 seconds or turn the ball over to the other team — no more hanging on to the ball for minutes on end to run out the clock or force the other side to commit fouls.

The new rule was implemented a little crudely at first (typically by giving a recruit a stopwatch and having him stand on a sideline and yell "Time!" whenever 24 seconds elapsed during a possession), but by the end of the season all the teams in the NBA had set up 24-second shot clocks around their courts that made the timers visible to players, officials, and fans. The innovation was an immediate and obvious success: In 1953 and 1954 combined, only three times did a team score as many as 100 points in a playoff game; in the 1955 playoffs alone, one or both teams scored 100 points or more in over half the contests (eleven out of twenty-one games), and over the course of those two years attendance at NBA games jumped by 50 percent.

[Farrandeelin]

Mayo's wide count would probably increase by 10/15 at least if this rule was brought in.

[Captain Obvious]

A shot clock would ruin Dublin's keep ball tactics when in front. Congress unlikely to bring anything in that would upset Dublin either.

[Hound]

It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.

If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.

It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up. 

[6th sam]

Would solve a lot of problems , though might have an unintended consequence of teams sitting back ultra defensively to play the 24 secs out.
There are also practical issues at club level , as you would need an extra official or run the risk of further overloading referees.
I think 3 very  simple easily implemented rules should be 13 a side , and no back passes inside /into own half , kick outs must go beyond 45

[Dinny Breen]

It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.

If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.

It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.

I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.

God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.

[Hound]

It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.

If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.

It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.

I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.

God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.

A change that might affect Dublin! FFS. You're a one trick pony.

If you can't see this would be a stupid rule that would encourage ultra defensive tactics, then fair play.

How would it lead to turnovers if every defender is inside the 45m trying to force the opposition to shoot from a mad distance?
It would mean that like in basketball, the vast majority of turnovers would arise from blocked or missed shots. There'd be zero tackling outside the 45m, because there'd be little or no benefit in pressurising high when the opposition have to shoot in a few seconds anyway. 

Anyone who thinks Dublin's style of football is a problem is a gombeen. Kerry v Dublin has been the best game of 2019, two teams playing football.

[dublin7]

It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.

If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.

It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.

I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.

God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.

If teams didn't play so defensive Dublin wouldn't play so much keep ball. A shot clock would only encourage teams to drop deep and the team in possession would be forced to shoot even if the chance wasn't really on. Like limiting the handpass this rule would only benefit teams who play negative football. It's not a coincidence that the best matches I've seen have been between Dublin Kerry and Mayo in the last decade. None of whom play with a blanket defence. I'd reduce teams to 13 a side to create more space on the pitch and make it harder for teams to st up with such negative tactics

[trailer]

It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.

If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.

It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.

I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.

God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.

Dinny forget about how it would or wouldn't affect the game. Look at it from a infrastructure point of view.

How big do you think the clock would need to be?
Where would it be positioned?
How much do you think installation of shot clocks at pitches would cost?
Who would pay for their installation up and down the country?
What contingency have you got for when the clock fails? Postpone matches in an all ready congested calendar?

[TheGreatest]

Another Dublin centric thread.

[Redhand Santa]

Terrible idea that would only encourage very defensive tactics and repeat plays over and over.

I'd agree with someone above who mentioned trialling 13 a side. Players have got so fit that there is less room on the field and much more congested play. I also wouldn't be against not being allowed to kick the ball back into your own half when on the attack.

I still think at county level we could also look at enforcing each team having to keep 3/4 players in each half of the field during the games. This could be monitored by the side line official and easy enough to spot. I'm not sure it would be practical at club level, though blanket defences aren't just as bad there (but do still happen).

[Dinny Breen]

You have X amount of time to move the ball, quickest way to move the ball is by kicking it.

For the purists

1. Less hand passing
2. More kicking
3. More catching
4. More long range scores
5. More dropped shots which will lead to the ball being in play more
6. More shots period

Of course the flat earthers are always afraid of change.

Of course logistics would be an issue but if youth basketball in Ireland can have a shot clock then any sport can. If you don't open your eyes you will never be able to see...

Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...

[Shamrock Shore]

Simps.

Levy fines on the County Board if:

• more than 12 of your players are in your own half at any one time
• your handpasses exceed, say, 100 in a game
• you are Dublin
• you upset Joe Brolly
• Martin Breheny features your county in a Chicken Licken type article

[Hound]

I still think at county level we could also look at enforcing each team having to keep 3/4 players in each half of the field during the games. This could be monitored by the side line official and easy enough to spot. I'm not sure it would be practical at club level, though blanket defences aren't just as bad there (but do still happen).

I think 3 forwards inside the 45m line might be worth a shot. Easy enough to manage as there's a clear line. I wouldn't put a restriction on defenders. If a team wants to gamble with bringing an extra body forward and leave 2 v 3 at the back, then let them at it.

You'd need to decide with sin bins and red cards as to whether that reduces the 3 man limit. I'd be inclined not to reduce it, so you really feel the effect of losing the man.

[Hound]

Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...

Yeah, it's just Dublin supporters against this ridiculous idea...

Although I see your distancing yourself from it now! Maybe, you've decided to think it through.

Grunter!! Getting a tad grumpy in oul age Dinny