Comments on: IMLCA Inspired Shot Clock Debate

By: Why The Shot Clock Is Good For Lacrosse | Lacrosse All Stars

Why The Shot Clock Is Good For Lacrosse | Lacrosse All Stars — Sat, 26 May 2012 18:27:38 +0000

[...] Note: Ryan Connors’ first post on LAS centered around the shot clock debate at the IMLCA Convention. In the end, Connors settled on the idea that keeping the shot clock out of college lacrosse may [...]

By: goldensupplier

goldensupplier — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:21:00 +0000

アグ UGG店舗 UGG ジミーチュウ UGG ブーツ アグブーツ アグレディース UGG レディースブーツ アグブーツ店舗 UGG クラシックブーツ格安 UGG クラシックブーツ UGG クラシック UGG クラシックブーツ UGG クラシックブーツ販売 UGG ナイトフォール UGG ベイリーボタンクリンクル

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:50:00 +0000

The issue isn’t whether it was a shot or a pass, which as you point out is currently a part of the game, but whether a reset should be granted. In the MLL a shot needs to hit the goal (pipes) or the goalie in order for the offense to get a fresh 60 seconds on the shot clock. From my experience, this was often debated during the course of the game, and caused many delays while the issue was sorted out. Some of the issues stemmed from having an inexperienced shot clock operator (or one unfamiliar with the game). I’m not saying that this is necessarily a deal breaker for shot clock proponents, but it is another issue that many might not consider.

By: Always correct dude

Always correct dude — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 05:11:00 +0000

The key is an AUTOMATIC stall call after 60 seconds. People want to eliminate the subjectivity of the refs too. Why should the refs have to determine if a team is playing stall-ball. Just make it automatic. 60 seconds, as you said, seems to be the popular amount of time people are throwing around.

Seriously, I don’t know why we don’t just go with my rule suggestion. It’s literally the easiest method, changes the game in no way except for accomplishing what the shot clock does, and I don’t see an argument against it. If there are arguments against making a solid line along GLE and making that the new stall box I’d like to hear it.

By: Always correct dude

Always correct dude — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 05:06:00 +0000

Determining whether it was a shot or not is still an argument in today’s game for backing up the shot. Was it a shot or a pass? This would not be any different if we implemented a shot clock.

By: joenandez

joenandez — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:11:00 +0000

Something tells me there is a pretty great potential business opportunity for someone who can invent a low-cost shotclock display system.

By: Brian R

Brian R — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:25:00 +0000

A few comments here on the shot clock. I was also at the convention this weekend as a first year assistant coach and there really were some great talks to sit in on. One thing I do know is that after working with the NLL last year and being on the bench for games people fight. The coaches,players and even officials will fight with each other as to what was a shot did it hit someone? No it hit the goalie no it didn’t that hit a defender, did you reset it? No did you? Just one example. Another things that was great was I accidentally sat at the table where we had Matt Poskay and Dom Starsia sitting right next to me during the Nike lunch. Matt had similar to say about the arguing among players in the MLL when it comes to shot clock times and resets along with officials just wanting to get out of the middle. One person brought up the question of who controls these clocks? Most schools have to hire students to run the scoreboard so bringing some kid who never has seen the sport before and asking them to run the shot clock in a sport where he doesn’t even know how many men are on the field would be a tough thing to say the least. On the last note Dom Starsia spoke at the table when asked about the clock (since no one could avoid it all weekend) and his response was not as much a shot clock but if someone is given a stall warning what about taking the goal line extended and having a line on the field on either side of the net maybe. Then when you are told to keep it in you can not go behind the goal anymore. This way shrinking the field and not really giving up a defensive stand or position by being forced to chase people around. Just some great ideas and points of view from the weekend. Sorry this was so long! But needed to be said

By: Rconnors36

Rconnors36 — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:26:00 +0000

These are all excellent points. The cost issue was brought up in conversation multiple times, and that is a entire argument on its own. I do agree with the idea of changing the box to a smaller box with a stall. Like you said subbing is now up to coaches on how the want to do it and risk being stuck in a smaller box. My idea i had was eliminate the edges of the box when stall is called, this prevents the offense from going corner to corner when your under two mins and trying to kill the clock, however there are multiple arguments against that as well. I agree with your point about teams taking an eternity to sub, but the eliminating the horn just adds the quick restart, but then after a quick whistle teams can take 4 mins to sub, so I understand where you are coming from. Thanks for the input.

By: Final Moments from Coach Petro's Presentation - 412 Lax

Final Moments from Coach Petro's Presentation - 412 Lax — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:32:26 +0000

[...] Take a look at LAS for some other thoughts on the shot clock. [...]

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:05:00 +0000

One of positives about a shot clock in lacrosse is that it would be simple to understand. You run out of time, you lose the ball. I don’t want more lines, and I don’t want to have to explain to someone that because the team threw the ball around 5 times, they are now confined to a hexagon drawn on the field. Let’s keep it simple. I’m of the opinion that the game is pretty damn good as it is (attendance is not suffering), but if we make the move to speed up the game, I’m in favor of a shot clock over creating more conditional situations.

By: Always correct dude

Always correct dude — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:50:00 +0000

The TRUE issue in D1 lacrosse is: subbing without any consequence. All that constant subbing is what “slows down the game” and is what is quickly questioned by new viewers of the sport. No other sport allows this much subbing in the middle of the game.

What should happen is to add one more line to the field and GLE. (Turf fields just need to paint another line across the field so low coast) Implement a new rule of an automatic stall call after 60 seconds after gaining possession where the offensive team needs to keep it in the box. This will effectively do what the people wanting a shot clock without adding a shot clock. If the coach wants to eat up part of the 60 seconds to sub then that’s his coaching decision to make knowing he will have to play the rest of the possession within the smaller box 6 on 6. The fact that a team can bring it behind during a stall call eliminates the purpose of the stall. This will not force a team to take bad shots even though they’ve successfully backed it up multiple time, but it will cause more forced turnovers. More forced turnover and less bad-shot turnovers is what we want to see right?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:29:00 +0000

Good article. Welcome to the Network. A couple of points-
1) The fans want to speed up the game. The coaches want to win games. The shot clock discussion has blown up because the most talented teams in the country played at a slow pace and were successful while doing so. I think fans might be over-reacting to the 2011 postseason, but it will be interesting to see if those teams open it up this year. 2) I like your point about the team identities in college sports. The match-ups between the styles create great story lines. I don’t want to see every college lacrosse team play the same way for the sake of the fans or tv viewers. Remember the 90s Princeton-Syracuse match ups? You had control vs chaos. Good vs evil (or at least that’s how I saw it). That was compelling and exciting to watch. 3) The shot clock is a really bad idea outside of D1. Even the D1 coaches that experimented with it in the fall made comments about poor shot selection or the extra burden on the refs or shot clock operator. While I think a Cuse-UVA game or UNC-Maryland game would be great with a shot clock, I really don’t want to see a Wagner-Mercer game (sorry guys) with bad shots and a 4-3 final score. The clock might speed up play, but I think shot clock fans have overestimated its ability to improve play.

By: Always correct dude

Always correct dude — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:23:00 +0000

How does only having subbing on the fly speed up pace of play? Constant subbing is the number 1 reason for the game being so slow. When the offense gets the ball they slow it down and sub out 3-4 players for how ever long they want. Stalling consideration, in the D1 game, doesn’t even become an issue until they start passing the ball around AFTER subbing. You’ll hear the commentators even say that refs have admitted that they will call a stall after the 3rd or 4th time the ball is passed around and goes behind the goal. A shot clock will allow a team to sub all they want but then have to choose if they want to eat up shot clock time to sub. This will be a coaching issue. But eliminating the horn will only exacerbate the current issue of teams on offense slowing it down so they can get specific personnel on the field and passing the ball around in a circle. THAT’S the issue. The issue isn’t the game is slower. You don’t see players walking around or taking their time.

IT’S THE SUBBING in between exciting parts of the game that is the issue. Sure, low scoring games can be fun to watch and even the ND vs Duke championship game was fun to watch. It could have been much higher scoring except ND kept taking horrible angle shots. Like, I mean, stupid horrible. Time after time. Like, dude, what are you thinking horrible. So as a lacrosse player that was exciting, and if half of those horrible shots had gone it, we’d be talking something different. What the non-lacrosse playing person ALWAYS brings up is: “Why are they taking so much time to sub and then just throw it around in a circle? What’s up with the coaches affinity for seeing the ball go around in a circle so much?”

ALWAYS.I’m glad you didn’t use the shot clock cost money argument b/c it doesn’t. The simple rebuttal to the shot clock cost issue is: Why isn’t there a clock for all the other time restrictions like clearing, goalie 4 sec, etc… The answer is b/c it’s not necessary.November 19, 2011. Nebraska at Michigan football game. Power outage at the stadium. No scoreboard or play clocks. Game kept going. Everything from timing to scoring is done through the refs. (Just like any other high school lacrosse game) proving you DON’T need a physical shot clock to implement a shot clock in lacrosse, and that cost involved IS NOT AN ISSUE. Scoreboards, shot clocks, and play clocks are ONLY FOR THE FANS. THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE GAME. AT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL THE REFS CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME. Even if the scoreboard said it, if it’s not marked on the refs scorecard, the goal/touchdown didn’t happen.