TBT - four minute rule

[Townie72]

Although it first seemed weird, once it started I felt completely comfortable with it as a concept. The reason was is that it's essentially the same thing as all of the pick-up basketball games I ever played in.

You "Play to 21 counting by 2's, but you have to win by 2"

The TBT already had the flavor of high-level pick-up basketball to me. This adds to that.

All that's needed now is a "Call your own fouls" rule.

 

[Finwad32]

If I'm a coach I'm playing like hell to the 4 minute mark. That's the advantage.
The more you're up at that point, the greater the probability to win. I know you could say this about any game, rule or not.

It's essentially just a bullet for that limping horse. Hey, we're sick of watching this game, it's over, why play it out?

 

[pfister1]

They waste time at the end of games. As much time as they can within the confines of the shot clock. Before the shot clock teams would waste major portions of the game, which is why the shot clock was an important invention for basketball, but that was 60 years ago. The Elam Ending is the next step towards improving the game farther. It stops players from wasting 20 seconds each possession they have the lead in the last 4 minutes. Players often literally just stand there and dribble the ball in place wasting time when they have the lead. Surely you know this.

I agree there are ways to deal with fouls other than the Elam Ending, and frankly I would institute those changes as well. Committing a foul should never, under any circumstances, benefit your team.

But the biggest problem with basketball is an end of game situation that is lengthy and boring. It drags out with multiple fouls, multiple free throws and lots of wasting time. The Elam Ending is an elegant solution that creates competitive sport where there was none and the best rule basketball has seen since the invention of the shot clock.

Guess I just disagree that the problem that the rule is trying to solve is as big a problem as you feel that it is. As I said in an earlier post, I'd be all for it in a game where one team has a double digit lead at the 4:00 minute mark. But in a close game like yesterday it takes away more than it adds and it is a terrible rule. No buzzer beater, no over time, no sense of urgency where the team that is down feels a need to push tempo in order to make up a deficit in the limited time remaining.

 

[jgeorge322]

I like the modified version some have suggested but the 4 minute mark is too far out. Maybe do a 5 pt thing with 2 minutes to play in a 10 pt game. But the problem with that is then teams will start fouling at the 3 minute mark to try and keep it under 10. Maybe if they just called intentional fouls.

 

[MSOrange]

Guess I just disagree that the problem that the rule is trying to solve is as big a problem as you feel that it is. As I said in an earlier post, I'd be all for it in a game where one team has a double digit lead at the 4:00 minute mark. But in a close game like yesterday it takes away more than it adds and it is a terrible rule. No buzzer beater, no over time, no sense of urgency where the team that is down feels a need to push tempo in order to make up a deficit in the limited time remaining.

Totally agree with your last two sentences in particular. I usually agree with General but I definitely don't think this rule is the greatest idea that ever came along, at least in closer games

 

[UnknownOrange]

I would like to see it be 11 points, not 7. However we can call this rule for what it is - a marketing tool. This elam ending is obviously designed to make the tournament more exciting. Players will hit "game winners" in every game and someone soon is going to hit a shot for $2 million. THAT is the whole point. Keep hyping this tournament up and one day it will be a shot for $5 million.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I would like to see it be 11 points, not 7. However we can call this rule for what it is - a marketing tool. This elam ending is obviously designed to make the tournament more exciting. Players will hit "game winners" in every game and someone soon is going to hit a shot for $2 million. THAT is the whole point. Keep hyping this tournament up and one day it will be a shot for $5 million.

The idea of this rule predates this tournament though.

I do agree that they're taking advantage of the hype it provides, but TBT is smartly wrapping it in as opposed to originating it.

 

[UnknownOrange]

The idea of this rule predates this tournament though.

I do agree that they're taking advantage of the hype it provides, but TBT is smartly wrapping it in as opposed to originating it.

Right. I didn't mean they came up with it - just its use is designed to bring more excitement to the tournament

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Guess I just disagree that the problem that the rule is trying to solve is as big a problem as you feel that it is. As I said in an earlier post, I'd be all for it in a game where one team has a double digit lead at the 4:00 minute mark. But in a close game like yesterday it takes away more than it adds and it is a terrible rule. No buzzer beater, no over time, no sense of urgency where the team that is down feels a need to push tempo in order to make up a deficit in the limited time remaining.

Basketball game endings are awful. Foul, stop the clock, go to the line, opponent rushes up a shot, stall, do it again.

I think people don't realize how awful it is because we're used to it. There's no reason why the last two minutes of a game should take twenty minutes to run off the clock.

 

[kuethstheman]

I think JB stalls anyway.

 

[OrangeDW]

Basketball game endings are awful. Foul, stop the clock, go to the line, opponent rushes up a shot, stall, do it again.

I think people don't realize how awful it is because we're used to it. There's no reason why the last two minutes of a game should take twenty minutes to run off the clock.

If one team has a solid advantage...maybe.

B-ball games that go into the final minutes tied or up 1 or 2 though? So basically there’s been something wrong with every close game all along? No way.

Big mistake not making this rule apply only when one team is solidly in the lead IMO.

 

[kuethstheman]

I'd rather tinker with the fouls rule than possibly hinder what could be exciting finishes.

Like maybe the team that gets fouled can choose which player already on the floor shoots the free throws. Or maybe a foul in the last five minutes means you have to come out of the game for a minute. Just off the top of my head. I realize there's a downside to everything.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I like that they are doing something to eliminate fouling at the end. Not sure this is the best approach but works for TBT.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I'd rather tinker with the fouls rule than possibly hinder what could be exciting finishes.

Like maybe the team that gets fouled can choose which player already on the floor shoots the free throws. Or maybe a foul in the last five minutes means you have to come out of the game for a minute. Just off the top of my head. I realize there's a downside to everything.

I would change the rule to the fouled team getting possession of the ball if:

- the game is at or under the two-minute mark
- it is a non-shooting foul
- the team that is fouled is up by four or more

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'd rather tinker with the fouls rule than possibly hinder what could be exciting finishes.

Like maybe the team that gets fouled can choose which player already on the floor shoots the free throws. Or maybe a foul in the last five minutes means you have to come out of the game for a minute. Just off the top of my head. I realize there's a downside to everything.

The beauty of this rule is that every game requires one team to deliver a knock out punch to the other team.

That's awesome.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

B-ball games that go into the final minutes tied or up 1 or 2 though? So basically there’s been something wrong with every close game all along? No way.

If those teams fouled each other to stop the clock, yes.

I know. It's a different paradigm and kinda weird to wrap one's head around.

 

[OrangeDW]

If those teams fouled each other to stop the clock, yes.

I know. It's a different paradigm and kinda weird to wrap one's head around.

There’s gotta be a better way to get rid of the fouls than getting rid of the clock itself IMO.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I would change the rule to the fouled team getting possession of the ball if:

- the game is at or under the two-minute mark
- it is a non-shooting foul
- the team that is fouled is up by four or more

I think the elegance of the Elam thing is that it keeps teams playing straight basketball all the way to the end of the game, without placing any unusual end game conditions or rules.

You have to run offense because you need to get points. You definitely have to play defense because those points matter so much now that there's a line to cross as opposed to your opponent running g out of time. You absolutely don't want to foul and give a team an easy path to those 7 points.

Genius!

 

[RandygoCuse]

I think the elegance of the Elam thing is that it keeps teams playing straight basketball all the way to the end of the game, without placing any unusual end game conditions or rules.

You have to run offense because you need to get points. You definitely have to play defense because those points matter so much now that there's a line to cross as opposed to your opponent running g out of time. You absolutely don't want to foul and give a team an easy path to those 7 points.

Genius!

Agreed, I'm just not wild about ending it strictly because a team gets a 7 point lead. It's far from insurmountable with four minutes left. I think the spirit of the rule is to keep teams from following at the end.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There’s gotta be a better way to get rid of the fouls than getting rid of the clock itself IMO.

Why is the clock sacred?

Genuine question. Baseball has 27 outs per side, in increments of 3. Soccer seemingly arbitrarily tacks on "stoppage" time. There are different ways sports can account for time.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Agreed, I'm just not wild about ending it strictly because a team gets a 7 point lead. It's far from insurmountable with four minutes left. I think the spirit of the rule is to keep teams from following at the end.

It's not that they get a 7 point lead. It's that the finish line becomes 7 + the highest score between the two teams at the 4 minute mark.

If teams are tied at 4 minutes it basically becomes first one to 7 points.

 

[Jasoncuse]

I think it needs tweaking.

7 points in a close game doesn't seem like enough.

Maybe move from 7 for all scores to:
- Add 10 or 12 points to leading teams score to win if game is within 7 points
- Add 8 points to leading teams score to win if game is within 8-15 points
- Add 5 or 6 points to lead teams score to win if game is 16+

 

[OrangeDW]

Why is the clock sacred?

Genuine question. Baseball has 27 outs per side, in increments of 3. Soccer seemingly arbitrarily tacks on "stoppage" time. There are different ways sports can account for time.

You play the whole rest of the game with a clock.

Why not just get rid of it and play to a certain score from the beginning? Like pickup?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You play the whole rest of the game with a clock.

Why not just get rid of it and play to a certain score from the beginning? Like pickup?

I actually think that's a pretty interesting idea.

Especially for college hoops.

If teams had to play first one to 85 let's say, you'd sure see offense open up. No benefit in ugging up the game.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Just to reiterate - one of the coolest things about this is that in order to win the winning team has to make a final shot to put it away.

You're guaranteeing that every game ends with somebody making a huge play to ice it.

That's bad a.