TBT - four minute rule

[Alsacs]

The only change I would make make is the Elam ending starts at 2 minutes rather than 4 minutes.

I like it though.

 

[Townie72]

I think JB stalls anyway.

You know all this.

If you play a zone and the opponent spends a great deal of time passing around trying to solve it, that slows the game down.

If you play a zone and there are almost always two guys "up top" that reduces fast breaks and slows the game down.

And if your half court offense is anemic that also slows the game down as your search for a better shot for long time and then jack up a 3..

Playing slow isn't a JB strategy, it's the result of the SU zone plus limited offensive capability.

 

[orange79]

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.

True, but they also don't combine clock and arbitrary 'end game' criteria (27 outs, wickets lost, etc.).

Above, you say, "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."
IMO, this is nothing BUT an unusual end game condition or rule, unless I am misinterpreting you.

 

[sufandu]

Depends on whether we get screwed or not. I guess it gets the team out of the patented JB 4 minute slow down offense.

I can't see anyway that it screws anyone. If you're in the lead, score 7 more points. If you're behind you better make some stops and hit some shots.

 

[kuethstheman]

You know all this.

If you play a zone and the opponent spends a great deal of time passing around trying to solve it, that slows the game down.

If you play a zone and there are almost always two guys "up top" that reduces fast breaks and slows the game down.

And if your half court offense is anemic that also slows the game down as your search for a better shot for long time and then jack up a 3..

Playing slow isn't a JB strategy, it's the result of the SU zone plus limited offensive capability.

I was referring to the last few minutes with a lead, not a general slow pace of play.

Stalling with a lead is definitely a JB strategy and one that he might not give up, even with the TBT rule.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

True, but they also don't combine clock and arbitrary 'end game' criteria (27 outs, wickets lost, etc.).

Above, you say, "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."
IMO, this is nothing BUT an unusual end game condition or rule, unless I am misinterpreting you.

I'm saying that the finite clock encourages teams to adopt a strategy that takes them out of playing straight basketball, and Elam restores it to what it should have always been.

/insert mind blown gif here

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I was referring to the last few minutes with a lead, not a general slow pace of play.

Stalling with a lead is definitely a JB strategy and one that he might not give up, even with the TBT rule.

I hope JB gets used to losing, then.

 

[orangepassion]

I'm usually a traditional guy, but kinda liked it. Can't stand the numerous fouls and timeouts that drag out end of games. Also, for those who miss the buzzer beater, every game has a quasi-buzzer beater in the sense that every game has a game winning shot.

 

[Consigliere]

Certainly adds some interesting strategy decisions. Blackwell's decision to foul at the first opportunity to start the countdown with a lead and not in the bonus reminded me of cutting off the jam in old Roller Derby days. Joanie Weston would have loved it! And the way things played out in the waning minutes in a close game really adds intrigue, If BA had the ball tied at 57 instead of up 2 do you look exclusively for the 3 or take the 2 and give Fancy a chance to beat you? If you're Fancy do you give up the 2 for the ball and a chance to win?
Up 59 - 57 with a target score of 60 do you ply it straight, cheat to the perimeter to take away the 3, foul?

Like the sudden death component. Ambivalent in that it eliminates overtime. As long as we keep winning I'll stay somewhat positive, I guess.

 

[OrangeDW]

Up 59 - 57 with a target score of 60 do you ply it straight, cheat to the perimeter to take away the 3, foul?

You mean there’s still going to be situations where teams strategically foul, and that teams will find ways to manipulate the rules to their advantage no matter what?

 

[kuethstheman]

At the first stoppage in play after the four minute mark the rule comes into play. The game will end when one team reaches a score that is seven points higher than the leading team's score at the four minute mark. Hopefully my explanation makes sense.

Want to make sure I understand: Does the game go on without limit if no one scores seven points? I was assuming it still ended when the clock ran out and that the seven point thing could end it early.

 

[Knicks411]

Want to make sure I understand: Does the game go on without limit if no one scores seven points? I was assuming it still ended when the clock ran out and that the seven point thing could end it early.

As far as I know, once the target score is decided on, the clock is completely gone.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Want to make sure I understand: Does the game go on without limit if no one scores seven points? I was assuming it still ended when the clock ran out and that the seven point thing could end it early.

As far as I know, once the target score is decided on, the clock is completely gone.

Game clock is turned off.

Shot clock remains.

 

[Tom K.]

I haven't been able to see this in action but on paper I don't like it.

I see the appeal somewhat but couldn't you still foul a horrible free throw shooter with pretty good chances that he clanks both and hopefully grab a board?
And I very much don't like a team winning a game by 1-2 points when in a traditional game there may have been a few minutes of clock left.

You can use it to end blowout games sooner but the fans can make a conscious decision to leave the arena or turn the TV off.

I'd prefer to just award a team 2 free throw shots and retain possession in the event of late-game (under 2 minutes) intentional fouling. The appeal of fouling is to stop the clock and get the ball back. Make it so the offending team won't get the ball back. Play straight up defense.

 

[kuethstheman]

As far as I know, once the target score is decided on, the clock is completely gone.

In that case, I dont' think even JB would stall!

 

[Tom K.]

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.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a huge play. It could be a bad bounce and an uncontested layup.
You get those now in regular games.

But what I can guarantee will go away are half court heaves and insane buzzer beater shots that just go in. Players take these shots because they have to get it off before the clock expires. With no clock, there is no reason to take them. Reset and get a better shot.

Say goodbye to John Gillon's buzzer beater to beat Duke.

 

[sufandu]

I haven't been able to see this in action but on paper I don't like it.

I see the appeal somewhat but couldn't you still foul a horrible free throw shooter with pretty good chances that he clanks both and hopefully grab a board?
And I very much don't like a team winning a game by 1-2 points when in a traditional game there may have been a few minutes of clock left.

You can use it to end blowout games sooner but the fans can make a conscious decision to leave the arena or turn the TV off.

I'd prefer to just award a team 2 free throw shots and retain possession in the event of late-game (under 2 minutes) intentional fouling. The appeal of fouling is to stop the clock and get the ball back. Make it so the offending team won't get the ball back. Play straight up defense.

It's also intended to prevent the team that's ahead from stalling. They still have to play too.

 

[cuse10]

I was against the idea when it began, but after seeing it on television and live on Sunday, I like it. It forces teams to play instead of drawing the game out by fouling or stalling. You have to play defense and run offense. It made for a better brand of basketball especially in the Armored Athlete/Iona game which Iona could have won despite entering the Elam Rule behind.

 

[pfister1]

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.

Or making a couple of free throws, like our game on Saturday. I don’t think this guarantees the “big ending” at all.

 

[Ryand877]

The only change I would make make is the Elam ending starts at 2 minutes rather than 4 minutes.

I like it though.

Agree on the two minutes and I don't mind it for this tournament (Would still prefer the regular way), but I am totally against this for college b -ball.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Doesn't necessarily have to be a huge play. It could be a bad bounce and an uncontested layup.
You get those now in regular games.

But what I can guarantee will go away are half court heaves and insane buzzer beater shots that just go in. Players take these shots because they have to get it off before the clock expires. With no clock, there is no reason to take them. Reset and get a better shot.

Say goodbye to John Gillon's buzzer beater to beat Duke.

Or making a couple of free throws, like our game on Saturday. I don’t think this guarantees the “big ending” at all.

Any shot that ends the game and sends the loser home is a big shot.

 

[Cusefan0307]

As i said in the other thread I kind of like the rule, but overtime is no more. With no overtime we never have Syracuse/UConn in 2009.

 

[Tom K.]

Any shot that ends the game and sends the loser home is a big shot.

Not sure I react to a free throw the same way I do a half court shot. Both win the game but as a fan a free throw is a yawn.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Not sure I react to a free throw the same way I do a half court shot. Both win the game but as a fan a free throw is a yawn.

I agree. That's why fouling at the end sucks.

If a free throw is going to have the most drama, it works to have a scenario where it's make it and send the other team home though.

 

[OttoMets]

...

Say goodbye to John Gillon's buzzer beater to beat Duke.

Yep - instead we probably would have run a hideous offensive set for 29 seconds, tossed a prayer, and watched Luke Kennard or Jason Tatum come down and win the game for the other team.

It's a neat idea, but like somebody else said, teams are always going to find a way to get around the spirit of competition.