| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/19/15 6:28 pm ::: so is there an etiquette for end of games? |
Reply  |
|
It seems more than in the past it has become standard once a game is realistically out of reach in the closing seconds for the team with the lead to dribble out the clock near mid court and the defending team to take a couple steps back and let them. Depending on the lead, that can happen in the closing ten seconds, although increasingly I'm seeing it start with 20 seconds or more, or at basically any point once the shot clock is off.
Except in very close games this seems to have become standard for both men and women. It's basically a matter of we won't try to score, you won't defend, and we can all go home without anyone getting hurt. Indeed the coaches usually start walking to shake hands before time runs out.
I just wondered whether this has become a sufficiently universal protocol that it should be expected. And let me be clear, I would never advocate that anyone stop trying until it is clearly futile.
I thought of this after the Duke-ND game. McCallie plainly does not buy into this approach and, judging by her players' actions, evidently insists they play to the last second regardless of score. With less than 15 seconds and ND leading by 13, the ball was passed up court to Loyd, who had a pretty clear lane to the basket and a 2 on 1 advantage. But she stepped over near the sideline, and picked up her dribble. Rather than let it go, though, Riggs raced over, got right in Loyd's face, waiving her arms frenetically, and whacked Loyd on the arm, resulting in a pointless whistle and foul call and two pointless free throws by Loyd. (Loyd who is usually pretty unflappable was obviously not pleased, took a step forward and said something to Riggs.)
Then after Loyd made the free throws (making it a 15 pt lead) Duke charged down court and scored a layup as the clock was running out.
I have mixed reactions. Certainly a team is entitled to play to the end, but it serves no purpose and simply creates a risk of injury to ten players on the court. As I indicated, it seems to have become a matter of near universal etiquette in both mens and womens games to stop and let time expire. So what say Rebkell?
|
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6191
Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/15 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The losing player should be the one to say "gg."
(gamer joke, sorry)
...I mean, I'm not really affiliated with a college, so as a (mostly) impartial viewer, I just don't want to see games that are very clearly over to be dragged out with pointless free throws and timeouts (especially if there's a game on after that and it's running over). I'm not sure what the likelihood of a player getting injured in these situations is though.
At least it's not high school basketball, in which there's no shot clock and teams start fouling with 5 minutes to go?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/15 6:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's up to the team that is behind to give in. As long as they're playing like they have a chance, the leading team should also.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/15 6:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Sadly this is a bigger trend now. Haven't seen this in women's basketball yet but in men's I've seen a few times this year where the defender at the end of the game walks over to the ball handler who is dribbling out the clock, and then puts his hand out as if he's trying to shake hands, and THEN GOES FOR THE STEAL! Happened quite a few times and they are trying to pad stats. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/portland-state-guard-fakes-end-of-game-handshake--steals-the-ball--dunks-231718420.html
I think a double digit game with under a minute the starters should be out of the game but if the losing team's bench players want to practice press then whatever but its clearly pointless.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/15 7:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| It's up to the team that is behind to give in. As long as they're playing like they have a chance, the leading team should also. |
Not buying that. If the team that's leading keeps trying to score then everyone complains they're running up the score. Plainly the team behind controls it in that If they don't stand down then the leader can't just hold the ball until time expires. But the question is whether they should stand down when the game is plainly over with seconds to go.
We're not talking about the last ten minutes of a blowout, by the way, just the last 10 or 20 seconds.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/15 11:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| It's up to the team that is behind to give in. As long as they're playing like they have a chance, the leading team should also. |
Not buying that. If the team that's leading keeps trying to score then everyone complains they're running up the score. Plainly the team behind controls it in that If they don't stand down then the leader can't just hold the ball until time expires. But the question is whether they should stand down when the game is plainly over with seconds to go.
We're not talking about the last ten minutes of a blowout, by the way, just the last 10 or 20 seconds.
|
I don't buy that either. A team with a big lead and has the ball with less than 35 seconds should definitely not try to score. Sometimes, especially at the beginning of the season, you'll see it happen (usually a freshman or walk-on). I'm sure the coaches explain the situation because you never see that team do it again.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/15 12:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't know that there's really a set etiquette here. In general, I'd agree that it's up to the team that's behind to decide whether to acknowledge defeat, but I've certainly also seen teams that are well ahead dribble past half court and go into a holding pattern to see if the team that's behind will play real defense or not. In that case, the leading team initiates it.
I also think this isn't mandatory in any way.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/15 9:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
I don't know that there's really a set etiquette here. In general, I'd agree that it's up to the team that's behind to decide whether to acknowledge defeat, but I've certainly also seen teams that are well ahead dribble past half court and go into a holding pattern to see if the team that's behind will play real defense or not. In that case, the leading team initiates it.
I also think this isn't mandatory in any way. |
No, it isn't mandatory. And, because it's not in the rules, it isn't a set etiquette. But I believe it is proper etiquette. Growing up, and this was the days before the shot clock, we learned not to "pile it on". To do so was considered "bush".
It's the same in football where a team with a big enough lead will not try to score.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/15 10:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
At the high school level in California, the unwritten etiquette is that once you have the ball and an insurmountable lead with less than 30 seconds, you dribble it out.
Of course, not everyone follows that rule, and sometimes a young player will try to score at the buzzer with her team up 15, but for the most part, that's the accepted procedure -- and I think it makes a lot of sense.
The only reason to try to score is to increase the margin of victory, which seems pointless, and the only reason to try to foul is to extend the game. (That said, sometimes I'll have my team continue to foul and hopefully learn how to do so in the waning moments even if we're down 15 with two minutes to go. But once we get to that last 30-second segment, we back off.)
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/15 11:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
At the high school level in California, the unwritten etiquette is that once you have the ball and an insurmountable lead with less than 30 seconds, you dribble it out.
Of course, not everyone follows that rule, and sometimes a young player will try to score at the buzzer with her team up 15, but for the most part, that's the accepted procedure -- and I think it makes a lot of sense.
The only reason to try to score is to increase the margin of victory, which seems pointless, and the only reason to try to foul is to extend the game. (That said, sometimes I'll have my team continue to foul and hopefully learn how to do so in the waning moments even if we're down 15 with two minutes to go. But once we get to that last 30-second segment, we back off.) |
In men's games it seems people have finally figured out that you don't even need to dribble. As long as the defender is not actually defending you, there's no 5 second count, so you can just stand and hold the ball. Which makes for some odd looking situations where the guy with the ball has to just stand there with the ball (if he moves it would require the refs to whistle a traveling violation) while the other 9 guys are already walking off the court to their respective benches, and the coaches are already on the court shaking hands, with ten seconds to go, while the guy with the ball and the ref are just standing looking at each other waiting for the buzzer. I've seen players hand the ball to the ref early. The ref looked sort of lke "what am I supposed to do now", but at least in each case they had the good sense to ignore it and let time expire.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/15 5:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| In men's games it seems people have finally figured out that you don't even need to dribble. As long as the defender is not actually defending you, there's no 5 second count, so you can just stand and hold the ball. Which makes for some odd looking situations where the guy with the ball has to just stand there with the ball (if he moves it would require the refs to whistle a traveling violation) while the other 9 guys are already walking off the court to their respective benches, and the coaches are already on the court shaking hands, with ten seconds to go, while the guy with the ball and the ref are just standing looking at each other waiting for the buzzer. I've seen players hand the ball to the ref early. The ref looked sort of lke "what am I supposed to do now", but at least in each case they had the good sense to ignore it and let time expire. |
LOL. In that situation, I guess you could just place the ball on the floor and walk away, too - if nobody touches it the clock just continues to run.
|
|
CompSci87
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 812
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/15 2:01 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| The ref is considered part of the floor, so if you hand the ball to the ref while he's in bounds, it's the same as placing it on the floor. Except the ref will be puzzled what to do with the ball. Hold it, drop it...?
|
|
CompSci87
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 812
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/15 2:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| In a couple of recent Stanford games the Cardinal got the ball with just over 30 seconds left. In one, the end of the bench was in and they ran offense for about 28 seconds, got a good.look and shot it (successfully) to avoid the shot clock violation. In the next it had been a closer game and some starters were still in. They dribbled near midcourt for 30 seconds and took the shot clock violation on purpose. I hadn't seen that before.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7842
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/15 9:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| What I really hate is when a team is irretrievably behind and continues to foul in the last minutes. I mean, what's the point? You're already 20 points down and you are NOT going to make that up. Mizzou is one outfit that does that.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/15 12:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| What I really hate is when a team is irretrievably behind and continues to foul in the last minutes. I mean, what's the point? You're already 20 points down and you are NOT going to make that up. Mizzou is one outfit that does that. |
Or with 9.1 seconds down 13 as I described in the original post?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7842
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/15 12:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Exactly. WHAT is the point?
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/15 7:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CompSci87 wrote: |
| In a couple of recent Stanford games the Cardinal got the ball with just over 30 seconds left. In one, the end of the bench was in and they ran offense for about 28 seconds, got a good.look and shot it (successfully) to avoid the shot clock violation. In the next it had been a closer game and some starters were still in. They dribbled near midcourt for 30 seconds and took the shot clock violation on purpose. I hadn't seen that before. |
UCLA intentionally took a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left on the game clock this past Sunday afternoon the Bruins were up by 34 against Arizona at the time, and didn't want to rub noses at that point.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/15 7:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| CompSci87 wrote: |
| In a couple of recent Stanford games the Cardinal got the ball with just over 30 seconds left. In one, the end of the bench was in and they ran offense for about 28 seconds, got a good.look and shot it (successfully) to avoid the shot clock violation. In the next it had been a closer game and some starters were still in. They dribbled near midcourt for 30 seconds and took the shot clock violation on purpose. I hadn't seen that before. |
UCLA intentionally took a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left on the game clock this past Sunday afternoon the Bruins were up by 34 against Arizona at the time, and didn't want to rub noses at that point. |
Correct approach, in my view.
And what would have been your reaction if one of the AZ players had run up to the UCLA player holding the ball and aggressively attempted to steal the ball from her while she was trying to just end the game?
That was the situation that I described in the original post.
Hopefully the AZ players had enough class to join in letting the clock expire.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/15 7:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| CompSci87 wrote: |
| In a couple of recent Stanford games the Cardinal got the ball with just over 30 seconds left. In one, the end of the bench was in and they ran offense for about 28 seconds, got a good.look and shot it (successfully) to avoid the shot clock violation. In the next it had been a closer game and some starters were still in. They dribbled near midcourt for 30 seconds and took the shot clock violation on purpose. I hadn't seen that before. |
UCLA intentionally took a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left on the game clock this past Sunday afternoon the Bruins were up by 34 against Arizona at the time, and didn't want to rub noses at that point. |
Correct approach, in my view.
And what would have been your reaction if one of the AZ players had run up to the UCLA player holding the ball and aggressively attempted to steal the ball from her while she was trying to just end the game?
That was the situation that I described in the original post.
Hopefully the AZ players had enough class to join in letting the clock expire. |
The AZ players *did* have enough class to just let the clock expire.
If the AZ player had done what you described, I probably would've found it somewhat annoying, but honestly, I wouldn't've cared a whole lot... my Bruins were about to win a game by 34 points in a season in which such outcomes were rare for them. So my team was happy, and I was happy, and the above hypothetical wouldn't've much changed that. I would've just chalked it up to frustration, more than anything.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/27/15 8:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| CompSci87 wrote: |
| In a couple of recent Stanford games the Cardinal got the ball with just over 30 seconds left. In one, the end of the bench was in and they ran offense for about 28 seconds, got a good.look and shot it (successfully) to avoid the shot clock violation. In the next it had been a closer game and some starters were still in. They dribbled near midcourt for 30 seconds and took the shot clock violation on purpose. I hadn't seen that before. |
UCLA intentionally took a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left on the game clock this past Sunday afternoon the Bruins were up by 34 against Arizona at the time, and didn't want to rub noses at that point. |
Correct approach, in my view.
And what would have been your reaction if one of the AZ players had run up to the UCLA player holding the ball and aggressively attempted to steal the ball from her while she was trying to just end the game?
That was the situation that I described in the original post.
Hopefully the AZ players had enough class to join in letting the clock expire. |
Take a look at the end of the 2000 NC game. Lawson did exactly that.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
|
|
