The Shot Clock and close games: a solution.

[Clems Knee]

The problem is when a player is taking a shot, they wait for the 30 seconds to count down before taking the shot or passing to another player. Time wasting kills the excitement of a close game. Darling started wasting the shot clock in the first minute of the final quarter today.

The solution is to stop the game clock while the shot clock is counting down on the screen. No advantage to the kicker to look at the shot clock and wind down the seconds. No disadvantage either. The timing is handled by the timer - pretty easy to set up so both the shot clock and the game clock never work at the same time - and it's not another job for the field umpire. All the umpire has to indicate is that the player is taking a shot. Simple and elegant.

I have not seen this solution suggested before. Any comments?

 

[falcons2]

The rules are there already. Players should be required to take their normal time for a shot at goal. 30 seconds maximum. If the umpire deems a player is deliberately time wasting they are penalised and lose the ball.

 

[STFU Donnie]

A player has a legitimate set shot at goal and is allowed 30 seconds to take it. Where exactly is the problem?

 

[JVseven]

Darling is an actual idiot.

 

[Clems Knee]

The rules are there already. Players should be required to take their normal time for a shot at goal. 30 seconds maximum. If the umpire deems a player is deliberately time wasting they are penalised and lose the ball.

Deliberate time wasting happens every time in a close game, and it never gets called. A player can kick to another loose player and reset the shot clock, wasting close to a minute of play. This has happened this year. People have called for special rules regarding the continuation of the shot clock, or number of shot clocks allowed per inside 50. The rules are being exploited.

A junior coach I knew (in Country week WA years ago) called for a head count in the last few minutes of a game when the momentum was against them and they were up by less than a goal. Dick move but they won the game, because the clock kept going. Do you think a coach should be allowed to do that?

A player has a legitimate set shot at goal and is allowed 30 seconds to take it. Where exactly is the problem?

The 30 seconds rule came in because full forwards like Lloyd took an eternity to kick for goal. The shot clock came in to make it easier for an umpire to judge the 30 seconds, not for the goal kicker to milk the clock. The AFL decided not to show it for the last 5 minutes, then changed their mind, because there was now a problem. None of this would have happened if there wasn't a perceived problem.

 

[half_back_flank]

So how does the umpire know when to call play on, electric shock collar controlled by the time keeper?

 

[SuperSteele22]

Yeah nah.

The onus is well and truly on the defending team to ensure that the player with the footy does indeed have a shot and isn't able to hit up a short option. In fact I'm staggered at how often the defending side allows an opposition player to become a passing option for the kicker.

It shouldn't be allowed to happen but only because teams shouldn't let it happen, not because it needs to be outlawed.

 

[MowShow]

I do think the rule needs to be looked at, particularly at the end of a game where a player will take their 30 seconds only to pass the ball and have a team mate also take their 30 seconds.

The 30 second rule should only apply to shots on goal and if a player indicates that they are going to have a set shot, they should not be allowed to pass the ball.

Perhaps only allowing one shot clock per team possession? I don't know.. A free kick if the player didn't take a shot? Not sure if either of those are the answer but it's a bad look "taking" your shot clock and not having a shot.

In general I think the rule is fine apart from this one loophole.

 

[falcons2]

Deliberate time wasting happens every time in a close game, and it never gets called. A player can kick to another loose player and reset the shot clock, wasting close to a minute of play. This has happened this year. People have called for special rules regarding the continuation of the shot clock, or number of shot clocks allowed per inside 50. The rules are being exploited.

A junior coach I knew (in Country week WA years ago) called for a head count in the last few minutes of a game when the momentum was against them and they were up by less than a goal. Dick move but they won the game, because the clock kept going. Do you think a coach should be allowed to do that?


The 30 seconds rule came in because full forwards like Lloyd took an eternity to kick for goal. The shot clock came in to make it easier for an umpire to judge the 30 seconds, not for the goal kicker to milk the clock. The AFL decided not to show it for the last 5 minutes, then changed their mind, because there was now a problem. None of this would have happened if there wasn't a perceived problem.

Some good points. On the head count, I thought if you were wrong about it, you lost your score. May vary league to league. State to state. I got a feeling this may be in junior footy where there is no time on.

Rules are made to be broken so the shot clock will always be exploited. Get rid of it. The umpires adjudicate on everything else so to on goal kicking. After 15 seconds or so give the hurry up and if they don't .. play on.

A players 'routine' is no business of the umpires. Get a move on.

Imagine marking the ball 1 metre out in the goal square. 70 seconds to go. You run up the other end for 28 seconds, turn then have a slow 150 step walk back to the goal square taking the full time to take your kick. As you say some 'dick' will do it.

 

[SterlingArcher]

The junior footy head count scenario does not apply to AFL at all.

 

[Jukesy85]

Sure turned out great for Darling...could've won if they had that extra 25-30 seconds left on the clock late.

 

[The 747]

So how does the umpire know when to call play on, electric shock collar controlled by the time keeper?

I like this idea. Should be also controlled by fans though.

 

[Clems Knee]

So how does the umpire know when to call play on, electric shock collar controlled by the time keeper?

Same as now. The shot clock runs down.

 

[Wallaby]

It can cause problems. Tennis had a small problem with a few players deliberately slowing the game down between points at times - so they introduced a 30-second rule (maybe 25 - not sure). The result is now the EVERY player takes the 30 seconds EVERY point - and the game is ridiculously slower as a result.
Golf had a few slow players, so they introduced some 'maximum' time rules to speed up the slow players. Guess what? The result was that they slowed down every other player to that level. Pro golf is now tortuous to watch.

As soon as you legislate a 'maximum allowable' level for anything in sport, all players will start to use that maximum, even if they never did before.
I don't think the 30-second clock has caused any great slow-down in the game from where it was a couple of years ago - but have a look at some of the games from the 60s and 70s on youtube - shots for goal have definitely slowed down from then.

 

[Furn2]

Youd have to reduce quarters to 17mins or so

At a guess I'd say there's 20-30 set shots a game so that's an extra 10-15mins if the clock is stopped.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Think in the last couple of minutes, they should do what basketball does and stop the clock for everything.

 

[HTT]

Stop the clock for every set shot - make it black and white and just any mark/free kick inside 50 is a set shot, anything outside isn't. You could even drop quarters to 18min or similar if needed. Removes incentive

Think in the last couple of minutes, they should do what basketball does and stop the clock for everything.

That is the stupidest thing in sport. Why is that 3 minutes treated differently to the rest of the game? And is it for just the last quarter? One team could get more playtime kicking with the wind.

 

[hoianbulldog]

I quite like the OPs idea.

I have thought that one 30 second count down for any inside 50 would work but perhaps the OP has a more practical solution.

 

[barrackers]

Should just reduce the 30 seconds to 15 seconds. Most players are ready to take their kick in half the time allowed.

 

[hcd199]

Stopping the clock creates conceptual problems - if the thirty seconds to shoot for goal doesn't run down the clock at all, then why should any mark or free? Why not stop the clock for every mark until play-on is called? To do so seems contrary to the point of the game clock (to count the time during which the contest takes place, thus including time taken to kick after a mark but not, say, time taken between the umpire's whistle and a ball-up), but not to do so is inconsistent.

I do think the rule needs to be looked at, particularly at the end of a game where a player will take their 30 seconds only to pass the ball and have a team mate also take their 30 seconds.

The 30 second rule should only apply to shots on goal and if a player indicates that they are going to have a set shot, they should not be allowed to pass the ball.

Perhaps only allowing one shot clock per team possession? I don't know.. A free kick if the player didn't take a shot? Not sure if either of those are the answer but it's a bad look "taking" your shot clock and not having a shot.

In general I think the rule is fine apart from this one loophole.

I don't much like the idea of penalising players for otherwise legitimate disposals, but it's clear there is a loophole in the rules here, with players using the time in ways it wasn't intended for. That to me suggests the flaw is with the '30 seconds for a shot, 6 seconds around the ground' concept itself - as such, I'd be loath to add new rules to get around a problem the rule itself creates. Still, I do think, as a standard, the times presently used aren't bad - maybe it just needs to be looser, rather than a formal "shot clock"-type situation? Though that adds more greys to a set of rules already very open to umpire interpretation...

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Where exactly is the issue? If teams aren't chewing up the clock having a shot at goal they'll be doing it chip kicking around half back. Same solution applies

MAN UP!!!

 

[1234fivesix]

So how does the umpire know when to call play on, electric shock collar controlled by the time keeper?

Put them on the players instead. Knowing there will be physical repercussions for wasting time might stop it.

 

[Pessimistic]

They stopped the clock while Hawkins put his shoe boot back on. So the iles can be altered to suit an agenda not quite so final

Didn't Geelong also win another game over this rule?

 

[Clems Knee]

Should just reduce the 30 seconds to 15 seconds. Most players are ready to take their kick in half the time allowed.

Yeh I don't mind that, except that the AFL have decided that kicking goals is a good look, and that it is reasonable to let a player take a breath before taking a set shot. Set shots are just about the only part of modern football that hasn't improved. We don't want to make it worse.

Stopping the clock creates conceptual problems - if the thirty seconds to shoot for goal doesn't run down the clock at all, then why should any mark or free? Why not stop the clock for every mark until play-on is called? To do so seems contrary to the point of the game clock (to count the time during which the contest takes place, thus including time taken to kick after a mark but not, say, time taken between the umpire's whistle and a ball-up), but not to do so is inconsistent.

There are already situations where the time clock is stopped when a mark or free kick is awarded near goals and nowhere else. The umpire raises his arms to signal the timekeepers to stop the clock if he needs to redirect the player to kick from the right angle. It wouldn't take much difference if in the umpire's opinion the player is taking a shot (as indicated by the player in order to get the thirty seconds) and stops play by raising their arms in the same way. Currently the umpire signals time on again when they have finished redirecting the player's line.

The umpire raises his arms and the shot clock starts on the big screen. At the same time the game clock stops until the shot clock stops. Currently the shot clock disappears when the player starts moving forwards to take their kick. If the thirty seconds runs down before this, the umpire signals play on, and the game clock starts again.

Where exactly is the issue? If teams aren't chewing up the clock having a shot at goal they'll be doing it chip kicking around half back. Same solution applies

MAN UP!!!

Manning up would still be the best way to combat time wasting, and not manning up will still allow a team milking the clock to take advantage. The difference is that players are given much more time when they elect to shoot for goal than in general play, which gives them an advantage not available anywhere else on the ground. Either stop the special rules for players taking a shot, or make allowances for those special circumstances.

 

[blitzer]

Time wasting at the end of a close game is an important strategy and its not particularly easy given how many teams mess it up and give up their leads. I don't see any need for a 'solution'. Both teams have a long amount of time to get ahead. If you earn a good lead - you have every right to use whatever tactic you can to hold onto it as long as its legal.