RealGM

Alright, this is probably something that's been thought of many times before, but I'm bringing it up again and seeing what responses I get...

When the team on offense only has a few seconds on the shot clock and the ball gets poked away (as the shot clock expired), they need to make it so that as soon as the ball is touched by the team on defense, another play has started.

What I mean by this is simple - reward good defense, don't penalize it.

I was just watching the Bulls/Jazz game and Hinrich had 1 second on the shot clock. He, unwisely, attempted to make a pass to his teammate, but Kirilenko stepped in the passing lane and tapped the ball up-court. Unfortunately for the Jazz, the shot clock expired as Kirilenko touched the ball (though he didn't have possession). His 1v0 fastbreak which would have easily translated into 2 points for Utah was taken away.

This rule needs to be changed. Great defense shouldn't be penalized.

Yep pretty obvios the current way sucks.

Agreed
On Phx vs SA game on Sunday I think it was that happened. I think it was late in the game. And we all know how important easy points against the spurs are. At the time I thought it was dumb that they called a shot clock violation. And I still do

yea they said that in the phx game lol.

yea it should defeintly be in concideration for next season.

yea, it makes more sense that way. like in hockey when there's a penalty, ref only stop play once the penalized team touch the puck.

disagree - if the bulls (for example) manage to chase down the loose ball they get a fresh 24 - this is penalizing good defence

but i would like to see some sort of 'advantage' rule specifically for the situation you describe, ie if the defense pokes the ball and retains control with a distinct advantage, play can continue and the 24 violation on the offense is ignored.

alexb618 wrote:disagree - if the bulls (for example) manage to chase down the loose ball they get a fresh 24 - this is penalizing good defence

but i would like to see some sort of 'advantage' rule specifically for the situation you describe, ie if the defense pokes the ball and retains control with a distinct advantage, play can continue and the 24 violation on the offense is ignored.

Agreed with the 2nd part. Maybe the rule could be that only if the opposing team gets possession does the shot clock reset. But if the same team recovers it, no change is made.

this is where it all starts to get real difficult as we are only talking one or 2 seconds on the shot clock. so the ref has to determine what 'posession' is and so on and so on

i dont know that the nba would really want to place any more responsibility on their already inconsistent refs

i think this is a good idea in theory though

alexb618 wrote:this is where it all starts to get real difficult as we are only talking one or 2 seconds on the shot clock. so the ref has to determine what 'posession' is and so on and so on

i dont know that the nba would really want to place any more responsibility on their already inconsistent refs

i think this is a good idea in theory though

As a viewer at home, is the situation ever really that ambiguous? The ones I've seen are fairly obvious.

nuff said.

miller31time wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



As a viewer at home, is the situation ever really that ambiguous? The ones I've seen are fairly obvious.

could be said for a lot of calls in the nba

Same thing can hurt said "good defense", say someone is standing by the 3 point line, about to go drive and shoot with a few seconds on the shot clock, ball gets poked away, fresh shot clock, ball goes out of bounds. Offense gets ball back with full shot clock instead of a shot clock violation. It can go both ways really.

i really dont know if you'd want refs to have to make judgement calls like that, i could just picture something like that screwing a team over in a big playoff game

This would not reward good defense at all, in fact it would punish it.

The majority of simple deflections get returned to the offensive team, and this rule would give them a fresh shot clock.

studcrackers wrote:i really dont know if you'd want refs to have to make judgement calls like that, i could just picture something like that screwing a team over in a big playoff game

Thats exactly how I feel, this will give the refs too much power.

It's similar to fumbling in football. Yeah, it's stupid to nitpick if the knee barely touches the ground a nanosecond before the ball comes out, but you have to have some way to clearly differentiate between a fumble and down by contact.

In theory yeah it would make the game more exciting, but there would be no way to change the rule so that it's still cut and dry. There would be way too much controversy.