Another shot at the shot clock

[Sonny]

October 13, 2005
Mike Keegan

It’s not an official rule, and the NCAA didn’t ask them to experiment with it.

So it was simply out of their own curiosity that the teams at the MRB Buckeye Classic at “The Ohio State University” played their games with a 60-second shot clock, no substitution horns, and timeouts could be called anywhere on the field.

OSU coach Joe Breschi, who’s Buckeyes played Maryland and the Michigan USLIA team, said it pushed the pace of the game and increased the shot totals for both teams, much to the enjoyment of the fans in attendance.

“I thought [the shot clock] was great,” says Breschi. “One common thought for [Terps coach] Dave Cottle and me is that it should be a little longer, maybe 90 seconds instead if 60. Once you’ve finished clearing and making substitutions, you’ve only got about 20 seconds left, so there wasn’t much continuity on offense.”

Even with increased shot totals, it didn’t dramatically increase the scoring in the game. In fact, Maryland and Ohio State tied 7-7 with a shot clock. A week later, when the Terps and Buckeyes met again in St. Louis without a shot clock, the score was 10-7.

Both Cottle and Butler coach Stan Ross—whose Bulldogs also played at the Classic—felt something else was needed to help the offense. If a team rides hard, it could take 20 seconds to clear the ball. That doesn’t leave much time to get into a rhythm on offense. Then when the shot clock winds down, defenses could settle into a tight zone, forcing a low-percentage outside shot. Both Cottle and Ross mentioned a two-point shot as a possibility to help discourage defenses from packing it in. Ross mentioned removing the longstick midfielder as a possibility, but added that he’d hate to see that happen.

“If you took the pole away it would help the offense,” says Ross. “But that would take something away from the game.”

Rest of the article on IL.com:
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=100412

[LaxRef]

Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

I'm sure that you could come up with all kinds of crazy rule changes, have a few teams play a few games with them, and have people say, "Yeah, that was great!"

This experiment does nothing to address the big problem: the cost of having a visible shot clock.

Also, I had to laugh when they said "Once you’ve finished clearing and making substitutions, you’ve only got about 20 seconds left." That to me is the real problem: teams taking too long to sub on every possession. I'd like to see something that addresses that issue.

I think the stall rule works fine when applied properly, although some officials only seem to give a stall warning about every other total solar eclipse.

[JW]

I agree with you LaxRef, if the USLIA adopted a shot clock, it would be near to impossible for every team to have, very expensive. Also, I don't believe that scoring is an issue in Lacrosse. I think that Rules committees are thinking too hard when it comes to changes in the game. I don't believe that we need to do a whole lot to increase scoring. I believe that MOST refs do a great job enforcing the rules that are played. I also believe that the Stall rule is great when used appropriately.

I think one rule that may need to be monitored more is the Body check rule? Examine and Identify what exactly the Body check is. I know i don't speak for myself when I say that I have seen a lot of What I thought to be legal Body checks, but those players were penalized.

The game that I grew to love only a few years ago didn't have a shot clock, didn't have a two point arch, has a long stick midfielder.

As we say in the health care world when Nothing is wrong with a patient, we write NO CHANGES NECESSARY