River 17 @ Fort Frye 21 Final " Stall Ball"

[Daddy_Tiger]

Call it desperate if you want, but River had the ball inside 30 seconds down 2.

River kids bought in and played the plan well. Definitely not perfectly though. It was almost enough to get it done.

I will say the actions after the game of some of the FF fans were and are embarrassing. Anyone that says those things to the River kids and coaches needs their butt whooped. Period.

[EasternDspy]

I wasn't at the game so don't know anything about that.

[EasternDspy]

Cadets only had 1 turnover all game and 4 total fouls. What I don't get is why they weren't more aggressive you got fouls to give.

[Billybob55]

Typical fort frye though, no class at all

[enigmaax]

Call it desperate if you want, but River had the ball inside 30 seconds down 2.

River kids bought in and played the plan well. Definitely not perfectly though. It was almost enough to get it done.

I will say the actions after the game of some of the FF fans were and are embarrassing. Anyone that says those things to the River kids and coaches needs their butt whooped. Period.

I would like to know what was said and why.

I am interested to know how exactly this unfolded (from The Marietta Times): "...the large crowd on hand watched River's Joe Flannery hold the ball in his hands for six and a half minutes before missing their only shot of the quarter as time expired in the first half." It makes it seem as though he literally just there with the ball, which would mean that Fort Frye made zero attempt to play defense for virtually the entire 6.5 minutes. Is that right? Because otherwise, he'd have to have made a move or passed the ball or something.

Though "stall ball" isn't exciting, you do have to have a certain skill level with the ball in order for it to remotely work provided the defense actually, you know, attempts to play defense. If they just stood around and watched the seconds tick off, isn't that more on Fort Frye than on River? (I wasn't there, hoping someone can provide a little more context.)

Some other information from the Times recap:
- FF was up in the 1st quarter 4-0 until River made its first attempt of the game and then hit a 3 at the buzzer to lead 5-4
- River attempted 3 shots in the 1st half and FF was 4-8 from the field
- After being down 6 to start the 3rd quarter, River ran a little bit of an offense and then stalled for the last 6 minutes of the 3rd quarter
- River was down 3 in the 4th and ran the clock from 7 minutes to 1.5 left before turning it over
- FF made two FTs to lead by 5, but River made a three and then stole the inbounds pass to trail by 2 with the ball with 0:26 left (but didn't score and FF added 2 FTs to seal it)
- Both teams shot 7-12 from the floor (one kid for River was 1-6, the other three who took shots were 6-6), but FF went 7-9 from the line to River's 1-2; River also had 7 TOs to FF's 1; FF owned the boards, 3-2
- Fort Frye was 0-2 from the 3-pt. line (River was 2-6) > How long has it been, or how often, has FF ever failed to make a 3-pointer in a game? For some reason, I was thinking they had some remarkable streak of consecutive games with a three at one time but I'm not sure if it was ever broken or if it was record-level or anything like that.

[efarns]

River reaches into the gimmick bag; still can't beat Fort Frye

[Whs95fan]

will be interesting to see how many other teams attempt this tactic in post-season play.

[Ironman92]

No one agrees with me but I would like a 35 second shot clock.

[EasternDspy]

Yea a 35 second clock does need to be adapted every year something like this happens. I mean you can't really blame River they kept a 20 plus point game close and had the ball down 2 with 20 seconds left.

[G.W.A.]

No one agrees with me but I would like a 35 second shot clock.

I agree

[enigmaax]

Yea a 35 second clock does need to be adapted every year something like this happens. I mean you can't really blame River they kept a 20 plus point game close and had the ball down 2 with 20 seconds left.

Does something that happens a few times a year really mean there "needs" to be a change?

Like anything, if it does ever change, teams will adapt and it will just kind of become "the way it is." But it seems like the debate only really comes up because fans feel like they're entitled to some prescribed level of entertainment or something. The simple fix in most of these type of games is for the defense to refuse to just stand and watch a kid hold the ball.

I saw a study either done or posted by MaxPreps that shows that states without a shot clock have an overall average higher score than states with a shot clock, though the difference is like 1-2 points. Essentially, there's no major impact other than you wouldn't see a handful of teams each year give themselves a chance against an overmatched opponent.

The biggest negatives in my mind are that there would be a cost forced on schools to upgrade scoreboards and the training/execution of the clock itself. You have volunteers running clocks and already it seems like no one is ever happy with the quality of officiating; adding another layer of responsibility just seems like asking for more problems/issues/complaints and again, it is for really no measurable payoff.

Another theory against a shot clock is that it opens up more potential for bad shots on a regular basis, as a good team now could work for as long as it takes until the defense breaks down instead of suddenly having to force up a shot at a certain point. Not sure of the validity of that argument because I haven't seen a study of the average time taken for a shot. But, it has been proven that a shot clock doesn't necessarily increase scoring at the high school level, so again, not sure the hassle of the change is worth it.

I'm interested in other pros besides, "a few games are boring without a shot clock."

[Ironman92]

Yea a 35 second clock does need to be adapted every year something like this happens. I mean you can't really blame River they kept a 20 plus point game close and had the ball down 2 with 20 seconds left.

Does something that happens a few times a year really mean there "needs" to be a change?

Like anything, if it does ever change, teams will adapt and it will just kind of become "the way it is." But it seems like the debate only really comes up because fans feel like they're entitled to some prescribed level of entertainment or something. The simple fix in most of these type of games is for the defense to refuse to just stand and watch a kid hold the ball.

I saw a study either done or posted by MaxPreps that shows that states without a shot clock have an overall average higher score than states with a shot clock, though the difference is like 1-2 points. Essentially, there's no major impact other than you wouldn't see a handful of teams each year give themselves a chance against an overmatched opponent.

The biggest negatives in my mind are that there would be a cost forced on schools to upgrade scoreboards and the training/execution of the clock itself. You have volunteers running clocks and already it seems like no one is ever happy with the quality of officiating; adding another layer of responsibility just seems like asking for more problems/issues/complaints and again, it is for really no measurable payoff.

Another theory against a shot clock is that it opens up more potential for bad shots on a regular basis, as a good team now could work for as long as it takes until the defense breaks down instead of suddenly having to force up a shot at a certain point. Not sure of the validity of that argument because I haven't seen a study of the average time taken for a shot. But, it has been proven that a shot clock doesn't necessarily increase scoring at the high school level, so again, not sure the hassle of the change is worth it.

I'm interested in other pros besides, "a few games are boring without a shot clock."

Why have 10 seconds to get across 1/2 court?

Most high schools don't have a play clock visible for football.....they still manage to have the rule in place and penalties are thrown every game for that purpose.

A shot clock would guarantee every game has a certain number of possessions for each team. Why did college start having a shot clock? Seems to me that if you have just 10 seconds to cross 1/2 court....why couldn't you get a good shot worked up over the next 25 seconds? How many times does a team play suffocating defense once across 1/2 court....and the team trying to score can't get a shot off? Rare if ever.

To me if the team on offense isn't trying to score....then there needs to be a shot/play clock.

[enigmaax]

Why have 10 seconds to get across 1/2 court?

I assume that was originally done to help the defense and to speed up the game? But I don't know why that would mean there should be a shot clock too.

Most high schools don't have a play clock visible for football.....they still manage to have the rule in place and penalties are thrown every game for that purpose.

True, but I see a few major differences. One, football has more officials, making the tracking requirement less of a task for an individual. Also, the clock is running during an inactive period so it can be tracked while not having to monitor any other number of actions. In basketball, you'd either be adding responsibility to one of (possibly) two officials on the court, rely on a volunteer to either multi-task at the scorer's table or be solely dedicated to that task, or hire an extra qualified official for that exclusive purpose. Yes, it could be done, but what is the real return on whatever the additional investment may be?

A shot clock would guarantee every game has a certain number of possessions for each team. Why did college start having a shot clock? Seems to me that if you have just 10 seconds to cross 1/2 court....why couldn't you get a good shot worked up over the next 25 seconds? How many times does a team play suffocating defense once across 1/2 court....and the team trying to score can't get a shot off? Rare if ever.

But why does there need to be a minimum number of possessions? My impression as far as why professional and college basketball implemented a shot clock was purely from an entertainment standpoint. If there was a different reason, I would like to hear it. I see the point about how the rule impacts (or doesn't) the college game, but there is a completely different skill level there. The high school teams that take advantage of unlimited possession time are nearly always the underdog, so it brings an element of equalization to the competition. I don't think that is a terrible thing at the high school level where there may be outrageous differences in skill levels based exclusively on what one geographic area offers over the other (for the most part, you don't pick your players at high school, so having the ability to creatively make your team competitive is a plus IMO).

To me if the team on offense isn't trying to score....then there needs to be a shot/play clock.

Side question - are you against the kneel down play in football? Although it clearly can't be exploited to the same extent, it is a ploy specifically designed to avoid action that can basically end a game, what, 2-2.5 minutes before it is actually over?

I still go back to the fact that the defense can, to a great extent, force the offense's hand when it comes to this stall ball. The 5-second rule is already in place to prevent a team from merely standing around with the ball. Is it too much to ask that the defense not stand and allow one person to hold the ball for 6 minutes at a time? At the very least, applying moderate defense forces the offense to demonstrate fundamental skills (dribbling, passing?).

It sounded as though River held the ball a minimum of about 18 minutes (wasn't clear how much time they actually held it in the 1st quarter). So in the other 14 minutes or so (maybe way less), Fort Frye forced 7 turnovers. Had FF chosen to play a little defense the rest of the game, is there any reason to think that River's ability to stall wouldn't have been nearly as dreadful?

So again, I ask, is there any real reason/impact that changing the rule would have other than taking away the strategy that is utilized in a very small number of games?

[Binary]

I like the shot clock idea, especially if it is implemented like the poster above says without a clock. Yea, let's put something else in the hands of the officials. I have run out of things to biitch at the refs about, and this would really spice things up from that stand point. So instead of just getting to scream "THREE", "FIVE" and "TEN" we will now be able to also scream "TWENTY-FIVE." Yea I like it.

[Ironman92]

enigmaxx....you are obviously passionately against it and you have your reasons.

I am for it. I'm not going to change your stance and vice versa. It's ok that we disagree.

Have a good day.

[Daddy_Tiger]

Call it desperate if you want, but River had the ball inside 30 seconds down 2.

River kids bought in and played the plan well. Definitely not perfectly though. It was almost enough to get it done.

I will say the actions after the game of some of the FF fans were and are embarrassing. Anyone that says those things to the River kids and coaches needs their butt whooped. Period.

I would like to know what was said and why.

I am interested to know how exactly this unfolded (from The Marietta Times): "...the large crowd on hand watched River's Joe Flannery hold the ball in his hands for six and a half minutes before missing their only shot of the quarter as time expired in the first half." It makes it seem as though he literally just there with the ball, which would mean that Fort Frye made zero attempt to play defense for virtually the entire 6.5 minutes. Is that right? Because otherwise, he'd have to have made a move or passed the ball or something.

Though "stall ball" isn't exciting, you do have to have a certain skill level with the ball in order for it to remotely work provided the defense actually, you know, attempts to play defense. If they just stood around and watched the seconds tick off, isn't that more on Fort Frye than on River? (I wasn't there, hoping someone can provide a little more context.)

Some other information from the Times recap:
- FF was up in the 1st quarter 4-0 until River made its first attempt of the game and then hit a 3 at the buzzer to lead 5-4
- River attempted 3 shots in the 1st half and FF was 4-8 from the field
- After being down 6 to start the 3rd quarter, River ran a little bit of an offense and then stalled for the last 6 minutes of the 3rd quarter
- River was down 3 in the 4th and ran the clock from 7 minutes to 1.5 left before turning it over
- FF made two FTs to lead by 5, but River made a three and then stole the inbounds pass to trail by 2 with the ball with 0:26 left (but didn't score and FF added 2 FTs to seal it)
- Both teams shot 7-12 from the floor (one kid for River was 1-6, the other three who took shots were 6-6), but FF went 7-9 from the line to River's 1-2; River also had 7 TOs to FF's 1; FF owned the boards, 3-2
- Fort Frye was 0-2 from the 3-pt. line (River was 2-6) > How long has it been, or how often, has FF ever failed to make a 3-pointer in a game? For some reason, I was thinking they had some remarkable streak of consecutive games with a three at one time but I'm not sure if it was ever broken or if it was record-level or anything like that.

Some examples from social media from FF dans

"You all should be ashamed. Teach your kids to avoid competition rather than confront it. Cowardly. You all should call for your coaches to be fired. I feel sorry for your student athletes."
11 hrs · Like


"A game plan? Bs your coaches knew they get blew out if they played a fair game. Who teaches kids to play like that though??"
11 hrs · Like
·
"Ban your coaches. Send en back to pee wee."

Tame compared to some of things I heard leaving the game including an attempted confrontation of River's coach.

As for the game. The first quarter, FF did apply some pressure out front. Got a couple turnovers and allowed one back door. After that, when they went ahead they simply dropped back and allowed River to hold it. No pressure at all except for the start of the second period. FF forced a couple turnovers and went up 9-5 with about six to play. Instead of trying to continue to build the lead, he chose to let River hole it for nearly 6 minutes. IMO that was a huge mistake as they were on the verge of forcing River to abandon the stall if they got up much more.

I happen to agree with the shot clock being a good idea, but from what I have seen, referees and clock operators struggle now without it. I can't imagine trying to implement and find shot clock operators.

[bigballa_68]

For those who don't know I'll tell you what happened to the River players as they left the floor after the final buzzer. My son was one of the players involved. After both teams shook hands they headed towards the locker room. As my son rounded the corner of the bleachers ( he was about the 7th or 8th in line) he saw something land on the players in front of him. As he looked up into the stands 3 or 4 PARENTS where spitting on them!!! Not to mention some of the stuff they were yelling. As a one time play, and now a parent and Loyal fan of all high school sports this is not acceptable! I've attended every FF and River sporting event (boys) for as long as I can remember and have never seen this kind of reaction from the FF fans. Usually they are some of the most friendly fans I've ever met. I guess the biggest question is where does all this hatred and disrespect come from? Is it because we decided to leave the PVC? Hopefully someone on here can enlighten me why your Fans need to act in this manner. And yes my son and I will be in St. Clairsville to watch who ever FF meets in the Final. A lot of us parents (and Grandparents) are not only fans of River High School but fans of the sport we love.

For those of you who are complaining about a slow down game. I'll bet you any amount of money 20 years from now if you were to ask any of the players on either team if there's one game that sticks out in their mind most will mention this game. FF is a very talented squad with good size. River could never match up with this team. With that being said our only chance to win this game was to slow it down. This has been used by our school many times over the years with a success rate of 50%.
It's a shame I'll probably remember what happened after the game more so than the game it's self.

[enigmaax]

enigmaxx....you are obviously passionately against it and you have your reasons.

I am for it. I'm not going to change your stance and vice versa. It's ok that we disagree.

Have a good day.

I don't feel that strongly. Like I said, if it ever happens it'll get to a point where nobody really knows the difference any more. I just won't go so far as to say it is a "need." I'm genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) particular reasons, but you are right, we certainly don't have to agree.

Thanks for the responses.

[Ironman92]

For those who don't know I'll tell you what happened to the River players as they left the floor after the final buzzer. My son was one of the players involved. After both teams shook hands they headed towards the locker room. As my son rounded the corner of the bleachers ( he was about the 7th or 8th in line) he saw something land on the players in front of him. As he looked up into the stands 3 or 4 PARENTS where spitting on them!!! Not to mention some of the stuff they were yelling. As a one time play, and now a parent and Loyal fan of all high school sports this is not acceptable! I've attended every FF and River sporting event (boys) for as long as I can remember and have never seen this kind of reaction from the FF fans. Usually they are some of the most friendly fans I've ever met. I guess the biggest question is where does all this hatred and disrespect come from? Is it because we decided to leave the PVC? Hopefully someone on here can enlighten me why your Fans need to act in this manner. And yes my son and I will be in St. Clairsville to watch who ever FF meets in the Final. A lot of us parents (and Grandparents) are not only fans of River High School but fans of the sport we love.

For those of you who are complaining about a slow down game. I'll bet you any amount of money 20 years from now if you were to ask any of the players on either team if there's one game that sticks out in their mind most will mention this game. FF is a very talented squad with good size. River could never match up with this team. With that being said our only chance to win this game was to slow it down. This has been used by our school many times over the years with a success rate of 50%.
It's a shame I'll probably remember what happened after the game more so than the game it's self.

No excuses for any of that completely unacceptable behavior. Good Luck to your River team in the postseason.

[EasternDspy]

Wow this totally surprises me as I wasn't there