Shot clock extended

[gregstar]

Special K's idea makes most sense. just turn the clock off after a try.

some games might last too long

 

[innsaneink]

When they first announced this last year I thought there would be a visible clock somewhere in the ground, where opposition fans could really apply pressure to the kicker, counting down those last 10 seconds.

Then youd see who could kick and who couldnt. :lol:

 

[Raider_69]

When they first announced this last year I thought there would be a visible clock somewhere in the ground, where opposition fans could really apply pressure to the kicker, counting down those last 10 seconds.

Then youd see who could kick and who couldnt. :lol:

thats seriously a great idea
imagine a bloke kicking from the sideline, on the big screen the clock counting down, gets down to 3-2-1 with the crowd giving the kicker plenty... you'd find out who the clutch kickers were quick smart

 

[greeneyed]

There are too many rule changes, they are just changing the rules for the sake of it. It is stupid. There was no real discussion or assessment of the need for a change of this rule. The fact is the refs have always had discretion to turn the clock off at goal kicking time. Leave it up to them if they think the kicker is taking too long...... simple. There was actually no need for any change. It has worked perfectly for 100 years already.......

 

[Raider_69]

There are too many rule changes, they are just changing the rules for the sake of it. It is stupid. There was no real discussion or assessment of the need for a change of this rule. The fact is the refs have always had discretion to turn the clock off at goal kicking time. Leave it up to them if they think the kicker is taking too long...... simple. There was actually no need for any change. It has worked perfectly for 100 years already.......

agreed, back in the day a ref could call time off if they suspected time wasting, they made calls that now go to vid ref and the touchies acually had some sort of job (marking and refering the 10 metres) and back then we had a whole lot less refering controversy, but if they are gonna use it, a visable clock is needed.

 

[Kris_man]

i actually get heaps frustrated when there's heaps of stoppages in a game - we don't want our game to end up like Gridiron, i know would loathe it. i don't like the idea of unlimited goal time with the ref stopping the clock, mainly 'cos it'd be boring. plus, it allows a team to slow down the game in order to let their unfit players get their breath back. i'd like to see the fit teams get rewarded. the best solution for mine is the visible shot clock of 90 or 100 seconds. if the player doesn't kick it in that time, then he loses his chance to kick at goal. simple as that. i don't see any disadvantages in having it. it'd be a more effective deterrent to time wasting than a $2000 fine, plus the non-visible shot clock is a bit unfair to the kicker - how does he know when he's about to lose two grand?

 

[gregstar]

i actually get heaps frustrated when there's heaps of stoppages in a game - we don't want our game to end up like Gridiron, i know would loathe it. i don't like the idea of unlimited goal time with the ref stopping the clock, mainly 'cos it'd be boring. plus, it allows a team to slow down the game in order to let their unfit players get their breath back. i'd like to see the fit teams get rewarded. the best solution for mine is the visible shot clock of 90 or 100 seconds. if the player doesn't kick it in that time, then he loses his chance to kick at goal. simple as that. i don't see any disadvantages in having it. it'd be a more effective deterrent to time wasting than a $2000 fine, plus the non-visible shot clock is a bit unfair to the kicker - how does he know when he's about to lose two grand?

agree

 

[Raider_69]

i actually get heaps frustrated when there's heaps of stoppages in a game - we don't want our game to end up like Gridiron, i know would loathe it. i don't like the idea of unlimited goal time with the ref stopping the clock, mainly 'cos it'd be boring. plus, it allows a team to slow down the game in order to let their unfit players get their breath back. i'd like to see the fit teams get rewarded. the best solution for mine is the visible shot clock of 90 or 100 seconds. if the player doesn't kick it in that time, then he loses his chance to kick at goal. simple as that. i don't see any disadvantages in having it. it'd be a more effective deterrent to time wasting than a $2000 fine, plus the non-visible shot clock is a bit unfair to the kicker - how does he know when he's about to lose two grand?

hmmm do i smell a forum 7's article brewing Kris man? ;-) :lol:

 

[LeagueXIII]

2 day conference and this is the only concrete decision the so called leaders of our game can come up with. Where is the plan for the future??????

 

[gregstar]

2 day conference and this is the only concrete decision the so called leaders of our game can come up with. Where is the plan for the future??????

it takes time for them to make decisions whilst intoxicated :lol:

 

[wittyfan]

Just said on Ten News that goal-kickers shot clock has been extended to 1 minute & 40 seconds. My source, my ears....

I can see the shot clock gradually being phased out now. I wonder where the pressure was coming from for those 10 seconds to be added?

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Extending the shot clock by 10 seconds is such a stupid idea. They did it because all but three of the 24 players charged for going over 90 seconds this year went over by less than 10 seconds.

So basically they should just get rid of the shot clock if it isn't going to quicken up kickers or serve any purpose.

 

[innsaneink]

Extending the shot clock by 10 seconds is such a stupid idea. They did it because all but three of the 24 players charged for going over 90 seconds this year went over by less than 10 seconds.

So basically they should just get rid of the shot clock if it isn't going to quicken up kickers or serve any purpose.

Whats to say kickers next year dont start to go over by 10 seconds still.

You'll have kickers taking 108 seconds where last year they were taking 98.

 

[Broncodroid]

The only place I want a shot clock is on the basketball court...for crying out loud, you can only assume some of the powers to be have too much time on their hands to be bothered with this 'radical new idea' for goalkickers. YES, some were taking too long in 2003 (Webb was a classic), though I believe goalkicking is an art form and given the amount of time spent on this skill from the elite, I do not think we should be telling them 'your time starts....NOW! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....you better set the ball up...6, 7, 8, 9...'

Yes, 100 secs should be enough time to kick a damn ball for goal, though IMO the NRL could simply just knock this on the head by telling the ref to blow off time to allow the kicker to kick the ball. Once the ball is kicked, time is blown back on and we enjoy the rest of the game.

Yes, kickers who abuse this right should be warned if there is obvious time wasting, though if Hazem El Masri needs 110 secs to kick, GIVE IT TO HIM! Look at Schifcofske who's kicking % went south in 2004...I simply feel if there is a guy in each team kicking goals turning up to practise an hour early to hone his skill, we should not be penalising him and the club if he take 102 secs. Blow time off so no team is penalised missing valuable seconds, if the scoring team is wasting time to catch a breath, so is the defending team. All things are equal.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Whats to say kickers next year dont start to go over by 10 seconds still.

You'll have kickers taking 108 seconds where last year they were taking 98.

Exactly. So next year they'll say 'lets extend it by another 10 seconds so no-one gets fined'.
There is no point having a shot clock if you change it so no-one is affected by it. It's like making the speed limit 300kph because no-one can go that fast therefore no-one will get booked.

It's just change for the sake of change.

 

[Freak]

I don't mind giving any player up to 90 or 100 seconds for wide conversions and difficult penalties, but anything over 1 minute for attempts directly in front is simply a joke!!

Nothing more frustrating for the fan then to see the clock tick whilst some pork chop takes his full 90 seconds to knock it over from right in front.

Isn't funny how the things knocked over within seconds when the teams losing.

I'd like to see a 1 minute box. 10m either side the the posts and 20m out, and for all other kicks I would like to see the clock stopped, but still have a 100 second shot clock and if the ball is not kicked in that time no goal should be awarded.

 

[Kris_man]

The only place I want a shot clock is on the basketball court...for crying out loud, you can only assume some of the powers to be have too much time on their hands to be bothered with this 'radical new idea' for goalkickers. YES, some were taking too long in 2003 (Webb was a classic), though I believe goalkicking is an art form and given the amount of time spent on this skill from the elite, I do not think we should be telling them 'your time starts....NOW! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....you better set the ball up...6, 7, 8, 9...'

Yes, 100 secs should be enough time to kick a damn ball for goal, though IMO the NRL could simply just knock this on the head by telling the ref to blow off time to allow the kicker to kick the ball. Once the ball is kicked, time is blown back on and we enjoy the rest of the game.

Yes, kickers who abuse this right should be warned if there is obvious time wasting, though if Hazem El Masri needs 110 secs to kick, GIVE IT TO HIM! Look at Schifcofske who's kicking % went south in 2004...I simply feel if there is a guy in each team kicking goals turning up to practise an hour early to hone his skill, we should not be penalising him and the club if he take 102 secs. Blow time off so no team is penalised missing valuable seconds, if the scoring team is wasting time to catch a breath, so is the defending team. All things are equal.

yet another failure to state a disadvantage in having a shot clock, other than it is unfair to the goalkicker, which is not a good enough reason IMO. you describe how a player gets to training an hour early as if he's running a charity, when he's most probably doing it out of self-interest - to keep his place in the team. you believe goalkicking is an art form, yet i believe its importance in rugby league is peripheral at best. our absence of goalkicking is what separates us from that other, lower code of football.

 

[Kris_man]

I don't mind giving any player up to 90 or 100 seconds for wide conversions and difficult penalties, but anything over 1 minute for attempts directly in front is simply a joke!!

Nothing more frustrating for the fan then to see the clock tick whilst some pork chop takes his full 90 seconds to knock it over from right in front.

:lol: that's a bloody good point!

 

[Broncodroid]

So, having the shot clock is an advantage? From memory the ongoing will we or won't we be fined BS was all I heard about this all season coupled with the whining from clubs about the inconsistency of when the stopwatch starts for the 90 secs.

The shot clock is not needed, it was spawn from one kicker in 2003 who took an eternity to kick the damn ball. Instead if creating more negative headlines, this could of been knocked on the head by simply having the ref call time off from when the try was scored until play was resumed with a dash of common sense thrown in where refs are in a position to warn players for time wasting.

As highlighted, when players start pushing the clock to 102 secs, 108 secs, we will add another 10 secs in 2006...whats the point? Get rid of it, blow time off and let's worry about more concerning issues in League.

 

[drake]

Yup, blow time off, kicks can't be used to wind the clock down.