Rewrite of NFHS offensive stalling rule

[LaxRef]

Here is my proposal for a complete rewrite of the offensive stalling rule for NFHS:

SECTION 10 OFFENSIVE STALLING
A team in possession of the ball in their attack area will be warned to keep the ball in that area if:

(1) In the judgment of the officials, they do not appear to be attempting to create a scoring play or appear to be deliberately trying to run time off the clock, or

(2) They have the lead and the game is in the final two minutes of the fourth quarter. When the score is tied, neither team is forced to keep the ball in the goal area.

Once the team is warned, a stalling violation is called if the ball goes out of the goal area in any manner, except as a result of a shot on goal or a deflection by the defensive team. The ball shall be recovered by or awarded to the defensive team if the offensive team touches the ball before the defensive team gains possession.

A stall warning remains in effect until the defense gains possession of the ball.

A team with fewer players than the opponents due to penalty may not be called for offensive stalling. [I'd prefer for it to say "may be called," since teams are most likely to stall when killing a penalty; currently, this issue is only addressed in A.R.s]

6.10 SITUATION B: Teams A and B are short one man. Team A is given a stalling warning. Team B's penalty time expires before Team A's. Team A is still short one man. Is the stalling situation ended? RULING: Yes. ***However,*** in the last two minutes of the game, the two-minute rule is still in effect, even if a team is man-down.

[LaxRef]

I realized when I woke up this morning that I need to change it to:

A team with fewer players than the opponents due to penalty may not be called for offensive stalling except in the last 2 minutes of the game.

[DanHS]

I think it would be appropriate to make an exception under the mercy rule. Although I cannot imagine anyone would make the stalling call when the offensive team has a 10 goal lead, I think it should be addressed in this section.

[LaxRef]

I think it would be appropriate to make an exception under the mercy rule. Although I cannot imagine anyone would make the stalling call when the offensive team has a 10 goal lead, I think it should be addressed in this section.

I think you make a good point, but there's a potential problem here. There are coaches--one around here--who think the mercy rule screws them out of chance to come back. Because of this, we have no mercy rule in the playoffs even though we have a lot of variability in the strength of playoff teams.

If you legislate that there's no stalling when a team has a 10-goal or more lead, that essentially ends the game. I like to think that the officials are smart enough not to penalize the offense for "lightening up" on the other team. However, if the losing coach wants that stalling call, I'm more than happy to tell the team that's winning to fire at will.

Someone here told about how a team was winning by a lot and told the officials "Watch A1. He's going to be commiting a lot of technical fouls when we have the ball" Then A1 went out and warded, set illegal screens, held, etc., so team A would turn the ball over and not run up the score without embarassing team B. Very classy!

[tjslax]

In regards to the "mercy rule" since it was brought up. I coached a new team two years ago and as all but one of our players had never played before, the "mercy rule" was put into effect a few times. I whole heartedly disagree with this rule. In my opinion this tells the kids "you are not good enough to be on the field with this other team". I feel that the team that is loosing should be able to play out the full game time if they wish. The losing team is not going to get any better not playing; playing better competition makes you better. (This is also a great place for good coaches to teach their players about how to win and lose with respect for the other team and still maintain good sportsmanship and your dignity.)

So while we are talking about it I vote that the "mercy rule" be taken out of the book all together.

[LaxRef]

I see your point. However, there are too many teams that enjoy "running up the score," and ultimately this leads to frustration fouls and, sometimes, fights. I see some merit in getting through a game that's been decided a little faster than usual.

[zebra618]

I like the write-up and proposal. I am curious about a duration of "stalling" leading up to the "keep-it-in warning."

[tjslax]

I see your point. However, there are too many teams that enjoy "running up the score," and ultimately this leads to frustration fouls and, sometimes, fights. I see some merit in getting through a game that's been decided a little faster than usual.

How 'bout a provision that the trailing team can opt for full stopped time instead of running. That way if they would like it to be a learning experience they can use it as one, and if they want to get out of there and regroup at practice they can chose to do that, or maybe both coaches can agree.

[LaxRef]

I like the write-up and proposal. I am curious about a duration of "stalling" leading up to the "keep-it-in warning."

It's never been set in stone, but a rule of thumb is that if they aren't trying to make a scoring play in 45 seconds to a minute, you're going to think about giving a stall warning. You know, they pass the ball around the outside furiously for a long time, then they stand there for a while, then they pass it around the other direction, or they keep running around outside the box and touching up, then passing to someone else who does the same thing.

I believe they are purposely leaving it vague, so I didn't try to force the issue. The problem is that if you set an exact time like one minute, one coach will be yelling at 1:01 or the other one will be yelling if you give the warning and it's only been 59 seconds. Plus, we most often have no good way of timing things on the field and have to go by "feel."

[LaxRef]

How 'bout a provision that the trailing team can opt for full stopped time instead of running. That way if they would like it to be a learning experience they can use it as one, and if they want to get out of there and regroup at practice they can chose to do that, or maybe both coaches can agree.

Yeah, I had meant to say something about that; if both coaches want to go stop-time, in principle it should be okay. Although, as officials, the mercy rule is sometimes the one bright spot in an otherwise ugly game.

[Snake~eyes]

How 'bout a provision that the trailing team can opt for full stopped time instead of running. That way if they would like it to be a learning experience they can use it as one, and if they want to get out of there and regroup at practice they can chose to do that, or maybe both coaches can agree.
No way, running clock is necessary for me, 10 point leads are boring and can lead to dangerous play because of frustration.

[beam]

I like the write-up and proposal. I am curious about a duration of "stalling" leading up to the "keep-it-in warning."


That also would depend on the team and game. For example:

Team A that has been getting the ball to the attack area and shooting quickly (one to three passes then takes a shot) all game and then slows the game down making no attempt at a shot for multiple passes around the perimeter. IMO, would get a quicker stalling call than Team B that has a deliberate offense where almost everyone touches the ball one or more times before the shot on their offensive possesions.