old rule question ( before 1980 )

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am doing research and typing at the same time as watching the games on TVC. I will be making a post within the next 30 minutes.

MTD, Sr.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

The rule was the lack of action rule. It went away about 1990. I don't remember what we called the line, though.

I actually saw this called in a HS game this year.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I actually saw this called in a HS game this year.

Pretty sure I've worked with that guy.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

I am not sure how far back this goes, I know when I was in school we had it.

You had to push the ball past a line ( I believe it was the 28 ft line ) on the offense every so often to keep teams from stalling.

What was the name of that line or the name of the violation if you didn't do it?

The rule was called: Lack of Sufficient Action (LSA). It was a seperate rule from Closely Guarded (CG) and the two rules had different criteria.

The LSA Rule will not be found in the Rules as written by the National Association of Girls and Women in Sports (NAGWS) and NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committees. LSA will only be found in the Rules as written by the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBCUSC), NFHS, and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees.


LSA was in effect during the following situations were applicable to the team that was losing (defense or offense) if the score was not tied or to the defense if the score was tied. I climbed up into the attic and brought down the 1971-72 folder.

NBCUSC R4-S13(c): A team's mid-court is that part of its front court between the division line and a parallel imaginary line 28 feet from the inside edge of the end boundary to the nearer edge of the mid-court area marker. This imaginary line is located by two three-foot lines two inches wide measured from the inside edge of each side boundary and drawn at right angles to it.

NBCUSC R4-S18: Lack of sufficient action is the failure of the responsible team to force play as required by the Comments on the Rules.

NOTE (mine): Unlike today where the Comments on the Rules are addressed to the new changes made to the Rules, the Comments on the Rules (in The Ancient Days, ) were a permanent part of the rules that addressed how certain rules were to be applied; for years the complete definitions of Guarding and Screening were found not in Rule 4 but in the Comments on the Rules.

NBCUSC R10-(A. Technical Foul)-S2(c): A team shall not when behind in the score or while on defense with the score tied and after a warning by an Official, faling to be continuously aggressive in attempting to secure the ball if on defense or to advance the ball beyond the mid-court area if on offense and there is no opposing action in the mid-court area. See "Comments" forintepretation of "resonably active" and fore procedure foer administration.

Comments on the Rules:

LACK OF SUFFICIENT ACTION--

What contitutes lack of sufficient action: Lack of sufficient action occurs when the team responsible for action:

1. Permits the ball to remain in its mid-court areao for 10 seconds, during which time there is no opposing team in this area; or

2. Does not continuously and agressively attempt to gain control of the ball within 10 seconds while the ball is in the mid-court area of the opponents. If two or more players are in their mid-court area, at least two of the players of the team responsible for action must be in the area, one of whom must attempt to gain control.

Who is responsible to force action?

1. The team behind in score is respnsible for action. If the score is tied the defensive team is responsible.

2. After a team has been warned for lack of action, that team is in violation:

a. Each time it permits the ball to reamin in its mid-court area without opposititon for a period of 5 seconds;

b. Each time it does not continuously and aggressively attempt to gain control of the ball when the ball is in the mid-court area of the opponents for a periodof 5 seconds.

What is the penalty for lack of sufficient action? The penalty for lack of suffiicient action is a technical foul for each infraction of the rule. Repeated refusal to produce action may result in forfeiture of the game.

What is the procedure of official for warning a team? The officials shallwarn a team for lack of sufficient actioin by moving to a position clearly visible to the responsible team, pointing in the direction it should advance and calling, "Play Ball". Only one warning shall be giben to a teram each period. Extra periods are considered an extension of the fourth quarter or second half.


NOTE (mine): There were not Casebook Plays that I could find but years later the 10 seconds requirement was reduced to 5 seconds. The rule was removed when the NCAA Men's Rules Committee adopted a Shot Clock.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. And I do not remember if I have charged a team with TF for an infraction of this Rule, but I do know that I issued warnings.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Pretty sure I've worked with that guy.

Ha. I about fell out when I saw it!

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What contitutes lack of sufficient acdtioni:

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

Maybe someone was playing the Welmer game?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I corrected my spelling. I could not cut and paste; I had to type everything I posted while reading it from the Rules and Case Books.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The rule was called: Lack of Sufficient Action (LSA)....

Mark, the question was, "What year did the rule go away?" My eyes may have glazed over, but I couldn't find the answer in your post.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark, the question was, "What year did the rule go away?" My eyes may have glazed over, but I couldn't find the answer in your post.

I'm waiting for the tl;dr version.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am 60 yrs old and I really didn't want to spend the afternoon in the attic.

I think that the rule was repealed when the NCAA Men's Rules Committee adopted the Shot Clock. That said, I emailed a friend who has a better memory for these things that I do and when I receive his answer I will post it.

MTD, Sr.

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

Guaranteed that if an official had to enforce it, 90% of the time, they would screw it up. I have seen Techs given to the team leading, Officials pointing the wrong way, officials ignoring that a warning had to given each period, etc.
The worst screwup was in a university game, tied and offensive team holding ball for last shot with about 10 seconds to go. The official instead of giving a verbal and pointing warning blew the whistle and gave the warning. On the succeeding throwin, ball was stolen, and game was won on an easy layup.

The saving grace was that if 90% of the officials could not correctly apply the rule, 100% of the coaches had no idea what should be done.

Truly a stupid rule ranking ahead of players having to raise their hands on fouls called against them or receive a Tech.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark, the question was, "What year did the rule go away?" My eyes may have glazed over, but I couldn't find the answer in your post.

'90-91 was the last year it was in the rule book.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Guaranteed that if an official had to enforce it, 90% of the time, they would screw it up. I have seen Techs given to the team leading, Officials pointing the wrong way, officials ignoring that a warning had to given each period, etc.

The worst screwup was in a university game, tied and offensive team holding ball for last shot with about 10 seconds to go. The official instead of giving a verbal and pointing warning blew the whistle and gave the warning. On the succeeding throwin, ball was stolen, and game was won on an easy layup.

The saving grace was that if 90% of the officials could not correctly apply the rule, 100% of the coaches had no idea what should be done.

Truly a stupid rule ranking ahead of players having to raise their hands on fouls called against them or receive a Tech.

LeeBallanfant:

I have been a basketball official for 41 years and this rule was in effect for the first 20 or so of those years. To be honest, I rarely saw this rule have to be applied. The only time that this rule had an increased chance of having to be applied was during a slow down game (at the college level read: Dean Smith and North Carolina). It really did not take a rocket scientist to apply this rule. Back in the day, most high schools only had one scoreboard so it took a little effort to know what the score of the game was but that was just a minor inconvience.

Since there was not Shot Clock in the rules, the LSA rule was there to keep the game from becoming an actionless contest. The rule was repealed at the high school level because it was decided that if a team wanted to hold the ball while being behind in the score or want to stay back on defense, it was only hurting itself and not its opponent. And of course with men's college adopting a shot clock the rule became moot.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. While I am not a rocket scientist, I am a structural engineer, and BillyMac is a chemist, so I guess we can claim to be scientists.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The rule was repealed at the high school level because it was decided that if a team wanted to hold the ball while being behind in the score or want to stay back on defense, it was only hurting itself and not its opponent.

This is what I never understood about the rule. Before the advent of the 3-point line, it would make more sense to force the defense (winning or losing) to "play ball" by coming out to guard and therefore open up the area near the goal a little. Either that, or tell the winning team that they couldn't just sit on their lead and they had to "play ball." But, making the losing team "play ball" just never made sense to me.