[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

... the provisions on "lack of sufficient action". They depended on the score of the game at the time. The team that was behind in score, believe it or not, was responsible for "action"; if the score was tied, it was (again, believe it or not) the team without the ball that was responsible. Seems like these provisions were there to magnify an advantage. When the team with responsibility for action had the ball in the front court, it was a violation for their players alone or in combination to hold the ball in the midcourt area defined by those marks for 5 seconds at a time, after a once-a-game warning. When the opponents of he team with responsibility for action had the ball in that midcourt area, after a similar warning, the team with responsibility had to not leave him not closely guarded for 5 seconds at a time. If those opponents also had another player in the midcourt area, the team with responsibility had to put one other player in the midcourt area when the ball was there. Additional players by the team without responsibility did not incur any additional requirement of defenders to come into that area.

Why is Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. posting under Robert Goodman's username?

How about an ancient times lesson on "change of status"? That will knock the socks off of the young'uns.