Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Oh how I miss the Lack of Sufficient Action Rule (LSAR). I will not go into detail (maybe at a later date I will) but the 28 Foot Hash Mark played no part (sorry Billy) in the adjudication of the LSAR. The Penalty for an Infraction of the LSAR was a TF charged to the Offending Team. Depending upon the Score and which Team had Control of the Ball either the Offense or the Defense could be charged with LSAR Technical Foul.
|
While the 28 foot hash mark may have, indeed, been painted onto courts (for closely guarded) after the lack of sufficient action rule was adopted, and therefore, could not have been used in any early adjudications of lack of sufficient action, but by the time I started officiating (1979-80) the 28 foot hash mark was there for two reasons, closely guarded and lack of sufficient action.
If the offensive team was responsible for the creating sufficient action it had to advance the ball past the 28 foot hash mark.
Also, there had to be an oral warning by the officials (not sure, one official, or both officials) before a technical foul was charged for lack of sufficient action.
I'm a little fuzzy regarding tie scores (team behind was responsible for creating sufficient action in a non-tied game).
I'm also a little fuzzy regarding the number of oral warnings required (it may have been limited to one oral warning per quarter, or was it limited to to one oral warning per half).
I also seem to recall some amount of time (???) an official must wait before issuing an oral warning or a technical foul.
Now, where are my reading glasses?