I do not know. I am no longer using a cane to walk but I still am not ready to climb into the "Attic" yet.

Billy:

See my answers above in GREEN.

MTD, Sr.

I think that was a FIBA Rule back then.



The Lack of Sufficient Action Rule was adopted by the NBC and kept in the NFHS and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules when the NBC devolved into the two aforementioned Committees, and predates the adoption of the Closely Guarded Rule (CGR) by the NBC (and subsequentially by the NFHS and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees).

NOTE: NBC is the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada and wrote the Rules and Officials Manuals for boys'/girls' high school and men's college before devolving into the NFHS and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees.

The NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committee has always (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) had a CGR starting with the NAGWS Basketball Rules which was based upon the FIBA's CGR. The Women's CGR has always (I am sorry J. Dallas.) been a Violation by the Team in Control of the Ball.

The NBC Closely Guarded Rule was first adopted by the NBC for the 1970-71 school and necessitated and adoption of the 28 Foot Hash Marks to divide the Front Court into the Fore-Court (Hash Mark to the End Line) and the Mid-Court (Hash Mark to the Division Line). Originally a CGR resulted in a Held Ball by definition with the Ball being put back into Play by a Jump Ball between the two Players involved at the nearest Jump Circle (Center Circle or Free Throw Circle). Later the Rule was Changed to make it a Violation by the Team in Control of the Ball.

Billy touched briefly on how the Mid-Court and Fore-Court were used and there was a second of school of thought which posited that a Ball Handler could be in Control of the Ball for not 16 seconds bur 20 seconds and I am a proponent of 20 seconds, but that is a discussion for another time.

Oh how I miss the Lack of Sufficient Action Rule (LSAR). I will not go into detail (maybe at a later date I 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.


See my comments above.

MTD, Sr.

A Little Fuzzy ...
 

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?

Closley Guarded ...
 

Thanks Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. I had forgotten about the penalty change from a held ball to a violation. I believe that this change took place in the very early part of my officiating career.

Now, where are my car keys?

With Bated Breath ...
 

C'mon Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Don't leave us hanging with bated breath. 20 seconds? Maybe you could expound upon this topic after your mid-afternoon nap, or maybe after your late afternoon nap after you bring your lovely wife out to dinner for the 4:00 p.m. early bird special?