How Long Can A Defense Stay in a Zone?
 

A has the ball leading by 1 with 4 minutes left in the game. B is sitting in a tight 2-3 zone while A1 dribbles near the midcourt line. I know there is a rule that says a team cannot let a game become actionless. Does that apply here in this situation? Do you warn the coach to bring his team out of the zone?

No rule. Fed lack of action rule ended in or around 1990. The game CAN be an actionless contest.

Actionless
 

From Texas Aggie: "The game CAN be an actionless contest"

Texas Aggie: Please check out this Forum thread:

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=31728

I remember, previous to 1991, when officials had to know which team was ahead or behind and call out to the team to "Playball" or a technical foul for lack of action would result. I believe that if the defensive team was behind, they had ten seconds to move into a closely guarded situation, which back then would result in a jump ball, not a violation, no alternating possession back then, at the nearest jump ball circle, there were three back then. If the offense was behind, after ten seconds, they had to advance the ball over the old, although we still see it in some older gymnasiums, 28-foot hash mark. In 1982 the warning for lack of action was changed from 10 seconds to 5 seconds.

There are still some NFHS rules that deal with an actionless contest. Please see Rule 10-5 and note the words "similar acts". I'm not sure, but the situation described in the thread that I noted above may fall into the category of being a "similiar act" resulting in an "actionless contest". The noted thread would only occur in a real game with revised rules, in this case not allowing a press, however, a similar question was asked on an IAABO refresher exam a few years ago. Maybe one of our Forum members can recall the situation, the question and the answer from that exam.

How is team B preventing team A from taking shots? :confused:

Obviously, they're not, thus, the question. If there is a rule that deals with inaction, how is it applied? Is this a situation?

The situation that you decribe is not illegal.

The offensvie team can stand in the frontcourt and bounce/hold the ball for an entiure quarter if they choose.

The defense can stand there and watch them for the entire quarter if they so choose.

how the @#$#$ can you warn a coach to bring his team out of a zone?????? why not start calling plays and helping out on defense too...

where is W&S with his obituary on common sense?

deecee, at one time, you could warn the defense to pressure the ball or you could warn the offense to advance the ball. After a count, it was a technical foul not to comply.

they help us
 

deecee, man what are you saying, they help us all the time, this is just our turn to help them out :D LOL

About 7 years ago when I was coaching we had a similar very bizzare ending to a game. Pretty intense conference rivally and we had a 9 point lead with almost four minutes left. The opposing coach was very stubborn and upset with how his team had played, so he had them stay in their zone and not come out. We had our point guard stand and hold the ball for the entire time. It was over 3 1/2 minutes! Oddest ending I've ever seen or been a part of. We just talked about it last week.

Why are you going to make the defense come out of the zone?? Why don't you tell the offense to run a play?

When the rule was in effect, the team behind had to force the action. In the case described, that would be the defense if the rule was still in effect.

Don't bother Tony. He knows it all. Even though he is just a young'n. :(

He obviously has no grasp of the history of the NFHS game.

TWO WORDS: SHOT CLOCK

Fortunately here in CA there is a shot clock and there should be one in the rest of the country. I had a game in the summer in Nevada and a stall offense was used, I think it's an affront to the integrity of the game.

Were the games you worked in Reno or Vegas?

Personally, I would like to see a shot clock, but just to take the opposite opinion I have one word: DEFENSE. ;)

Why can't a team play pressure defense and force a turnover?

I have not been impressed with the defense or shot selection of the CA teams that I have seen and I believe that it is a negative consequence of the shot clock. Teams who are used to playing with the shot clock are more willing to take worse shots or the first open look that they get even in games in which there isn't a shot clock. These same teams often fail to maintain their intensity and concentration at the defensive end for more than 30 seconds. These lapses have a way of resulting in easy scores for the opponent.

It can be argued that the shot clock is hurting the fundamentals of the game.

It can't be argued! ;)

It's a fact!

It does force poor shot selection and it also doens't require a well executed defense. The defense only has to defend for about 2/3 of the shot clock. After that, the offense will usually take any shot they can get. If the goal of HS is to teach fundamental basketball, a shot clock is counter to that goal.

Ah, no, there shouldn't be. We don't have a shot clock and I've never been in a stall game. Just because it happens once in a blue moon, somewhere across the country, it's doesn't mean one is needed everywhere.

We have enough problems with the game clock here. Imagine the mess we would have with shot clocks. :eek:

The shot clock does not preclude good fundamentals. It makes the games more about the players and less about the coaches which imo is great!! MA has used the shot clock since the 1996/1997 season (boys...the girls have used it for about 5 years longer) and what I see is that it picks up the pace of the game and prevents a poor team from taking the air out of the ball to try and stay with a superior team.

Defense is actually rewarded with the shot clock. If you play good defense for 30-35 seconds then you should be rewarded. I would say that the shot clock really only forces bad shots once or twice a game, because coaches coach to it and the players adjust to it. Most teams recognize the clock and have a set play when it gets to 10 or they make sure their best player gets the ball.

You asked for it:

OBITUARY: THE SAD PASSING OF COMMON SENSE

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim. Not many attended - his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

I had a small 2A boys JV basketball game a while back. Visiting Team was up 20 at half, and came out in a 4 corners offense. This game had been back and forth, almost every play being a fast break. Needless to say, I welcomed the break. Anyways, the Home team came back and won the game by 2. The V coach never brought his players out of the 4 corners offense :D What a D.A.

Having refereed with the shot clock, I disagree that it leads to poor shot selection on the part of the players every time. Rather, the shot clock forces players to make decisions and work to get the best possible shot available within the shot period. Without the shot clock, you might be able to be patient enough to get a perfect shot opportunity (rarely are teams that disciplined), but that doesn't mean that teams don't get good scoring opportunities or rush every shot. The shot clock forces teams to be disciplined, especially in the way they use that time. I also think that the defense should be rewarded for doing a great job denying good shots. JMO.

No one said that EVERY shot that these teams take will be low quality shots. The case that is being made is that teams who normally play with a shot clock are far more apt to take low quality opportunities, if you wish to quantify it, let's say 30% of the time, when playing a game that does not have a shot clock. Against a solid opponent that could be just enough to lose.

The argument is also being made that these teams lose concentration on defense when having to defend for longer than half a minute and give up easy scores.

You have not been able to counter either point.

You are making a statistical argument with made-up statistics that are difficult to counter. I haven't seen any studies about shooting precentages with or without shot clock for the same sample audience, so you can say whatever you want, I suppose.

However, your point is really only valid if efficient shooting is the paramount goal for basketball teams. This really ignores the effect that the shot clock has on defense. Teams that play good fundamental defense are rewarded by the clock in that they only have to play defense for a maximum of 35 seconds.

New York has the shot clock, while New Jersey does not. NJ games seem to be more about the coaches' skills while NY games seem to be more about players' skills, as players have to make decisions for themselves and not just follow patterned offenses until the defense falls asleep.

For what it's worth, NY has a 35 second clock but most shots are taken with more than 15 seconds left on the clock.

A different point that is important in larger schools is that the NCAA uses a shot clock and playing with a shot clock prepares the players better for the next level. In NY and NJ where upwards of 100 players each year go on to D1 basketball, this may be more important than in those areas where D1 level players are rare. This is one reason that NY has had the shot clock and used NCAA rules for girls games for quite some time.

Why is stalling an affront to the integrity of the game? It is a tactic, just like a press. You may not like it, it may be boring to watch, but IMO there is nothing at all wrong with it. The (fewer than 5) times I have encountered a serious stall in a game I thought it was great. Easiest officiating I have ever done.

I remember in about 1984 watching a game between Univ of Cincinnati and Univ of Kentucky when they had Turpin and Bowie and there was no shot clock. Cinn stalled the entire game to keep it close and it was. If they had to give up a possession every 35 seconds, they would have been killed. The tatic gave them a chance to win.

IMO, in most cases it is true in HS ball. A shot clock will tend to make the rich richer and makes it harder for less talented teams to stay in games.

Just MO.

Why hasn't NFHS have a shot clock yet?

It's been voted down when it's been brought up. The reasons are cost, qualified operators (and officials), and the fact that it would "reward" the better teams.