Lack of Action Mechanic
 

We had our state meeting tonight regarding rules changes and the normal blah, blah, blah. Our state interpreter has always hated the lack of action (edit - I made a mistake when originally posted - I meant closely guarded) mechanic with the arms extended. Every year he has always demonstrated this mechanic and informed us that this is NOT an accepted HS mechanic. He's on the national rules committe and very knowledgeable about the rules - but has a personal vendeta against this mechinic.

He told us in no-uncertain-terms tonight that in WV we will NOT be using this mechanic. He also called out several other states that would not be using this mechanic.

How many of you are not using it in your state?

What is the lack of action mechanic?

Peace

Sounds like your interpreter is an idiot.

Lack of Action mechanic?
 

Are you talking about the "not closely guarded mechanic?" This mechanic that the NFHS has finally adopted as official is not the same as the old lack of action signal that I think your interpreter dislikes. I personally never liked the not closely guarded signal--if I'm not counting--the defender is not within 6ft of the guy he is trying to defend. But others have used the "not closely guarded signal" for years and I guess the Fed finally gave in.

I agree. Since when do we signal when something DID NOT happen!? In KS we only are "asked" to use it when WE want to clarify to the coaches or fans that the defender is slightly beyond 6 feet.

Clarification is the entire reason the mechanic is to be used. You do not use it all the time.

Peace

Agree.

Yep, that's what the comment on page 71 of the rules book says.

You do not need a rulebook to clarify this. This was a college mechanic and that is all it was used for, clarification.

Peace

If, as you say, there are only two possibilities:

1) Closely guarded, and I'm counting
2) Not closely guarded, and I'm not counting

then there'd be no need for a signal.

But, there's a third possibility:

3) Closely guarded, and I'm not paying attention, so I'm not counting.

The signal tells the coach that you have situation 2, not situation 3.

Just as a follow-on to this, what is the rule for determining the 6 foot distance for both NCAA & NFHS? At a HS camp this summer we were told that if a defender extended an arm toward the offensive player that was within the 6 foot distance, you start the count. However, I'm pretty sure that I have read in some of the NCAA material that the distance is judged by where the defenders feet, NOT where the hands are....is this truly a difference or was I given a bad interp this summer? I have always used the feet as the indicator and not started the count when a defender reaches out as far as they can while staying as far away as possible just to get a count started....

FED rulebook specifically says "forward foot... to forward foot"

Thanks Bob, that is what I suspected which is why I raised an eyebrow when that came up this summer....I guess you can't always trust the "experts"...do you have the reference?

4-Closely Guarded would be a good place to start.

That's the correct procedure. I've had some men's rec teams where if you counted stomach to stomach, even though their feet were six feet apart, you'd have to count. And - don't get me started on women's teams. :p

Mark, stomach to stomach :eek: . Can they see their feet to know if they are within the required distance to start a count? Just asking.;)

This has been a signal in CCA Men' and /Women's Manuals for a number of years. I have never used the signal in a college game and I will never use the signal in a H.S. game for one simple reason: If I AIN'T counting, then there is no closely guarded situation.

The signal is by far the most stupid idiotic signal one could think of. The signal is for coaches who are too stupid to understand the concept that if the official is not counting it means that that is no closely guarded situation.

MTD, Sr.

Perhaps this was once specified in the rules, or was once issued as an interp? I have never seen this in the rule book anywhere. It's not in 4-10.

Come on, Mark. Don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel. :D

As long as you don't ask a similar question about women's games, you're OK. :p

I do not see where is says you have to use it or else. I think it is a great mechanic and I use it. I will use it many times when I see it is necessary. And when a coach starts yelling there should be a count, this signal tells them why I do not have a count without having to yell at the coach later what I was thinking. Mechanics should be to tell everyone watching what we are seeing. And in cases of a closely guarded situation, just not giving a count does not always tell the story. Some people do not count out of incompetence. At least this signal tells everyone why you do not have a count.

Mark if you do not like the signal, do not use it. Just like when they brought in the “kicking” signal it is better than just calling a violation and pointing. I am sure there were people that were not sure why you called a violation if you did not use the “kicking” signal. And at least that mechanic was accepted even thought it was not approved. I did not hear anyone complaining when that was implemented.

Peace

I like the addition of this new mechanic at the HS level, it helps us to communicate with coaches without having to talk to them :D
Perception is reality!

Rut - next time a coach is yelling about this, blow your whistle, take a tape measure out of your pocket and measure the distance between the players. Then say to the coach something like, "Nope, coach - it's 6 feet 3 inches - sorry. I'll be glad to do this every time you yell". :rolleyes:

Better yet, bring in a set of football-style chains. Then when the coach yells, whistle, bring out the chains, and measure it.

I like the chains idea...but the first down yellow line would be even better...

The players would have to freeze on the whistle - it'd be like girls' lacrosse.

We are adopting it here in Iowa as far as I know (rules meetings are still a couple of weeks away). Personally I think it is an unnecessary mechanic. If I'm counting, the player is closely guarded, if I'm not, they aren't. I'll do what the state says though.

I used to have a really nice Stanley Measuring Tape....the metal kind that you push the button and it rolls up, you know the type. Close to the end of the season, a player get his feet tangled up in it and ruined my measuring tape so I was unable to make a closely guarded call for the remainder of the season. Flash forward to now, does anyone have any suggestions where I could get another one? Should I get cuffs, pleats, patton, it's all so confusing.

Careful, Chris - I see where we're scheduled together a few times, and I might just bring along my 25' Stanley... :eek:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by bob jenkins
4-Closely Guarded would be a good place to start.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
BITS, you must be looking at the 2006-07 book. The forward foot to forward foot directive appears in the new 2007-08 version. ;)

BTW - yes closely guarded is what I meant - I was having a brain cramp and for the life of me couldn't think "closely guarded"! sheeeeeesh!

Here it is....

http://www.dabearz.com/forums/imageh...8b76e294fb.jpg

Say what?:confused:

There is <b>no</b> "lack of action" mechanic. There used to be, many years ago, but it is long-gone from the rule book.

Its not Lack of action.. its "Not Closely Guarded". Its new I think for this season.

I just scanned that in from the 2007-2008 rule book this morning.

Um, yeah, and I'm still confused. Why did you post "not closely guarded" as being the "lack of action" mechanic when they've got absolutely nothing to do with each other? Just because someone is not being closely guarded doesn't mean that there's a lack of action.

I posted it because of this... Just helping to clarify... They were talking about it earlier in the thread.

Odd. Based on the title of this thread, I thought it was about that last guy who worked on my car.

Sorry,but what you posted didn't clarify anything. It just confused the matter. There is <b>NO</b> "lack of action" mechanic anymore. That was the point that Jeff Rutledge's was making. "Lack of action" and "not closely guarded" are completely different animals. They have nothing to do with each other.

The main difference is that "lack of action" means nothing to basketball rules, and hasn't in probably 20 years.

And Bearfanmike knows that, as do we all. But Mountaineer, who started the thread, couldn't think of the phrase "closely guarded" and asked about "lack of action" instead.

Bearfanmike was simply posting the signal that Mountaineer originally intended to talk about.

IMHO, he didn't confuse the issue at all.

Maybe not, but he confused Jurrassic.

Confusing Jurassic doesn't take a lot of action, either.

Are you serious?

Rut posted, asking what is the "what is the 'lack of action' mechanic". Bearfanmike responded to Rut's quiery by basically saying that the "lack of action" mechanic is the same as the "not being closely guarded". Now, maybe somewhere in the wonderful world of IAABO:D , you <b>might</b> find somebody that <b>might agree</b> with that statement, but I can't think of any other knowledgeable official anywhere that would.

Not being closely guarded has absolutely <b>NOTHING</b> to do with a lack of action. Are you saying otherwise, Skippy?

Yes, it's a minor point and not worth arguing about, but I also think that people should know the difference between the two.

In a word, yes. In more than a word, I stand by this statement from my previous post: "Bearfanmike was simply posting the signal that Mountaineer originally intended to talk about."

Then why did he post it as an <b>answer</b> to the question asked by Jeff as to what the "lack of action" mechanic is? I'm dumb. You tell me what the relationship is---"lack of action" to "not closely guarded". Use small words, please, and talk slow.

Jeez, how hard is this? The relationship is what Mountaineer said to what Mountaineer meant. That's all.

Everybody who has read this thread knows that. You're not really dumb; you're just trying to be.

But bearfanmike answered Jeff Rutledge's question, such question very specifically and explicitly having to do with what Mountaineer said(lack of action)--<b>not</b> what Mountaineer meant(not closely guarded).

What Mountaineer said(lack of action) and what Mountaineer meant(not closely guarded) are 2 completely different and unrelated aspects of the rules. There is <b>NO</b> mechanic currently in use for "lack of action"; there is a mechanic in use for "not closely guarded" situations.

How hard is that?

Showing Our Age
 

Veterans, let's not forget that many of our Forum members may not even know what "Lack of Action really is, or was.

As I get older, lack of action becomes more of a reality.

Oh, wait ... you were talking about basketball. Never mind.

How I wish I could rename the thread . . . if you are reading this for the first time - I had a brain fart when I wrote this - for the life of me, I could not think of the phrase "closely guarded". I don't know why - it just happened.

When reading the OP - please substitute the phrase closely guarded for lack of action. I did edit the OP - left it as originally posted, but added to hopefully serve as a beacon to any new people that stumble upon this thread in the future to hopefully clarify what I meant instead of what I said. I'm just glad OS hasn't found it yet!

Insert first-wife joke here.

closely guarded signal
 

Here in new york, the signal was just readopted for this year.

P.S. this here be Iaabo country, :eek:

There was the verbal admonsihment "Play!" along with pointing the offense to attempt to advance the ball toward the basket if they were trailing or to the defense to come out and apply pressure if they were trailing in my first incarnation as an official back in the 1970s. That was the 'lack of action' mechanic as I remember it.

Of course, we used to throw up about 75 jump balls in those days, too.

1980's
 

From 26 Year Gap: "There was the verbal admonsihment "Play!" along with pointing the offense to attempt to advance the ball toward the basket if they were trailing or to the defense to come out and apply pressure if they were trailing in my first incarnation as an official back in the 1970s. That was the 'lack of action' mechanic as I remember it."

I believe that the offensive team, if trailing, had to advance the ball past the 28 foot hashmark, which back then was also used for the closely guarded situations, the cosely guarded offensive player got a new dribbling five seconds if they drove past the hash mark. Most gyms don't even have those hash marks marked anymore. When I was coaching, I taught my players that if they were filling the outer lanes on the fast break, that they must touch the hash marks with their feet. I couldn't use that teaching tool today.

That disappeared long before. Probably before the players no longer needed to raise their hand if they fouled someone. [1974-75 season].

I didn't mean to start somthing.. I was just trying to be helpful

Don't sweat it, Bearfan. Without OS around, we've been itching for a fight. It'll calm down when the season gets into full swing.

As one who actually officiated with the Lack of Action rule (in Pennsylvania), we *did* use the 28-foot hashmark.

This was up until about 1990, I believe.

Bob, there's prescriptions for that, they play them all the time during games on TV.

You must be talking about Viagra, etc.

BTW - what do you get when you cross Viagra with Rogaine?

You get hair like Don King.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/49000/49361PuXT_w.jpg

Before the disappearance of the raising of the hand for fouls, the hash mark could be used to break a closely-guarded count by a dribbler. And I believe the 'abuse' of that privilege is what led to the 4-4-4 an offensive player could use to prevent a 5 second closely guarded violation.