Stalling...
 

This was a situation that was encountered in a HS game this weekend..
Team A had the lead in the beginning of the 2nd quarter by 5 points.. For some unknown reason, the Team A coach went into the 4 corner stall to bring out Team B's defense and play them man to man.. Team B's coach stayed in their zone defense for the rest of the game until 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter.. Team B then engaged Team A for the rest of the game... Team B almost won the game...
Many years ago, when a situation as that came up I remember the officials telling the coach (who's team was behind) to engage and come out of their zone.. I also remember North Carolina using their 4 corner stall offense which later was countered by the shot clock being implemented..
What is the proper ruling on this type of play?? Does the Team that is behind have to engage and come out of their zone??
Thanks..
Domer6386

There is absolutely no rule which dictates which way a team may play. Stalling in a 4-corners offense is and has been an accepted part of the game.

I'm just glad I wasn't a fan there...

There is no rule that would force a team to engage...if they want to sit there and wait, then they can sit there and wait. I started my officiating career in California and Oregon, this is why CA went to a shot clock originally. When I was a freshman in HS, we had two 6'10" guys on our team (small Christian school, so that's HUGE) and the visiting team stalled in an opening round playoff game in our gym. Final score was 16-11. Sucky game to watch. The year after I graduated HS, the shot clock was implimented for boys as many schools deployed that tactic. (CA has had a shot clock for girls for a LONG time.)

There used to be some sort of rule at some levels, I don't remember exactly how it went. But the shot clock has pretty much taken care of that. I've seen this type of thing a time or two. It's usually a tactic for a specific situation, and it isn't used all that often, I don't think. Fans hate it! Players don't usually like it either, especially the competitive ones who don't like what it does for their stats.

Back when I started in the 19th century, there were hashmarks on the floor. If the team that was trailing started to stall for some strange reason, the official could direct them to make the ball penetrate inside the hashmarks either by dribbling or passing. It was called the "penetration" rule, not to be confused with anything having to do with Britney Spears. ;)

Old Fart Remembers.....

There used to be a rule that the team that was behind (or the defense if the score was tied) had to "force" the action. This rule was deleted in the late 70's or early 80's if I recall correctly. It worked something like this:

If the offense was behind, the ball had to penetrate the hash mark (now known as the 28' mark) within 10 seconds. If the ball did not penetrate the hash mark, the referee would annouce "Offense, play ball!" or something like that while the ball was still live. The referee would start a new count. If the ball did not penetrate the hash mark within 10 seconds of the new count, a team technical foul was assessed to the offense.

If the defense was behind, or the score was tied, the defense had 10 seconds to send at least one defender to a legal guarding position (within 6 feet) of the offensive player with the ball. If they did not, a verbal warning was issued by the referee while the ball was still live. if the defense did not come out within a new 10 seconds, a team technical was assessed.

This is my best recollection of how the rule worked and was administered. If any of you other old guys out there remember it differently or I missed something, feel free to chime in.

It was the lack of action rule, still in place when I started officiating in 1987. It was removed sometime about 1992. MTD will be along to tell us exactly which year at some point.

It's still common in Wisconsin, where we don't have a shot clock. Once we stood still for over 5 minutes while the guard held the ball up top. I think my partner went to the concession stand for a box of popcorn :D

Actionless contest
 

Re. this thread about "stalling", and correct me please if I'm reading this wrong, rule 10-5 prescribes a team technical to "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest" . . . but the sitch described doesn't seem at all to fit under what follows: ". . . this includes the following and similar acts...". Items a,b,c,d, and e "following" are not at all similar to the sitch described. So it seems such stalling cannot be prohibited according to the rules. Right?

This is not the 1970-1980. This rule has nothing to do with stalling.

Peace

Once while coaching varsity G - we had a game where opponent knew the only way to stay in the game was to keep ball from us. They got the tip, came across the line and stood about 2 feet from line. Girl with ball was going against my injured (ankle) point guard. I told my kids not to pressure anything outside 3 pt line. So we stood.............. Parents yelling for action, kids frustrated etc. I kept telling them from bench to stay put. With 10 seconds to go in quarter, guard starts to move ball, goes to corner gets trapped and throws ball over shoulder off board into basket. 1st Qtr score 2-0 them. We started the 2nd quarter scoring within 10 seconds and I couldn't take it anymore. Full court man press until 20 point lead. Final score 57-5 - without starters in 2nd half. :D

Response: "This is not the 1970-1980. This rule has nothing to do with stalling."

That's my point. Thank you!

I think they need to change the wording of the "actionless contest" rule. I agree it isn't relevant to a stall, but there's no need to use confusing words when others will do.

As far as the lack of action rule, it was deleted after either the '89-'90 season, or the next year, but I'm pretty sure it was the former. I used it exactly one time.

I was thinking it was around 87 or 88, right before I entered high school.

I remember years ago watching a high school game where the offense went into a stall. The point guard had dribbled then picked the ball up to hold it at his coach's instruction. Defense stayed back and didn't press the matter. The guard held it for what seemed like five minutes (probably closer to 2 - 3 minutes). Then he dribbled again :eek:. The official, on top of his game, whistled the violation. I couldn't believe the official had the presence of mind to remember that the kid had already used up his dribble. What a great call!

Wow! To see that coach's face would have been worth the price of admission.

Great story!

My high school alma mater is in the MI record books for scoring the fewest points to win a game and being involved in a game with the fewest total points scored.

In 1996 Hastings came to town with a very talented, high scoring team so Northwest decided to stall. Hastings decided not to press the issue. The final score:
Northwest - 7
Hastings - 6

In 5 overtimes! :eek:

Yes I remember that rule, but I thought the hashmark rule was called the "20" second... You had to advance the ball passed the hashmark every 20 seconds to avoid a violation... Now if the defense wants to engage all they have to do is stay within 6' of the offensive player with the ball.. I feel the shotclock would resolve alot of these quirky situations.. Point: Play ball!!

I believe the NFHS Lack of Action rule was deleted sometime after 1990-91. I graduated high school in 1991 and during our district ifnal game, the other team decided to wait for the last shot in the first quarter and was given a warning for lack of action, before hitting a buzzer-beating bucket to tie the game.


Fast forward to May 1994. AAU boys tournament with modified NFHS rules. one of the team decides to stall when the other team goes zone, and the referees aren't counting for lack of action. :eek: So the rule was apparently deleted between 1991 and 1993.

Hmmm - I didn't play high school ball so I don't know if the lack of action rules were if effect in CA (1988-1992).

HOWEVER, I was coaching CYO basketball during my high school years (and beyond) and I remember "lack of action" being mentioned in the rules. THis was because CYO adopted most of the Federation's rules with some exceptions.

Note that I DON'T remember if the lack of action rule was used in CYO or not. THe rule may have been mentioned in passing.

If there was no shot clock in CA back around the mid 90's, one of the highest scoring teams in the Bay Area might not have broken 100 points. Balboa High with their "Jet Offense" ran around some high quality competition but also the lower rung teams in their league. I know my alma mater tried to slow things up but the shot clock proved to be too difficult to overcome.

Hash Mark
 

Don't forget that the 28 foot hash mark used to have another purpose besides lack of action. If a dribbler was closely guarded, and dribbled past the hash mark, in a forward direction, they got a new five second count. So a dribbler could hold for 4 seconds, dribble for 4 seconds, pass the hash mark, continue to dribble for another 4 seconds, and hold for 4 seconds, for a total of 16 seconds with no violation. Now the maximum is 12 seconds, hold, dribble, and hold.

When I was coaching, the players filling the two outside lanes on our fast break were required to touch the hash marks. It was a great teaching tool, until gyms started to get new paint on the floors, with no hash marks.

A game in northern Wisconny was 5-3 ten or so years ago.

...was the ruthless leader of the Soviet Union from 1922 - 1953. :D
Sorry, I couldn't resist!

That's when we had a forecourt which was the portion of the frontcourt below the hash closes to the end line.

Mregor