![]() |
|
|
|||
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... |
|
|||
Quote:
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! ![]() |
|
|||
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.)
|
|
|||
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's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important! |
|
|||
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. ![]()
__________________
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." – Dalai Lama The center of attention as the lead & trail. – me Games officiated: 525 Basketball · 76 Softball · 16 Baseball |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
![]()
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.
![]()
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
|
||||
Quote:
![]() |
|
|||
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?
|
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
stalling? | pz | Wrestling | 2 | Sun Feb 05, 2006 05:25pm |
Stalling and bleeding | Suudy | Wrestling | 1 | Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:50pm |
Stalling and Sliding | refnrev | Basketball | 20 | Tue Dec 27, 2005 09:27pm |
Legal stalling | David Emerling | Softball | 2 | Mon Jul 14, 2003 06:36am |
Stalling the Game | Todd VandenAkker | Basketball | 9 | Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:18am |