The Official Forum - OLD Stalling Rule

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - OLD Stalling Rule (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/43280-old-stalling-rule.html)

OLD Stalling Rule

Can anyone help me recall how, before the shot clock era, stalling was prevented? I seem to recall some sort of penetration requirement and did hashmarks on the sidelines play a part in this rule?

No shot clock now for most levels of basketball, and stalling is not prevented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by br1975

I seem to recall some sort of penetration requirement

...fighting...urge...to post picture...

Anyway, at one time there was a "lack of action" warning that had to do with the hash marks on the sideline, about 28' off the endline. I don't remember all the details, but I believe if the offense was behind, the dribbler had to advance the ball past the 28' mark, even if the defense was back playing zone, and the defense had to come out to the dribbler if the defense was behind.

As Snaqs stated, that requirement was lifted, even in rule sets that do not use the shot clock.

Actually, I remember the exact rule and how it was applied, but I guess I'm not allowed to post it because, according to BktBallRef, all I post are lame jokes and off topic threads (see "Traveling" thread). Sorry - I really wanted to contribute this time. Oh well.:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...fighting...urge...to post picture...

thanks, now i have to clean the coke off my monitor.

That's what you get for drinking Coke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by br1975

Can anyone help me recall how, before the shot clock era, stalling was prevented? I seem to recall some sort of penetration requirement and did hashmarks on the sidelines play a part in this rule?

There's been several. I think that the one that you're referring to went like this:

- there was a 3-foot line on both sides of the court 28 feet up from the each endline.
- the area from the endline to the 28' mark was called the forecourt; from the 28' line to the center line was called the mid-court.
- If a team was behind in the score, they were responsible for the "action". If the teams were tied, the defense was the team responsible for the action.
- if the offense was responsible for action, they could only hold the ball for 10 seconds at a time in the mid-court area. At that time, the lead official was supposed to come out, point at the offense and holler "play ball". From then on, the offense had 5 seconds to move the ball into the forecourt. If they didn't, it was a team technical foul. Once they did move the ball into the forecourt, they could again move the ball back into the mid-court...but as soon as they moved back into the mid-court, a new 5-second count was again started. Iirc, the first warning(play ball) was good for the whole game.
- if the defense was reponsible for action, as soon as the offense held the ball in the mid-court area for 10 seconds, the lead would again go through the "play ball" routine. At this time though, the defense had to send defender(s) into the mid-court area within 5 seconds or the defense was charged with a team technical foul. If there was more than 1 offensive player in the mid-court area, the defense had to send a minimum of 2 players into that area. Defensive players had to be actively guarding too. That's where the 6-foot closely guarded rule came in. And again, if the ball swung into the forecourt and then back into the mid-court, the defense had to send defenders back into the mid-court area within 5 seconds again.

It was a very convoluted rule that really didn't work worth a damn. The FED got rid of it quickly.

That's how I remember it anyway. There were other versions before and after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Sorry - I really wanted to contribute this time. Oh well.

And yet, you didn't. You just made another off-topic post. A better response, IMHO, would have been to post the exact rule and how it was administered and then told Bktballref where he could stick his off-topic commentary. Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's what you get for drinking Coke.

You sure it was the kind you drink? JUST KIDDING, DAN. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

the lame stuff you posts are jokes?

Thought for sure we'd see a Larry Craig reference....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf? :rolleyes:

Action Is Lacking ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's been several. It was a very convoluted rule that really didn't work worth a damn. The FED got rid of it quickly. That's how I remember it anyway. There were other versions before and after that.

Jurassic Referee: Excellent explanation of the old Lack Of Action Rule. I believe that you nailed it. You indicate that the NFHS got rid of it quickly. When I began officiating back in the early 1980's, the the Lack Of Action rule was already in place, and only lasted a few years, as you indicated. I always thought that the rule had been in place for more than a few years. Do you remember when it started, or when it stopped? I'll take your word for it that there were other versions before the one you so aptly described, but I don't recall any other versions after the one you described was taken out of the rule book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

JR,
I seem to remember a very short period in the 1st-half of the Sinsational 60's, where we had to penetrate the free throw-line extended from time to time, but could then bring the ball out again.
Does that sound like sumpthin ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick

Iirc, they did have a rule like that for a year or so. I <b>think</b> that the initial period then before the warning was a whopping 30 seconds, and then you had 10 seconds to get it over that FT line extended. You could then go back out, but the 10 seconds started again. I also <b>think</b> that the warning only lasted either a quarter or a half too. Iirc also, technical fouls were only 1 FT too.

Sound familiar?