old rule question ( before 1980 )

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What contitutes lack of sufficient acdtioni:

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

Maybe someone was playing the Welmer game?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I corrected my spelling. I could not cut and paste; I had to type everything I posted while reading it from the Rules and Case Books.

MTD, Sr.

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

No wonder they changed the rule. Nobody could pronounce it.

Guaranteed that if an official had to enforce it, 90% of the time, they would screw it up. I have seen Techs given to the team leading, Officials pointing the wrong way, officials ignoring that a warning had to given each period, etc.
The worst screwup was in a university game, tied and offensive team holding ball for last shot with about 10 seconds to go. The official instead of giving a verbal and pointing warning blew the whistle and gave the warning. On the succeeding throwin, ball was stolen, and game was won on an easy layup.

The saving grace was that if 90% of the officials could not correctly apply the rule, 100% of the coaches had no idea what should be done.

Truly a stupid rule ranking ahead of players having to raise their hands on fouls called against them or receive a Tech.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Guaranteed that if an official had to enforce it, 90% of the time, they would screw it up. I have seen Techs given to the team leading, Officials pointing the wrong way, officials ignoring that a warning had to given each period, etc.

The worst screwup was in a university game, tied and offensive team holding ball for last shot with about 10 seconds to go. The official instead of giving a verbal and pointing warning blew the whistle and gave the warning. On the succeeding throwin, ball was stolen, and game was won on an easy layup.

The saving grace was that if 90% of the officials could not correctly apply the rule, 100% of the coaches had no idea what should be done.

Truly a stupid rule ranking ahead of players having to raise their hands on fouls called against them or receive a Tech.

LeeBallanfant:

I have been a basketball official for 41 years and this rule was in effect for the first 20 or so of those years. To be honest, I rarely saw this rule have to be applied. The only time that this rule had an increased chance of having to be applied was during a slow down game (at the college level read: Dean Smith and North Carolina). It really did not take a rocket scientist to apply this rule. Back in the day, most high schools only had one scoreboard so it took a little effort to know what the score of the game was but that was just a minor inconvience.

Since there was not Shot Clock in the rules, the LSA rule was there to keep the game from becoming an actionless contest. The rule was repealed at the high school level because it was decided that if a team wanted to hold the ball while being behind in the score or want to stay back on defense, it was only hurting itself and not its opponent. And of course with men's college adopting a shot clock the rule became moot.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. While I am not a rocket scientist, I am a structural engineer, and BillyMac is a chemist, so I guess we can claim to be scientists.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The rule was repealed at the high school level because it was decided that if a team wanted to hold the ball while being behind in the score or want to stay back on defense, it was only hurting itself and not its opponent.

This is what I never understood about the rule. Before the advent of the 3-point line, it would make more sense to force the defense (winning or losing) to "play ball" by coming out to guard and therefore open up the area near the goal a little. Either that, or tell the winning team that they couldn't just sit on their lead and they had to "play ball." But, making the losing team "play ball" just never made sense to me.

[jmwking]

Cue up reminiscing on Dean Smith and the Four Corners. They made a mockery of the rule, especially vs Duke in '79 with the infamous 7-0 halftime score. 20 minutes of "advancing" the ball past the hash mark and backing out again, two shots the entire half. UNC lost 47-40.

UNC stalled again in the '82 ACC Championship, where UNC held the ball for most of the second half to beat Ralph Sampson's Virginia team, 47-45. I think they led most of that time, so the burden was on UVA to initiate the defense. I think that game got everyone experimenting with a shot clock and 3 point line.