old rule question ( before 1980 )
 

I am not sure how far back this goes, I know when I was in school we had it.

You had to push the ball past a line ( I believe it was the 28 ft line ) on the offense every so often to keep teams from stalling.

What was the name of that line or the name of the violation if you didn't do it?

The rule was the lack of action rule. It went away about 1990. I don't remember what we called the line, though.

Just wait till BillyMac gets on...he'll wax on poetically on the rule. :p

If the offense was behind or tied, they had to push it beyond the 28' hash. That was one purpose of that line as I recall. Also, if you broke that line, the 5 second count on a dribble would stop as well, if I recall correctly.

If the defense was behind, they were forced to press.

It actually went away in the late 80's as there was no need for it after the shot clock was implemented.

It was a stupid rule. Officials had to decide at what point to warn the team to play and stop stalling. Far too subjective.

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

The line separated the forecourt from the midcourt.

... Of The Way We Were ...
 

We had to yell, "Play ball", and point in the appropriate direction.

The five second closely guarded rule was updated so that the only purpose of the hashmark was to enforce the lack of action rule. I think it was in the early 70s that a dribbler would no longer be able to break a count by advancing the ball past the line.

It was called "Lack of sufficient action".
One of the worst rules ever. Thankfully it ended within a year or two of my starting officiating.

I'm sure it had some official name, maybe what has been stated above, but I remember it just being referred to as the "penetration line". And yes - it was a stupid rule.

It was the Lack of Action rule, as everyone has pointed out.

It went away for the start of the '91-92 school year (I found an article online). BBR pointed out the criteria for enforcing it.

If one of those conditions existed the trail was supposed to start a five-second count. If the defense was behind and didn't come out beyond the 28-foot hash mark (they had to send as many players as the offense had above the hash mark) or if the offense was behind and didn't break the hash mark, a warning was issued. If it happened again a technical foul was charged to the offending team.

Also, if the offense was closely-guarded above the 28-foot mark but managed to back the defender below the hash mark, the five-second CG count would reset. Yes, it was as annoying as it sounds.

Here are some other major changes which went into effect that season:

*Technical fouls on players would count towards their five for DQ as well as towards the team foul total
*The number of technicals needed for a coach to be DQed was reduced from three to two
*The number of team fouls needed to reach the bonus in a half was increased from five to seven (an absolute Godsend)
*A player fouled while shooting a three-point shot would receive three free throws instead of two if the shot wasn't successful
*Requiring a doctor's authorization before a player who an official had determined to be unconscious or apparently unconscious to return to a game

When I tried telling a friend that in my career we had the bonus starting at five team fouls and there was no double bonus, he didn't believe me.

Got a link?

The NFHS rule got rid of the rule in '91-'92. I still think the NCAA got rid of it earlier, since the shot clock was implemented in '85. There was no need for it after that.

I thought the break the count with the hashmark had disappeared when I was officiating the first time.(1976-78) Did it re-appear?

The "Play" mechanic was pretty simple. Never called a T, but uttered the phrase a few times.

Here's the link: Times Daily - Google News Archive Search

I'm pretty sure you're right about the NCAA. NFHS usually made changes a year or two after NCAA. I have videos of NCAA games from prior to '91-92. I'd have to go watch them to see if the LOA rule ever came into play.

It must have. I know I dealt with the LOA and breaking the count with the hashmark when I started freshman/JV ball in '89-90.

I have climbed up into my attic and doing research.
 

I am doing research and typing at the same time as watching the games on TVC. I will be making a post within the next 30 minutes.

MTD, Sr.

I actually saw this called in a HS game this year.

Pretty sure I've worked with that guy.

Lack of Sufficient Action
 

The rule was called: Lack of Sufficient Action (LSA). It was a seperate rule from Closely Guarded (CG) and the two rules had different criteria.

The LSA Rule will not be found in the Rules as written by the National Association of Girls and Women in Sports (NAGWS) and NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committees. LSA will only be found in the Rules as written by the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBCUSC), NFHS, and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees.


LSA was in effect during the following situations were applicable to the team that was losing (defense or offense) if the score was not tied or to the defense if the score was tied. I climbed up into the attic and brought down the 1971-72 folder.

NBCUSC R4-S13(c): A team's mid-court is that part of its front court between the division line and a parallel imaginary line 28 feet from the inside edge of the end boundary to the nearer edge of the mid-court area marker. This imaginary line is located by two three-foot lines two inches wide measured from the inside edge of each side boundary and drawn at right angles to it.

NBCUSC R4-S18: Lack of sufficient action is the failure of the responsible team to force play as required by the Comments on the Rules.

NOTE (mine): Unlike today where the Comments on the Rules are addressed to the new changes made to the Rules, the Comments on the Rules (in The Ancient Days, :D) were a permanent part of the rules that addressed how certain rules were to be applied; for years the complete definitions of Guarding and Screening were found not in Rule 4 but in the Comments on the Rules.

NBCUSC R10-(A. Technical Foul)-S2(c): A team shall not when behind in the score or while on defense with the score tied and after a warning by an Official, faling to be continuously aggressive in attempting to secure the ball if on defense or to advance the ball beyond the mid-court area if on offense and there is no opposing action in the mid-court area. See "Comments" forintepretation of "resonably active" and fore procedure foer administration.

Comments on the Rules:

LACK OF SUFFICIENT ACTION--

What contitutes lack of sufficient action: Lack of sufficient action occurs when the team responsible for action:

1. Permits the ball to remain in its mid-court areao for 10 seconds, during which time there is no opposing team in this area; or

2. Does not continuously and agressively attempt to gain control of the ball within 10 seconds while the ball is in the mid-court area of the opponents. If two or more players are in their mid-court area, at least two of the players of the team responsible for action must be in the area, one of whom must attempt to gain control.

Who is responsible to force action?

1. The team behind in score is respnsible for action. If the score is tied the defensive team is responsible.

2. After a team has been warned for lack of action, that team is in violation:

a. Each time it permits the ball to reamin in its mid-court area without opposititon for a period of 5 seconds;

b. Each time it does not continuously and aggressively attempt to gain control of the ball when the ball is in the mid-court area of the opponents for a periodof 5 seconds.

What is the penalty for lack of sufficient action? The penalty for lack of suffiicient action is a technical foul for each infraction of the rule. Repeated refusal to produce action may result in forfeiture of the game.

What is the procedure of official for warning a team? The officials shallwarn a team for lack of sufficient actioin by moving to a position clearly visible to the responsible team, pointing in the direction it should advance and calling, "Play Ball". Only one warning shall be giben to a teram each period. Extra periods are considered an extension of the fourth quarter or second half.


NOTE (mine): There were not Casebook Plays that I could find but years later the 10 seconds requirement was reduced to 5 seconds. The rule was removed when the NCAA Men's Rules Committee adopted a Shot Clock.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. And I do not remember if I have charged a team with TF for an infraction of this Rule, but I do know that I issued warnings.

Ha. I about fell out when I saw it!

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

Maybe someone was playing the Welmer game?

Spelling correction.
 

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.

Mark, the question was, "What year did the rule go away?" My eyes may have glazed over, but I couldn't find the answer in your post. :D

I'm waiting for the tl;dr version.

Snaqs and GROUPthink
 

I am 60 yrs old and I really didn't want to spend the afternoon in the attic.

I think that the rule was repealed when the NCAA Men's Rules Committee adopted the Shot Clock. That said, I emailed a friend who has a better memory for these things that I do and when I receive his answer I will post it.

MTD, Sr.

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.

'90-91 was the last year it was in the rule book.

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. :D

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.

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.

The article misstates this rule. It was changed for COACHES. Players were subject to 2 T's as long as I have been working (since 1988), though it was separate from personal fouls.

Correct. I should've notice that. I'm changing the original post.

Now if we can only get them to change the rule down to one technical, or better yet, just a warning! :p