|
Juulie,
I think this is one of those situations where you have to look at how specific rules work together - apply a logical reasoning if you will......
Rule 4-23 defines guarding, LGP, etc.
Rule 4-10 defines closely guarded, and by reference includes rule 4-23 and adds the 6 ft. requirement.
Rule 9-10 defines the related violation.
Rule 4-7, while specifically defining block charge, not only includes the requirements of 4-23, but in 4-7-2-b specifically defines what the offensive player has to do to negate the legal guarding position of the defender. It clearly states that when the offensive player gets head & shoulders past the defender's torso the defender has lost LGP. I believe this is consistent with the "in the path of an offensive opponent" requirement of 4-23-1.
Put more simply, 4-23 & 4-10 define what the defender must do to establish a closely guarded situation, while 4-7-2-b describes one way that the offensivc player may negate it.
Chasing an opponent that has beaten you is not guarding them. Also the defender must maintain the "within 6 ft" requirement - if in the officials judgement the distance between them & the offensive player widens beyond that - even for a split second - the count restarts.
Bottom line, it's a judgement call on the part of the official whether or not you think the defender maintained the closely guarded situation. In a situation like you described, I'd probably say something like "Coach, to be legally guarding the defender has to stay in the path of the opponent with the ball - in my judgement your player wasn't." If he/she listens, great - if not & they push the issue, there's always "Coach, I've heard enough" then 10-4-1-b if you need it........
|