Fri Jun 18, 2004, 09:40pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
The book says path right?
If we take that literally, then a defender would need to run around a dribbler, that turns AWAY from the basket, and defend what? A back court violation? An OOBs violation?
|
You still have given me nothing more than your opinion. As you say, the book says PATH.
|
Dan, you and BZ both focus on the word "path" (despite Kelvin's assertion that you shouldn't). I think BZ's point is that if being in the dribbler's path means that the the dribbler is moving toward the defender (whether that is toward the basket or toward the backcourt), then you would have to stop the 5-second count any time the dribbler moved away from the defender; b/c the defender would no longer be in the path that the dribbler is moving in.
And then in order to restart the count, the defender would have to run all the way around the dribbler so that the dribbler would again be moving toward him/her.
So "in the path" can't mean that the defender places himself/herself in a position so that the dribbler is moving toward him/her. I see the logic of his position.
The most likely alternative to that meaning of "in the path" is that it means "between the dribbler and the basket". Makes sense to me, if you're going to focus on "in the path"; although personally I tend to agree that "in the path" really doesn't matter for purposes of being closely guarded. [/B]
|
Thank you that is exactly what I've been saying.
|