Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
[B}
Where is your rule support?
|
Take a look at how the rules define guarding. That i smy rule support, as I have been claiming since about page 2 of this thread.
"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the PATH...."
Maybe to you PATH means the direction you think something SHOULD be going.
To me it means the direction something IS going.
|
You still have not answered Chuck's A1 backing up, or my parallel path question and how they apply to closely guarded. WHY? Neither have B1 directly in the path of A1.
I still say under your interp, you can never have a 5 second
count. A1 just needs to turn away every 4 seconds. How does that fit the intent of the rule?
FYI, I spoke with Bill Kennedy tonight, so I asked him how he calls it. He said by LGP, within 6 feet, and actively guarding. He also said, that it is silly to expect B1 to defend a boundary and that the direction A1 is moving does not matter.
|
While I certainly hate to interject myself into an argument between Junior and the Codgerly Crotch( or was it vice/versa?), can I make a point without worrying about having the wrath of you two fall on my head? You know how much I hate confrontation and arguments.
If A1 changes direction- sideways, backwards, etc,- isn't A1 also changing or altering his path at the same time? There's nothing in the rule book that says that the dribbler's "path" had to remain in a straight line. And if the defender similary moves sideways, forwards, etc. as the dribbler is going sideways, backwards, etc. in his altered path, and the defender still continually remains within 6 feet of the dribbler, hasn't the defender met the concepts contained in Rule 4-10 (staying within 6 feet of the dribbler) and also Rule 4-23-3a&b (moving laterally or obliquely with the dribbler while not being required at the same time to be continuously facing the dribbler)?
Of course if you disagree, feel free to continue for another week or two. I've got plenty of popcorn.
[/B]
|
Interject all you like, since you have agreed with me, so far.
As badly as the rule book is written and laid out, I just can't see any sense in taking something this ambiguous as gospel.
Dan's stance contradicts the spirit and intent of the rule. It also irks me that he is pulling an MTD, by refusing to answer the questions that point to the flaw in his arguement.
Oh well, I have the stamina of a marathon runner. I can keep it going, so get your popcorn ready.
