Quote:
Originally posted by Rick Durkee
[/B]
|
Do you have any evidence that NFHS uses that rationale. I hope you say, "yes" and tell me there has been a published interpretation. I didn't use the citation because I didn't konw if it was an official "rationale". I would love to be able to cite it with complete confidence. [/B][/QUOTE]I don't think there has ever been a statement from the FED explicitly stating that a closely-guarded situation ceases when a defender gets beat. I know that it has been taught that way at some clinics and camps. Stringing the different rules together seem to lead to it also.
For instance,rule 4-7-2(b) basically says the same thing imo- "If a guard has obtained a
legal guarding poition, the player with the ball must get his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player. If contact occurs on the torso of the defensive player, the dribbler is responsible for the contact". The dribbler is responsible because the defender still had LGP. If the dribbler gets by and the contact isn't on the defender's torso, by inference the foul is on the defender because he didn't maintain LGP. And....if you don't have LGP, you also can't have a closely-guarded count.
Iow, I think that there's enough in the book now to back up that rationale.