Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
No, of course not. There's no yelling and name-calling. 
I'll have to admit I've never considered these ideas when thinking about closely-guarded. Perhaps it's because my focus is in NCAA-W, where the closely-guarded count is only on a held ball, and there is no "path" to consider. 
So the only time you would have a count is when the guard is in front of (or trying to stay in front of) the direction the opponent is moving? So how do you justify a count in the case where B1 is in between A1 and the basket, while A1 dribbling "east/west"? A1's "path", if taken literally, is the direction they're moving, and B1 was never in front of that direction. (Or are you going to add another term not mentioned or defined in the rules: "assumed path"? )
Fwiw, I think the mention of the word path in the guarding definition was meant to dissuade the very action mentioned in the OP - simply following or shadowing a dribbler without trying to hinder their direction for the sole purpose of getting a 5-sec. violation. For example, to obtain LGP there is no mention of being in the path. We all know LGP can be obtained by the defender setting up behind the offensive player, such as in the post. What if that post player dribbles away from the basket to create space, but the defender moves with them - the defender is obviously not in the path, but yet we would continue the count when the defender stays within 6 feet. Or are you going to use that undefined term of "assumed path", since you would "assume" A1 was going to move towards the basket and B1 was in that "assumed" path, not the "actual" path? And what rules basis do you use to determine "intent" of a path?
Also, there is a specific mention in the rules that the count stops once the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender on a drive to the basket. Why isn't the count stopped if the same thing happens in all other dribbling and guarding situations?
I understand the phrase "in the path" is used in the definition of guarding, but I'm not sure we should get too literal in it's use without additional case plays or guidance. |
I guess I could yell a bit and call you some names, if that would help you feel like it's the good old days.
The notion of what "in the path" really means is problematic. We've debated it ad nauseum in the past. Some hold it means between the offensive player and the basket. Some hold that it is relative to the direction the offensive player is moving. Thus far the NFHS (also
AFAIK the NCAA, NBA, nor FIBA) has not felt the need to further define it. That's probably okay. In practice it turns out to be more of an "I know it when I see it" thing. We pretty readily recognize situations where we should have a count. (Although it appears there may be some regional variance in how we apply closely guarded to post play)
But what would the summer lull be without discussions like this.
For discussion purposes, I'm liking Snaq's definition: "I think the path can be defined one of two ways: the general direction between the player and where he could reasonably be expected to want the ball, and the direction he is obviously moving."
Generally if the offense is trying to advance the ball, dribbling east-west is only a tactic to shift the defense and locate or create an opening to advance the ball. But good defense dictates that the guard remain between the dribbler and the basket, otherwise the dribbler may find a lane for a layup. Since an uncontested layup is the highest percentage shot, you have to consider the direct line from the dribbler to the basket the "path" he would most like to take. Depending on what the offense is trying to do, there are other "path"s that could/should legitimately be defended too. OTOH, there are places that it makes no sense for the defender to be, even though the supposed guard is within six feet. Generally speaking, behind the dribbler is one of those places.
As a hueristic, I think you can pretty reliably ask yourself, "Is the defender really guarding the offensive player?" If so, then he most likely is using his position on the floor to hinder or disrupt what the offensive player would like to do, and is therefore in the offensive player's path.
As for "head and shoulders," the rule makes no mention of "on a drive to the basket". From NFHS 4-10: "A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player." However, a drive to the basket is when we normally apply this rule. And it certainly implies a much more precise spatial relationship between the dribbler and defender than merely "in the path".
You may be right about why the "in the path" language was added. I wasn't yet reffing when the closely guarded rule was added. I'm only passingly familiar with the "lack of action" rule that it replaced. I do know that it required the offense to move the ball toward the basket (or at least accross the 28 foot marks) under certain conditions. But, as with all "policy decisions" there are intended and unintended consequences.
The intended ones, obviously, have to do with forcing the offense to act, keeping the game from getting boring, but more importantly maintaining the balance between offense and defense by ensuring the defense has the opportunity to play defense. I think it's worked pretty well. If the offense is stalling, and the defense wants to force the issue, all they have to do is come out and "get a count." Pretty universally the offense will begin to move the ball in some fashion, and the defense has an opportunity.
The unintended consequences, well they're not so bad. As you mentioned, what if the post player dribbles out and the defender follows. The count on this play...well, I'm not sure the rules committee exactly went looking for that. After all, a player dribbling the ball within the arc already gives the defense the opportunity to play D. But, by rule, we have a count. Such is life. And hey, the fact that there is a rule that is regularly enforced just encourages a style of play that continually moves the ball and forces the action.
Overall, I think you can't go too far wrong if you consider the purpose of the closely guarded rule when you're making decisions about its application. I'm not suggesting we ever ignore the rule, only that it be applied most rigorously when its intent is most imperative. If the offense is moving the ball and forcing the action, we should be slow to start a count. If the offense is doing something a little different, like running out the clock at the end of the game, as long as the defense still has the opportunity to play defense (and they want to), the intent of the rule is being met and we should be reluctant to begin a count. When the offense is withholding the ball from play, denying the defense a chance to obtain the ball by simply not playing basketball, that's when the closely guarded rule is a great tool to get the offense back to playing the game.
Those who suggest that we're penalizing the defense by not starting an immediate count...who suggest a five second count is the defense's "reward" for playing good defense...well, I disagree. The intent of the rule is not to "give" the defense anything except the opportunity to play defense, to obtain the ball through their own efforts. Good defense is its own reward.
As always, my just $0.02