Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap
6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.
The not entering after a throw-in was actually on the NFHS survey this past spring. Hopefully, they do change the penalty. They did not a few years back because of the penalty for other delays returning to the court, however, that could be covered as an exception or note and leave the T penalty in place for not coming back on the floor after a time-out for example.
|
You are agreeing with my point just coming to a different conclusion. Due to the fact that MANY OFFICIALS do NOT consider "closely guarded" to be at 6 feet, they DO NOT start their count. Then, the next game, we have an official who calls it at 6 feet and "bang" we have inconsistency.
I am one who calls it as the rule states, but DISAGREE with the rule as a matter of logic and experience. MANY disagree with the rule and therefore call it as they (and I) would prefer to see it -- at four feet or being "close" to the ballhandler. This leads to more inconsistencies than we should have.
In our BV game the other night, my partners and I were starting the count (quite visibly, might I add) when appropriate by rule. A coach just about jumped out of his skin when one of my partners called a 5-count on his point guard. I was the lead and did not see that action out top, but the coach did say "well that certainly wasn't closely guarded last Saturday night."
By the way, I would advocate not charging a T for the violating the time out rule as well -- simply allowing them to play with four entil the next substitution opportunity. Playing short should be penalty enough. Of course, ENTERING the court during play (without being beckoned) would still constitute a T as it is now.