Found this Gem 3 seconds

[Rob1968]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;996025]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

SITUATION 12: A1 is holding the ball in her/his frontcourt. B1 moves to within 6 feet and stands and faces A1. The official does not apply the closely guarded rule because B1 is not playing aggressively. RULING: The official is incorrectly applying the closely guarded rule. The amount of movement or the actual body position of B1 is irrelevant. (Rule 4-10)

Thanks, Bob. The above noted statements and the requirement that during a closely guarded situation, the distance is measured from the front foot/feet of the opponent to the front foot/feet of the ball handler, seem to be contradictory. A defender standing with his back to the ball handler doesn't seem to be guarding the ball handler. And a mental image of a defender standing with his back toward the ball handler, who is also facing away from the defender, doesn't seem to fit the concept of guarding.
But, it's not the first time that a statement from the NFHS seems strange.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Are we sure about this? It is called "closely guarded" and not "closely located."

If you receive a backcourt throw-in under the basket, and I have two feet down and am facing you from under the other basket, 80-90 feet away, I am guarding you ... not closely guarding you, but guarding you nonetheless.

It doesn't take much!

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Thanks, Bob. The above noted statements and the requirement that during a closely guarded situation, the distance is measured from the front foot/feet of the opponent to the front foot/feet of the ball handler, seem to be contradictory. A defender standing with his back to the ball handler doesn't seem to be guarding the ball handler. And a mental image of a defender standing with his back toward the ball handler, who is also facing away from the defender, doesn't seem to fit the concept of guarding.

Ballhandlers routinely have their backs to defenders, so that should cause no confusion. And while it may seem strange/rare to have the defender also facing the other direction, it's not like that changes the distance you'd measure between the front of the players' feet (other than perhaps a few inches).

Am I saying I'd call this? Probably not. Am I saying it's a good look? Definitely not. But don't let fan myths or personal bias cloud your understanding of the actual rules of the game.

A mental image of a player at halfcourt with his back to the basket, tossing the ball over his head toward the goal doesn't seem to fit the concept of a try, but it can easily be judged a try nonetheless ...

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by ODog

If you receive a backcourt throw-in under the basket, and I have two feet down and am facing you from under the other basket, 80-90 feet away, I am guarding you ... not closely guarding you, but guarding you nonetheless.

It doesn't take much!

Just for the sake of conversation, if all five of the opponents are facing the ball handler, from whatever distances, who is guarding whom?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by ODog

Ballhandlers routinely have their backs to defenders, so that should cause no confusion. And while it may seem strange/rare to have the defender also facing the other direction, it's not like that changes the distance you'd measure between the front of the players' feet (other than perhaps a few inches).

Am I saying I'd call this? Probably not. Am I saying it's a good look? Definitely not. But don't let fan myths or personal bias cloud your understanding of the actual rules of the game.

A mental image of a player at halfcourt with his back to the basket, tossing the ball over his head toward the goal doesn't seem to fit the concept of a try, but it can easily be judged a try nonetheless ...

I gave those up when I started officiating in 1968.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ODog

... while it may seem strange/rare to have the defender also facing the other direction ...

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent ... After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent ...

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by ODog

Not speaking to your instance in particular, but unless the shot-clock operator is amazing (and at the HS level or below, that's a toss up at best, getting worse as the level drops), you cannot use the shot clock as any sort of barometer for a 10-second call, nor should you.

I certainly agree that the clock is not THE barometer -- in this case, the shot clock was consistent with my perception that it was not 10 and with other quick counts. (''Twas against the other team, btw.)

Originally Posted by ODog

Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.

Something else that's never relevant: What "everyone else in the gym" thinks. This is probably why more and more coaches, fans and parents are reportedly losing their minds on a regular basis. Because their views on all calls/non-calls are always irrelevant, more often than not invalid and absolutely never taken into consideration.

Thanks for the lecture, I really didn't know that refs don't make calls based on what fans think. Glad you could clarify. I didn't think it was within 6 ft -- but it would have been a non event in my mind if it weren't for the collection of seemingly quick counts. (Whether they are technically core t or. It, I don't recall seeing a five second call made in favor of a passive defender at five and a half feet before.)

Originally Posted by ODog

Of course. We're in agreement on all fronts. And I'm also agreeing with the speculation that the officials in So Cal's post likely were inexperienced and/or trigger happy.

But his post seems to come from a fan's perspective, with a fan's concept of the rules, so it's only fair someone stands up for these boor bastards () and plays devil's advocate.

Undoubtedly I have a fan's perspective -- as I said, it was my son's game. But I won't agree to fan's perspective of the rules, which I think would be obvious from my posts in general. The reason I come here isn't to trash refs, but because I like knowing the actual rules (though I have to be judicious about explaining the, other parents around me). I reffed BB (untrained except for reading the rule book) for middle school games in my youth, and may do it when my kid graduates -- currently I only do soccer and my marriage can't handle another sport, too....

The backcourt count was also in favor of my son's team. When I muttered "that wasn't 10 seconds, but we'll take it" while the other parents were cheering, a dad "explained" to me that the 10 second count starts before the shot clock (this was after a made basket) because it starts while the player is still throwing in the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... the 10 second count starts before the shot clock (this was after a made basket) because it starts while the player is still throwing in the ball.

Not specific to this thread, but different rule sets have different starting times for a ten second count. Some start the count when a player in the backcourt touches the ball, others (NFHS) start the count when a player in the backcourt controls the ball.

I can't speak in regard to when the shot clock starts, we don't use a shot clock for almost all Connecticut scholastic games. However, our Connecticut prep schools use hybrid NCAA/NFHS rules. In our prep school varsity games, during a throw-in, the shot clock starts when the ball is legally touched by any player. After a missed free throw/field goal, the shot clock starts when a player gains control. Officials use the shot clock to time for 10-second backcourt violation, however, when the shot clock is turned off, the official must use a visual count.