I made the argument that the shot clock would simplify administration of the closely guarded rule, because the closely-guarded rule does not apply to dribblers in any code that uses the shot clock. From there, various posters started making arguments about the feasibility (or lack thereof) of adopting a shot clock in NFHS.

Re: NCAA, I have watched DIII video, and the officials at that level seem to be consistent in calling the NCAA version of closely guarded (only on players holding the ball). Maybe DI tournament officials got confused, because they have not seen closely guarded situations frequently during the regular season, and do not know what it is when they encounter it. Maybe the NCAA will make closely guarded situations a point of emphasis next year, and this discussion will have borne some fruit ;).

I will say I have noticed my College/HS buddies sometimes forget to give closely guarded counts on dribblers when they work HS ball. I think I brought it up a couple of times at halftime this season that we need to remember have a count.

A shot clock and a paid observer at all JH games would prevent that.

You stole my line:)! I said that in the HS Shot Clock Thread ;).

ilyazhito, I'm pretty sure MTD's question was rhetorical and bob jenkins' comment was meant as mildly sarcastic.

Incorrect. ;)

I was trying to be gentle, bob. :)

A Paul Lynde Reference On The Forum ??? No Way???
 

I'm not sure if I'm on topic, or off topic.

Our IAABO local interpreter has criticized our local officials for starting their five second closely guarded count too late.

Our IAABO state interpreter has criticized Connecticut officials for starting their five second closely guarded count too late.

IAABO International interpreters observing our state tournament finals have criticized Connecticut officials for starting their five second closely guarded count too late.

Why can't they be like we were
Perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?
(Bye Bye Birdie)

We'll now return to your regularly scheduled thread about property taxes.

BillyMac, no need to worry ☺. Why not make a separate thread about property taxes in the General/Off-Topic section, and return this thread to the original topic: closely-guarded counts?
What are Connecticut officials waiting for, that makes them start closely guarded counts late? By the time they finish the count, one of the players will have smacked the other upside the head from boredom (just kidding!). Maybe NFHS, IAABO, and the CIAC should post training videos of closely guarded counts, and use CT officials to show how NOT to do it. Maybe then everyone will learn, after being laughed at by the rest of the country, or IAABO ;).

[QUOTE=LRZ;1020409]ilyazhito, I'm pretty sure MTD's question was rhetorical and bob jenkins' comment was meant as mildly sarcastic.[/QUOTE]


I want to start with the above comments in green. I was not being rhetorical.


Now lets address the above comments in red. My very first comment was a history of the Closely Guarded Rule. My personal preference, shot clock or no shot clock, only holding the ball and three feet to be Closely Guarded.


And the above blue comment? I am old school and do not believe that game (NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's. NBA/WNBA, or FIBA) does not need a shot clock. My personal believe is not meant to elicit comments, pro or con, because my reasons are not important.

MTD, Sr.

I agree that the closely guarded count should only apply to 3 feet and holding the ball, because a player who is within 3 feet of another is in arm's length (the length between both arms for most people is around 6 feet, more for people who are taller), and can impede the other player from advancing and scoring (and the player being guarded has no freedom of movement, being constrained by the rule not allowing him to move his pivot foot). The closely guarded count typically ends when the player being guarded gives up possession, or advances past the player guarding him. A player who is dribbling is able to elude his opponent, either by retreating or advancing by him, and thus should not be subject to the closely guarded count. This is apparently the reasoning that FIBA uses to establish its closely guarded count (the distance is 1 meter (slightly more than 3 feet)), and it would make sense if other codes followed it.

How does 6 feet make sense as a closely-guarded distance? From 2 arm lengths away, a player cannot influence another player's position or restrict his movement in the way that a player 1 arm length (3 ft) (or less) away can. To be consistent, NFHS and NCAA (M) should change their closely-guarded definition to FIBA's (NCAAW had adopted the FIBA definition, and will probably re-adopt it if the other levels adopt FIBA's standard).

Tape Measure In Our Pocket ...
 

It appears that nobody in Connecticut can figure out what six feet looks like. We've even been instructed to use the radius of the jump ball circle, and the free throw semicircle, as well as the width of two adjacent marked lane spaces, as reference points.

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), one of Connecticut's most famous residents, would have called six feet "Mark One".

Pull Out All The Stops ...
 

Several years ago Connecticut experimented with a "not closely guarded" signal. The IAABO International interpreter put a stop to that, stating that not counting was the proper "signal".

This past year, in an effort to get us to give this possible violation more thought, IAABO International put the "not closely guarded" signal in the IAABO mechanics manual as an official signal.

"I want to start with the above comments in green. I was not being rhetorical."

My apologies, Mark, for misconstruing your intent. (A sincere apology, not sarcastic---just to be clear!)

All this hypothetical stuff. As a new official, I was worried about the rules and mechanics that were in place and getting them right.