"Hey Ref, that's five seconds!"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

We went from closely guarded to taxes, lol.

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

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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 .

[LRZ]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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

Incorrect.

[LRZ]

I was trying to be gentle, bob.

[BillyMac]

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.

[ilyazhito]

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 .

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

As a long time women's college official (34 years) and USA Basketball Official (12 years) I have always thought the NCAA Women's Closely Guarded Rule requirement of the Defender being within three feet of the Offensive Player in PC of the Ball and only while the Offensive Player is holding the Ball was the better Rule.

The NCAA Women's Closely Guarded Rule was a NAGWS Rule which was taken from the FIBA Rules.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

All codes that use a shot clock (NCAA M/W, NBA, FIBA) have no closely-guarded counts on dribblers. NCAA and FIBA only have counts on players holding the ball, NBA only has counts on players in the post with their backs to the basket. THAT is how a shot clock follows this discussion.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

How did this thread go from the Closely Guarded Rule to property taxes?

Please lets get this thread back on the tracks.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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 .

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

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Incorrect.

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.

[ilyazhito]

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).

[IncorrectCall]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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).

I like your mindset, but disagree with FIBA. As a defender, it is already nearly impossible to remain in front of an opponent for 5 seconds at the current distance.