The Official Forum
Page 10 of 10 « First 89 10
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Closely Guarded (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/14199-closely-guarded.html)

Camron Rust Tue Jun 22, 2004 04:59pm
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Glad to be here for your amusement.:D

At least I tried to apply a logical spin to a poorly written, badly organized rule book, to answer the question put forth in this post.

REWIND:

How I call closely guarded:

LGP is my main guide, path also includes between A1 and the basket, and the orientation of A1's body does not end my count. [/B]
I'm one who thinks that the rulebook is not actually that poorly written (in a few spots perhaps, but not in general). I think it's just that many of us, not unlike our coach and spectator counterparts, come into it already believing the rule is something and when it doesn't seem to agree with what they think, we automatically declare it a poorly written rule rather than simply admitting we read it wrong. I've certainly been guilty of that.

blindzebra Tue Jun 22, 2004 05:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust


I wonder what the casebook says....

9.10.1 SITUATION C: Team A has the ball in its own frontcourt. B1 stands within 6 feet and facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. Ruling: In five seconds this would be a violation. In the situation outlined, as soon as B1 has assumed a guarding position, both feet on the floor, facing the opponent, no other specific requirement is in effect. The amount of movement or the actual body position of the player is irrelevant.


Hmmm. The situation only puts B1 within 6ft and facing the A1 and the ruling is closely guarded and the result is a violation. It goes on to say that the body position and movement are irrelevant.
I used that 4 or 5 pages ago. Did not work for me, but go ahead. :D
Oh, didn't remember anyone mentioning it but among the 9 pages (soon to be 10, 11, or even 12 !!!) it's not hard to miss something. ;)
The first time I used it was on page 3. It really is the only thing that comes anywhere close to saying what should be the critical factor in judging closely guarded.

rainmaker Tue Jun 22, 2004 06:49pm
You know, there's another twist to this. Which emphasizes my point, so I'll throw it out here. And that is the word, "facing." I've always thought that when B1 is "facing" A1, that A1 may or may not be facing B1. In other words, that "facing" means only where B1's face is and doesn't say anything about A1's face. That they don't have to be face to face for B1 to be "facing." It sounds as though several of you, at least, are using "facing" to mean that A1 and B1 are front to front. Any thoughts on this one?

blindzebra Tue Jun 22, 2004 07:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Glad to be here for your amusement.:D

At least I tried to apply a logical spin to a poorly written, badly organized rule book, to answer the question put forth in this post.

REWIND:

How I call closely guarded:

LGP is my main guide, path also includes between A1 and the basket, and the orientation of A1's body does not end my count.
I'm one who thinks that the rulebook is not actually that poorly written (in a few spots perhaps, but not in general). I think it's just that many of us, not unlike our coach and spectator counterparts, come into it already believing the rule is something and when it doesn't seem to agree with what they think, we automatically declare it a poorly written rule rather than simply admitting we read it wrong. I've certainly been guilty of that.

[/B]
I think it is more the case of either not clearly defining the rule, like in this thread or the 4-23 mess this year, or having to gather bits and pieces from several areas of the book to fully apply the rules.

We have used 4-10, 4-23, 9-10, and 10-6-2 to discuss this topic, and we still don't have a concrete interpretation.

mick Tue Jun 22, 2004 09:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
We have used 4-10, 4-23, 9-10, and 10-6-2 to discuss this topic, and we still don't have a concrete interpretation.
Ah, yes!
But, due to the posts these rules have created, perhaps some sage will explore a clarification.
That's happened more than a few times around here. :)
mick

Dan_ref Tue Jun 22, 2004 09:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by footlocker
Man, I can't believe after reading this many pages I'm jumping in.

Dan, you frustrated with junior yet?


Nah..I'm the proud owner of 2 teenagers. This stuff is easy...

"You didn't put gas in my car"
"I'll do it tomorrow night"
"But it needs gas now & I gotta drive to east farawayplace tomorrow morning"
"I SAID I would put gas in it tomorrow night, didn't I??!!! BTW Dad, can you lend me 20?"
Quote:


BZ, you got yourself in trouble here because you began to interpret the rule as if it were clear. (And as if you were on the rules committee.) It looks as if Dan took exception to that and simply asked for you to back up your position with a rule. You can’t. You lose.

You have even admitted that the rule is unclear since your original post. You could have avoided the entire thing by simply saying, “There is no rule to back up my interpretation completely. This is how I call it though.”

Dan, do I win a Coke?
A Coke? You win an entire 6 pack for reading through this entire mess! :)

rainmaker Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:30am
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Nah..I'm the proud owner of 2 teenagers. This stuff is easy...

"You didn't put gas in my car"
"I'll do it tomorrow night"
"But it needs gas now & I gotta drive to east farawayplace tomorrow morning"
"I SAID I would put gas in it tomorrow night, didn't I??!!! BTW Dad, can you lend me 20?"

"Mom, my stomach hurts and I've got a fever. I'm going to bed."
"Darlin', didn't you say you had a test today?"
"Yea, but Ms. So-and-so will understand."
"If you say so. Shall I call Cute-fella's mom and tell her you won't be at the dance tonight?"
"Oh, I'll be a lot better by then."

ChuckElias Wed Jun 23, 2004 08:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
"But it needs gas now & I gotta drive to east farawayplace tomorrow morning"
I've heard of this place, but it usually has a different name. . . ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46am.
Page 10 of 10 « First 89 10
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1