Who is Bill Kennedy?
Who is John Galt?
mick

[/b]

No! Now shut up & go away, I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.



Are you still here? Of course the path doesn't have to stay the same...but by definition the person guarding is required to be in the path.

Now go away before I taunt you a second time!

I fixed it for ya Enjoy your popcorn and don't forget to save some of it for Ben Kennedy....mumble mumble cough i hope you choke on it you old bas.....cough cough....

No, what I have said is the rule book says it's irrelevant. I have not said a word about my own *opinion*, because *my opinion* does not dictate what the rule book *says*.

Maybe yours does, but not mine.

BTW, my apologies to Brad Kennedy

[/b]
No! Now shut up & go away, I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

[/B][/QUOTE] Well!!! That's the LAST time that I'll sell YOU a dead parrot!

Btw, I'm not leaving either until I find out whointhehell Bruce Kennedy is. And I don't have a clue whereinthehell John Galt popped outa either. Inquiring minds need to know!

Now I'm going to put the popcorn on.

Well!!! That's the LAST time that I'll sell YOU a dead parrot!

Btw, I'm not leaving either until I find out whointhehell Bruce Kennedy is. And I don't have a clue whereinthehell John Galt popped outa either. Inquiring minds need to know!

Now I'm going to put the popcorn on. [/B][/QUOTE]

No no...it's not dead, it's just resting.

And you should really be ashamed of yourself for not knowing who Bart Kennedy is! :(

Hey, I know who Brian Kennedy is.

But whointhehell is John Galt? A destroyer or a liberator?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 10:28 AM]

I think John Galt is Brendan Kennedy's second cousin twice removed...I heard he's a real geography buff, loves to read the atlas... :shrug:

According to Dan_ref's interpretation, a defender must be in the PATH of the opponent to have a closely guarded count. Let's assume that is true.

Does a stationary player have a path? Since path, as Dan is defining it, is the direction a player is actually moving, the answer must be no.

This precludes a player that is holding the ball from ever violating the closely guarded rule.

It is quite clear that the intent is for a player holding the ball to be liable for being closely guarded.

Therefore, PATH can not strictly mean the direction a player is actually moving.

Another way to look at it. If I go hiking and come to the point in the woods where 3 paths intersect. No matter which one I actually take, they are all still paths. The unchosen paths don't disappear just because they are not taken.

PATH is any direction that the play may wish to take.

I think that that was I was trying to say. Didn't do it as well.

Ben Wallace
front court
holding the ball
wants to pass
not gonna dribble

Must we now adjudge intent of path ?
Silly.

mick

Two very good arguments. However:

- I agree a strict reading of the rule might preclude closely held while holding the ball. But I don't believe that fact alone allows us to alter the rule to make it consistent. It's just a poorly worded rule. I'm not saying there's not a common undertanding of the intent, I'm just saying to the unitiated it is clear as mud.

- If you look up the definition fr PATH you'll see that there is more than 1 definition for the word. Obviously there are an infinite number of "paths" a player MIGHT take in the sense you use it. However, when a player moves he establishes THE "path" upon which he travels.
(As usual Mick said this much better than I.)

Make sense?

No, you just make sure that the defender assumes an LGP in front of ol' Ben before you start the count. That's assumed to be in his path. Then you keep the count going until Ben dribbles or passes. The defender has to remain in front and within 6 feet of Ben though. If the defender runs around behind Ben, even though he stays within 6 feet of him, I don't think that you can say that the defender was still guarding him. I don't think that anyone has said anything different than that. Not even Bert Kennedy.

Of course, I'm completely confused now anyway. I think that I'll just go get some popcorn and sit this one out for a while.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 01:30 PM]

Me too.

Maybe we need to invite Blaine (just going down the list) Kennedy in to give us a lecture on this stuff?

Me too.

[/B][/QUOTE] Oh no, Goober. You ain't going anywhere. You started this one. No popcorn until you and Blind Zebra finish it. Which is probably gonna be next October the way you two are going.

Unless Bubba Kennedy can mediate an end to it before that. I wish him luck. He's got a better chance of negotiating peace on the Left Bank than he has of doing that.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 01:55 PM]

Oh no, Goober. You ain't going anywhere. You started this one. No popcorn until you and Blind Zebra finish it. Which is probably gonna be next October the way you two are going.

Unless Bubba Kennedy can mediate an end to it before that. I wish him luck. He's got a better chance of negotiating peace on the Left Bank than he has of doing that.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 01:55 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Peace on the left bank? We'll need to call Baahir Kennedy in for that one I'm afraid.

Oh no, Goober. You ain't going anywhere. You started this one. No popcorn until you and Blind Zebra finish it. Which is probably gonna be next October the way you two are going.

Unless Bubba Kennedy can mediate an end to it before that. I wish him luck. He's got a better chance of negotiating peace on the Left Bank than he has of doing that.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 01:55 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

What's to finish? He'll never answer the questions that show he is wrong about path, so what's the point.

You, don't want Yack Kennedy in on the resolution of this or it WILL be October 2008, before it is finished. :D

I ref him in a men's league here in Phoenix. I have for years, so I asked him. Go ahead and make fun, Lord knows none of us can use the opinion of somebody that works over 100 D1 games a year in the Big 12, Pac 10, and about 5 other conferences. ;)

Oh, Yack Kennedy is a college official!
Thanks.

We actually have two Bill Kennedys in Phoenix. Yack and little Bill the NBA official.

Since my little name drop amuses all of you, I'll ask Tommy Nunez and Tommy JR next. Then I'll ask Ron and Darryl Garretson to add their two cents. I'll pose it to Ed Rush after that, you guys will need to call a paramedic you'll be laughing so hard. :D

The only college official that I can think of (without help) is my hero, Bert Smith.
...Course, I don't git out much.
mick

Since my little name drop amuses all of you, I'll ask Tommy Nunez and Tommy JR next. Then I'll ask Ron and Darryl Garretson to add their two cents. I'll pose it to Ed Rush after that, you guys will need to call a paramedic you'll be laughing so hard.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well, you're probably right there. Name-dropping usually does amuse most of us. Doesn't impress too many of us though. Unless they slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, of course. Iow, Ol' Zack Kennedy's opinion ain't any better or worse than anybody's elses is here.

BZ -- the question isn't one of authority, it's of interpretation. How does the NF want us to handle these murky situations? College or NBA refs won't help us here. They don't have the authority of the NFHS rules committee. You may be right about how it needs to be handled. Dan may also be right, or the answer may be some compromise between the two positions. The answer is completely unavailable, because it doesn't depend on your logic, my logic or anyone else's logic. It depends on the Rules Committee and what they decide. In the meantime, we have to each do the best we can with how it is called in our associations, or our local high school leagues. That's not something Nunez can help me with -- he doesn't do any high school games around here.

Part two was a joke.

Dan has brought up the use of path in NF and NCAA in his posts. Did you know that the NCAA rule for closely guarded says 6 feet and in a guarding stance? Let's add that to the confusion.

You have never said if you would stop your count on A1 if you had a count and they turn and retreat with B1 agressively following within 6 feet, would you?

While I agree 100% with you on this I'll take issue with this part:

Dan has not given his position on how this should be handled, except I did slip & say I do not end my 5 counts while the dribbler has his back to the defender and is moving away from him - not an all inclusive statement just an answer to Chuck's specific question. All I keep saying is while there are acceptable ways of handling the closely guarded counts the rules are not written clearly enough, period. And I don't care what Zamir Kennedy thinks or how many names fall out of his pockets while he's telling us.

Yes, I do know what it says but I'll bite.

Why is this so confusing? It is virtually identical to the fed, which does not include the word "stance" I believe. And if you look at the ncaa definition of "guarding" you'll see it uses that damn word again.

So we all misread the following, " BTW, if A1 turns his back & dribbles away from the basket, no way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!" Sure sounds like you do end your count to me.

I take stance to mean actively guarding, not just standing there, within 6 feet.

Maybe you can explain to us how these 2 are different?

In the first you said, " I do NOT end my 5 counts," so when you reach 5 you would call 5 seconds.

In the second you said," No way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!"

In the first you do not specify basket, but you do in the second.

So in the first, as written, you would call 5 seconds in the following play.

A1 is facing away from their basket, B1 is guarding in the path toward the back court, your count begins. A1 then turns TOWARD their basket, away from B1 and you would call 5 seconds.

That makes sense.

OK, I gotcha.

When I said "I do not end my 5 counts" I meant I don't call a 5 second violation. Poorly worded, my mistake.

No, I haven't said, and I'm not going to. The whole point of this thread in the first place was to figure out what I'm supposed to do, I we definitely haven't reached that point! Why should I say what I do? It's meaningless. The question isn't what do I think, what does BZ think, what does Dan think, what does the majority of refs think, or any other opinion. The question is, what's the official, proper NF-approved way to handle it, and the answer is WE DON"T KNOW.

Man, I can't believe after reading this many pages I'm jumping in.

Dan, you frustrated with junior yet?

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?

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.

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 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. ;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?"
A Coke? You win an entire 6 pack for reading through this entire mess! :)

"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."

I've heard of this place, but it usually has a different name. . . ;)