Closely Guarded

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I'm ending my count at A to B in that situation.10-6-ART 2.
LGP is lost at that point, so no count unless B1 re-establishes LGP.

I agree......

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I'm ending my count at A to B in that situation.10-6-ART 2.
LGP is lost at that point, so no count unless B1 re-establishes LGP.

This is how I do it, too, Tim, and BZ. But I don't think the rules reference is very solid. There doesn't seem to be a better one, though.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Nice job of avoiding. I explained it, just the way I BET you'd call it in a game. Go back and read the post that has 4-23-ART 2 and 3 mentioned. If you still can't understand after that, then you are denser than a rock.

THAT'S ALL!

First of all 4-23-2&3 relates to obtaining and maintaing guarding position, not the requirements for a defender to be in a closely guarding position. Try 4-10 and get back to me.

Secondly, why don't you try and be man enough to engage in polite debate without hurling insults. I'm not your big brother or your mom and you wouldn't even know me if I was peeing on your leg so there's no need to come off with that angry teenager sh1t, OK?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, I want to pose a situation even simpler than juulie's, Dan. A1 is dribbling the ball near midcourt, closely guarded by B1, who is directly between A1 and Team A's basket. A1 takes three steps forward toward B1. B1 takes three steps backwards, but remains within six feet of A1 and remains between A1 and the basket. Now A1 takes three steps backwards, back toward midcourt, away from (but still facing) his basket. B1 also takes three steps forward so that he is continuously within six feet of A1 and maintains his position between A1 and the basket.

Are you saying that when A1 takes those three steps back, the official should terminate the closely guarded count? And if yes, then is it terminated b/c B1 is no longer in A1's path?

It sounds to me like you're saying that the count is terminated in this situation, but I want to be completely clear on your position on this before I get any more confused.

Let's discuss an even easier play:

A1 takes three steps forward toward B1. B1 takes three steps backwards, but remains within six feet of A1 and remains between A1 and the basket. Now A1 turns his back on B1 and moves toward midcourt, away from (but NOT facing) his basket. B1 also takes three steps forward so that he is continuously within six feet of A1 and maintains his position between A1 and the basket but is not in A1's path.

By rule, what do you do?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

First of all 4-23-2&3 relates to obtaining and maintaing guarding position, not the requirements for a defender to be in a closely guarding position. Try 4-10 and get back to me.

Secondly, why don't you try and be man enough to engage in polite debate without hurling insults. I'm not your big brother or your mom and you wouldn't even know me if I was peeing on your leg so there's no need to come off with that angry teenager sh1t, OK?

You are the one with the condescending,WTF and shrug stuff, remember? You started this , so don't even try to pull the I'm taking the high road stuff.

If you actually read what was said, 4-23 was in reference to parts of the rule book that are unclear HOW the NF want us to call something. When they changed the how to establish LGP rule 4-23 ART 2 to include playing court, not something simple like IN BOUNDS, they failed to spell out that inbound statis needed to be maintained. The rule AS WRITTEN says B1 can move OOB after establishing LGP. The NF had to issue an update to the change. That is what I was talking about, parts of our poorly written rulebook are ambiguous, and PATH is one of those parts.


There are only two ways to view path in closely guarded that make any sense:

1. It has no baring at all.

2. Path is between the player with the ball and the basket.

It is stupid to require a defender to re-establish path on an offensive player heading for a boundary. Do we expect B1 to try to stop A1 from GOING OOB? GOING OVER AND BACK?

There is nothing in the rulebook that says LGP is lost if the offensive player turns away. Path is required to ESTABLISH LGP, but is only lost if the player GETS PAST the defender. 9.10.1 SIT C says, " As soon as B1 has assummed 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. Not really clear, like a lot of what we have to go by, but it will do from my end.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
You are the one with the condescending,WTF and shrug stuff, remember? You started this , so don't even try to pull the I'm taking the high road stuff.

If you actually read what was said, 4-23 was in reference to parts of the rule book that are unclear HOW the NF want us to call something. When they changed the how to establish LGP rule 4-23 ART 2 to include playing court, not something simple like IN BOUNDS, they failed to spell out that inbound statis needed to be maintained. The rule AS WRITTEN says B1 can move OOB after establishing LGP. The NF had to issue an update to the change. That is what I was talking about, parts of our poorly written rulebook are ambiguous, and PATH is one of those parts.


There are only two ways to view path in closely guarded that make any sense:

1. It has no baring at all.

2. Path is between the player with the ball and the basket.

It is stupid to require a defender to re-establish path on an offensive player heading for a boundary. Do we expect B1 to try to stop A1 from GOING OOB? GOING OVER AND BACK? [/B]

BZ -- you're over-reacting a little to Dan, I think. He's not being hostile or confrontive, just grumpy and codger-ish.

And the fact of the matter is that you are absolutely right about the book: it isn't at all well written. What it comes down to is your opinion, my opinion or someone else's opinion. There's no grounds for slinging insults at Dan when he's interpreting things a little differently.

Basically, logic goes out the window when anyone tries to nail down this situation. There aren't any solid, well-thought-through "Supreme Court decisions" for us to build on.

I'm pleased that this discussion is happening. Perhaps the NF will realize that another clarification is needed, and give us something a little more definitive in the near future.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
B1 also takes three steps forward so that he is continuously within six feet of A1 and maintains his position between A1 and the basket but is not in A1's path.

By rule, what do you do?

Dan, seems to me your situation begs the question. The real question here is whether or not B1 is in A1's path. This whole thread boils down to: Does "in the path" mean "in the direction the dribbler is moving" or does it mean "directly between the dribbler and the basket"?

That's why I worded my question so that the only thing that changed was the dribbler's direction. So (and I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be snippy), I guess I'd still like to hear your answer to my situation. If the dribbler merely backs up, do you discontinue your count?

To play fair, I'll answer your question point blank. I would continue my count, even if the defender turns his back and moves away from the basket.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

BZ -- you're over-reacting a little to Dan, I think. He's not being hostile or confrontive, just grumpy and codger-ish.

And the fact of the matter is that you are absolutely right about the book: it isn't at all well written. What it comes down to is your opinion, my opinion or someone else's opinion. There's no grounds for slinging insults at Dan when he's interpreting things a little differently.

Basically, logic goes out the window when anyone tries to nail down this situation. There aren't any solid, well-thought-through "Supreme Court decisions" for us to build on.

I'm pleased that this discussion is happening. Perhaps the NF will realize that another clarification is needed, and give us something a little more definitive in the near future. [/B]

I don't think I over-reacted at all. You don't find writing, " How about a rule to back that up, I guess you can't...shrug," comfrontive and condescending? I do.

I explained why I felt that path was not clearly defined in the rule reguarding closely guarded several times. He chose to keep the what's the rule, shrug, WTF stuff up.

He even threw it at Chuck when Chuck said he understood the point I was making.

Sometimes we need to use common sense to interpret the rule book; stressing a poorly written rule book word for word, if that interpretation is completely illogical, does a disservice to the players we our officiating.

[rainmaker]

Well, okay, perhaps what you see as confrontive is different from what feels that way to me.

I'm saying, if the book is poorly written, and you're agreeing it is, then neither you nor he can say that you've got the right interp, and the other doesn't. There's no way to know. Common sense may seem like the best choice for now, but what's common sense for you may be different from what's common sense for me. And what may seem completely illogical to you may seem like the best logic to Dan. And vice versa. Logic has to be based on assumptions, and when those assumptions aren't held in common, you can't use logic as the best arguemnet.

I mean, the reason I started this thread is because I couldn't see any grounds for what I had been doing, nor for what a coach wanted me to do. There simply is not any established authoritative position. It's a very sticky wicket for everyone.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

You are the one with the condescending,WTF and shrug stuff, remember? You started this , so don't even try to pull the I'm taking the high road stuff.

If you actually read what was said, 4-23 was in reference to parts of the rule book that are unclear HOW the NF want us to call something. When they changed the how to establish LGP rule 4-23 ART 2 to include playing court, not something simple like IN BOUNDS, they failed to spell out that inbound statis needed to be maintained. The rule AS WRITTEN says B1 can move OOB after establishing LGP. The NF had to issue an update to the change. That is what I was talking about, parts of our poorly written rulebook are ambiguous, and PATH is one of those parts.


There are only two ways to view path in closely guarded that make any sense:

1. It has no baring at all.

2. Path is between the player with the ball and the basket.

It is stupid to require a defender to re-establish path on an offensive player heading for a boundary. Do we expect B1 to try to stop A1 from GOING OOB? GOING OVER AND BACK?

There is nothing in the rulebook that says LGP is lost if the offensive player turns away. Path is required to ESTABLISH LGP, but is only lost if the player GETS PAST the defender. 9.10.1 SIT C says, " As soon as B1 has assummed 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. Not really clear, like a lot of what we have to go by, but it will do from my end.

2 things junior:

- LGP necessary but not sufficient for a defender to be considered closely guarding. 4-10.

- It's bearing, not baring.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Dan, seems to me your situation begs the question. The real question here is whether or not B1 is in A1's path. This whole thread boils down to: Does "in the path" mean "in the direction the dribbler is moving" or does it mean "directly between the dribbler and the basket"?

That's why I worded my question so that the only thing that changed was the dribbler's direction. So (and I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be snippy), I guess I'd still like to hear your answer to my situation. If the dribbler merely backs up, do you discontinue your count?

To play fair, I'll answer your question point blank. I would continue my count, even if the defender turns his back and moves away from the basket.

Well. For being one of the few people on the planet who understand how to correctly use "beg the question" I will buy you the beverage of your choice down at the Wagon Wheel (or whatever that place is down the hill). Luckily diet coke is cheap.

Now, to anwser your question...sort of.

What I call or do not call is not relevant. Fact is the rule book states in the path. And it's not qualified by a case play. Fed or NCAA.

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...ge=1&word=path
path, track, course -- (a line or route along which something travels or moves; "the hurricane demolished houses in its path"; "the track of an animal"; "the course of the river")

Not easy for me to see how "path", without a special definition within the rules, conforms to your liberal interpretation. Kinda depends on what the definition of is is.

BTW, if A1 turns his back to B1 & dribbles away from the basket no way in hell I'm going to call 5 seconds.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
BTW, if A1 turns his back to B1 & dribbles away from the basket no way in hell I'm going to call 5 seconds.

Dan,
What if A1, holding the ball, turns his back to B1?
There is no path at all?
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Dan,
What if A1, holding the ball, turns his back to B1?
There is no path at all?
mick

C'mon Mick.

If A1 while holding the ball establishes a path we have a travel.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

2 things junior:

- LGP necessary but not sufficient for a defender to be considered closely guarding. 4-10.

- It's bearing, not baring.

The sign of a lost arguement; needing to focus on a typo.

And 4-10 requires guarding, guarding is defined in 4-23 and no where in 4-23 does it say LGP is lost if A1 turns away.

By your interp, A1 can pivot for 8 full minutes and never reach a 5 second count. All they have to do is turn away from B1. Can't you see how stupid that sounds?

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra
By your interp, A1 can pivot for 8 full minutes and never reach a 5 second count. All they have to do is turn away from B1. Can't you see how stupid that sounds?

blindzebra,

Is one of your legs, by now, longer than the other?
mick