Closely Guarded

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[B}

Where is your rule support?

[/B]

Take a look at how the rules define guarding. That i smy rule support, as I have been claiming since about page 2 of this thread.

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the PATH...."

Maybe to you PATH means the direction you think something SHOULD be going.

To me it means the direction something IS going.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

BZ, I think Dan's point on this statement is that if A1 has turned and is dribbling directly away from B1, then A1 is past B1. If they were having a race, A1 would be winning.

Two Diet Cokes for you!

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Take a look at how the rules define guarding. That i smy rule support, as I have been claiming since about page 2 of this thread.

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the PATH...."

Maybe to you PATH means the direction you think something SHOULD be going.

To me it means the direction something IS going.

[/B]

You still have not answered Chuck's A1 backing up, or my parallel path question and how they apply to closely guarded. WHY? Neither have B1 directly in the path of A1.

I still say under your interp, you can never have a 5 second
count. A1 just needs to turn away every 4 seconds. How does that fit the intent of the rule?

FYI, I spoke with Bill Kennedy tonight, so I asked him how he calls it. He said by LGP, within 6 feet, and actively guarding. He also said, that it is silly to expect B1 to defend a boundary and that the direction A1 is moving does not matter.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

FYI, I spoke with Bill Kennedy tonight, so I asked him how he calls it. He said by LGP, within 6 feet, and actively guarding. He also said, that it is silly to expect B1 to defend a boundary and that the direction A1 is moving does not matter.

How nice for you and Bill Kennedy.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

How nice for you and Bill Kennedy.

Why not answer the questions Dan?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Why not answer the questions Dan?

I already explained why the questions are irrelevant.

They have nothing to do with the wording of the rule.

But apparently Bob Kennedy answered your questions. Just do what he told you to do.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I already explained why the questions are irrelevant.

They have nothing to do with the wording of the rule.

But apparently Bob Kennedy answered your questions. Just do what he told you to do.

It's Bill Kennedy, and you have said they are irrelevant, but that does not make it so.

You have said in the turning away and moving away from the basket that the count ends because B1 is no longer in the path.

In Chuck's play there is no path either, because A1 is still moving away. Under your interpretation is there still a count?

In my play B1 is sliding with A1, but is not directly in front, so there is no path. Do you have a count?

Another question, what is the intent of the closely guarded rule?

If path is required, isn't all A1 has to do is keep turning away from B1 to stop the count? How does that fit your thinking on the intent of the rule?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

You still have not answered Chuck's A1 backing up, or my parallel path question and how they apply to closely guarded. WHY? Neither have B1 directly in the path of A1.

I still say under your interp, you can never have a 5 second
count. A1 just needs to turn away every 4 seconds. How does that fit the intent of the rule?

FYI, I spoke with Bill Kennedy tonight, so I asked him how he calls it. He said by LGP, within 6 feet, and actively guarding. He also said, that it is silly to expect B1 to defend a boundary and that the direction A1 is moving does not matter. [/B]

While I certainly hate to interject myself into an argument between Junior and the Codgerly Crotch( or was it vice/versa?), can I make a point without worrying about having the wrath of you two fall on my head? You know how much I hate confrontation and arguments.

If A1 changes direction- sideways, backwards, etc,- isn't A1 also changing or altering his path at the same time? There's nothing in the rule book that says that the dribbler's "path" had to remain in a straight line. And if the defender similary moves sideways, forwards, etc. as the dribbler is going sideways, backwards, etc. in his altered path, and the defender still continually remains within 6 feet of the dribbler, hasn't the defender met the concepts contained in Rule 4-10 (staying within 6 feet of the dribbler) and also Rule 4-23-3a&b (moving laterally or obliquely with the dribbler while not being required at the same time to be continuously facing the dribbler)?

Of course if you disagree, feel free to continue for another week or two. I've got plenty of popcorn.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Two Diet Cokes for you!

[/B][/QUOTE]You'd better drive then.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

While I certainly hate to interject myself into an argument between Junior and the Codgerly Crotch( or was it vice/versa?), can I make a point without worrying about having the wrath of you two fall on my head? You know how much I hate confrontation and arguments.

If A1 changes direction- sideways, backwards, etc,- isn't A1 also changing or altering his path at the same time? There's nothing in the rule book that says that the dribbler's "path" had to remain in a straight line. And if the defender similary moves sideways, forwards, etc. as the dribbler is going sideways, backwards, etc. in his altered path, and the defender still continually remains within 6 feet of the dribbler, hasn't the defender met the concepts contained in Rule 4-10 (staying within 6 feet of the dribbler) and also Rule 4-23-3a&b (moving laterally or obliquely with the dribbler while not being required at the same time to be continuously facing the dribbler)?

Of course if you disagree, feel free to continue for another week or two. I've got plenty of popcorn.

[/B]

Interject all you like, since you have agreed with me, so far.

As badly as the rule book is written and laid out, I just can't see any sense in taking something this ambiguous as gospel.

Dan's stance contradicts the spirit and intent of the rule. It also irks me that he is pulling an MTD, by refusing to answer the questions that point to the flaw in his arguement.

Oh well, I have the stamina of a marathon runner. I can keep it going, so get your popcorn ready.

[mick]

Who is Bill Kennedy?
Who is John Galt?
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

While I certainly hate to interject myself into an argument between Junior and the Codgerly Crotch( or was it vice/versa?), can I make a point without worrying about having the wrath of you two fall on my head?

[/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.

If A1 changes direction- sideways, backwards, etc,- isn't A1 also changing or altering his path at the same time? There's nothing in the rule book that says that the dribbler's "path" had to remain in a straight line.

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!

And if the defender similary moves sideways, forwards, etc. as the dribbler is going sideways, backwards, etc. in his altered path, and the defender still continually remains within 6 feet of the dribbler, hasn't the defender met the concepts contained in Rule 4-10 (staying guarding within 6 feet of the dribbler) and also Rule 4-23-3a&b (moving laterally or obliquely with the dribbler while not being required at the same time to be continuously facing the dribbler)?

I fixed it for ya

Of course if you disagree, feel free to continue for another week or two. I've got plenty of popcorn.

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....

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

It's Bill Kennedy, and you have said they are irrelevant, but that does not make it so.

You have said in the turning away and moving away from the basket that the count ends because B1 is no longer in the path.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

[/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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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!