The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 04:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Glad to be here for your amusement.

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.

__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 05:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 06:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
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?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 07:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Glad to be here for your amusement.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 09:14pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Lightbulb

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

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 22, 2004, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
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!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 23, 2004, 12:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
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."
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 23, 2004, 08:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
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. . .
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1