Closely Guarded

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

You have obviously not been paying attention. Let's try one more time:

1. the word PATH is critical to the rule, both fed & ncaa

2. PATH is not defined in the rules

3. So we cannot assume it is used as a term of art

4. Which you obviously do by continually throwing out "yeah but whatabout" plays as opposed to providing solid rule backup for your position.

5. None of which have any bearing on how the rule is worded.

I can't think of any more direct way of saying this to you. If you find it insulting...well...you'll probably get over it eventually. This has been beaten to death more than any living or nonliving thing deserves to be.

Where is your rule support?

Where is the casebook play that has your play as an example?

4-10 does not have PATH in the definition, it has GUARDED.

4-23 talks about legally guarding.

Path is how you ESTABLISH it, but show me where it says it is only on a dribbler and where it says you lose it, if A1 changes direction. You can't, because it does not.

You don't want to answer my what if question, because it points out the flaw in your intrepretation of closely guarded.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Where is your rule support?

Where is the casebook play that has your play as an example?

4-10 does not have PATH in the definition, it has GUARDED.

4-23 talks about legally guarding.

Path is how you ESTABLISH it, but show me where it says it is only on a dribbler and where it says you lose it, if A1 changes direction. You can't, because it does not.

You don't want to answer my what if question, because it points out the flaw in your intrepretation of closely guarded.

Try casebook play 10.6.1SitA. It says that the principles described in there apply equally to guarding an opponent with or without the ball. It says a guarding position basically means facing and being in the path of an opponent. The only difference between that "guarding position" and a "closely guarding position" is that to stay in a "closely guarded position", you must constantly remain within 6 feet of the offensive player. While doing so, there is no provision that either player must remain facing each other- as per Rule 4-23-3(a).

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Try casebook play 10.6.1SitA. It says that the principles described in there apply equally to guarding an opponent with or without the ball. It says a guarding position basically means facing and being in the path of an opponent. The only difference between that "guarding position" and a "closely guarding position" is that to stay in a "closely guarded position", you must constantly remain within 6 feet of the offensive player. While doing so, there is no provision that either player must remain facing each other- as per Rule 4-23-3(a).

Yet another confusing section of the book. The case play you gave seems to ignore time and distance when guarding a moving player without the ball, i.e. not more than two strides. It also does not say what is consider losing the path.

Is it losing the path if you are no longer directly in front of A1 in the direction A1 is facing/moving?

Have you lost it if you are moving on a parallel path?

What effect does A1's orientation have on remaining in the path?

The closest thing I've found is 9.10.1 Situation C.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Yet another confusing section of the book. The case play you gave seems to ignore time and distance when guarding a moving player without the ball, i.e. not more than two strides. It also does not say what is consider losing the path.

Is it losing the path if you are no longer directly in front of A1 in the direction A1 is facing/moving?

Have you lost it if you are moving on a parallel path?

What effect does A1's orientation have on remaining in the path?

The closest thing I've found is 9.10.1 Situation C.

From a "common sense" aspect( my common sense, not necessarily everybody's common sense), I think that you can now just use R4-23-3(b)- After the initial legal guarding position is obtained-the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position". That covers the closely guarded situations where the player with the ball starts to move sideways, or around the defender on an angle, or even turns around and retreats. If the defender just keeps moving with the dribbler and also stays within 6 feet of him/her, I think that most of us will keep the count going. That's the purpose and intent of the rule, the way I understand it.

Of course, after reading the last 5-6 pages of this thread, I'm a l'il confused anyway.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

From a "common sense" aspect( my common sense, not necessarily everybody's common sense), I think that you can now just use R4-23-3(b)- After the initial legal guarding position is obtained-the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position". That covers the closely guarded situations where the player with the ball starts to move sideways, or around the defender on an angle, or even turns around and retreats. If the defender just keeps moving with the dribbler and also stays within 6 feet of him/her, I think that most of us will keep the count going. That's the purpose and intent of the rule, the way I understand it.

Of course, after reading the last 5-6 pages of this thread, I'm a l'il confused anyway.

I agree with your common sense on this one. Closely guarded should be based on LGP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

Closely guarded should be based on LGP.

[/B][/QUOTE]I really think that you and Dan agreed on the basics all along, but but just got bogged down in the semantics. The rule certainly is vaguely written, and the concepts used are are over the rule book. Imo, the defender has to establish an LGP in the path of the dribbler, then subsequently has to close up that LGP to within 6 feet to turn it into a closely guarded position, then has to maintain that 6 foot distance with the dribbler- no matter what the dribbler does- to keep the count going. If the dribbler now alters their path, the defender then alters his/her path at the same time also to keep the pressure on. I think that that is how most coaches teach it to their players, and also how most rules interpreters and trainers teach it to new officials also.

Kinda simplistic, but like you said in another thread, you can over-think these situations sometimes.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 21st, 2004 at 04:37 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I really think that you and Dan agreed on the basics all along, but but just got bogged down in the semantics.

At the risk of losing the precious Diet Coke that Dan has promised to buy me, I don't think they were ever in agreement, JR. Your "common sense" interpretation means that the dribbler is closely guarded even if moving away from the basket with his back turned to his own basket (assuming the defender originally had LGP). In this situation, Dan said:

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

That doesn't sound like agreement with what you described above.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Imo, the defender has to establish an LGP in the path of the dribbler, then subsequently has to close up that LGP to within 6 feet to turn it into a closely guarded position, then has to maintain that 6 foot distance with the dribbler- no matter what the dribbler does- to keep the count going. If the dribbler now alters their path, the defender then alters his/her path at the same time also to keep the pressure on. I think that that is how most coaches teach it to their players, and also how most rules interpreters and trainers teach it to new officials also.

I wish it was more clearly written, though. I mean this thread started in the first place because a coach and I disagreed about how it ought to be called, and who's to say who's right? The book gives no support to either position. And this discussion hasn't cleared any of it up for me, at all.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

At the risk of losing the precious Diet Coke that Dan has promised to buy me, I don't think they were ever in agreement, JR. Your "common sense" interpretation means that the dribbler is closely guarded even if moving away from the basket with his back turned to his own basket (assuming the defender originally had LGP). In this situation, Dan said:

That doesn't sound like agreement with what you described above.

I stand corrected then, I guess. They don't agree. If I've started a count on a dribbler, and the dribbler then turns and starts dribbling away from the defender, then,yup, I'll keep the count going if the defender keeps going after the dribbler aggressively and manages to always stay within 6 feet of the dribbler too. That action still fits the language of rule 4-10 imo. The defender is still guarding, by definition of R 4-23-3(a)(b), and is also remaining within 6 feet of the dribbler. That was the purpose and intent of the rule when it was implemented, if I remember right. Reward a defender for keeping after the dribbler all over the floor.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 21st, 2004 at 04:57 PM]

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
My take....

A1 is closely guarded when B1 is within 6ft and is influencing the path and action of A1.

Once A1 is sufficiently past B1 so as to not need to go around B1 to reach their desired spot there is no count.

Well said Cam... a good common sense approach IMHO

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

I wish it was more clearly written, though. I mean this thread started in the first place because a coach and I disagreed about how it ought to be called, and who's to say who's right? The book gives no support to either position. And this discussion hasn't cleared any of it up for me, at all.

Paraphrasing Camron's statement above, if in your judgement as the official A1 moves past the defender such that the defender no longer affects path or action of A1 - end of count. It's the officials' judgement that matters, not the coach's.

Same applies if A1 feints, then backs quickly away from defender & in your judgement opens the distance to six+ feet, EVEN MOMENTARILY, the count terminates & restarts only when defender once again establishes closely guarded status.

[Edited by TimTaylor on Jun 21st, 2004 at 05:15 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I wish it was more clearly written, though. I mean this thread started in the first place because a coach and I disagreed about how it ought to be called, and who's to say who's right? The book gives no support to either position. And this discussion hasn't cleared any of it up for me, at all.

Actually, only Dan has disagreed with the rest of us on how to interpret closely guarded. Everyone else has said, they will keep their count if A1 turns and retreats.

That sounds like everyone else is using LGP as their guide.
The count continues until A1 gets PAST B1, whichever direction that occurs.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by blindzebra
The count continues until A1 gets PAST B1, whichever direction that occurs.

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.

[ShoeBall]

Sure and this becomes even more confusing when you think about "passing" the defender in other directions!

Does it really come down to: B1 is closely guarding A1 if and only if B1 is within a 6 foot radius of A1 and A1 is not "headed" to the basket with B1 behind the imaginary line extending through A1 to the sidelines and at 90 degrees to the sidelines?

[blindzebra]

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.

But has B1 lost LGP in that case?

He would not answer your backing up while facing question and he has not answered my parallel path question either, why?

Because he is basing it strictly on path, and in both of those cases path have been lost too.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Actually, only Dan has disagreed with the rest of us on how to interpret closely guarded. Everyone else has said, they will keep their count if A1 turns and retreats.

I haven't! I see points of logic on both sides, and I'm just plain confused. I know how I've been calling it, which has been a sort of hybrid of the two extremes here, and I'm going to keep calling it that way. But I could see the Fed going either way with some consistency. It just plain needs to get to the Supreme Court.