Closely Guarded

[Jurassic Referee]

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Hey, I know who Brian Kennedy is.

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

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 10:24 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:

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
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.

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick

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

Must we now adjudge intent of path ?
Silly.

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Me too.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Me too.

[/B]

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Me too.

[/B]

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.

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra
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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by mick

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Since my little name drop amuses all of you...

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

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.