Closely Guarded

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

BZ -- the question isn't one of authority, it's of interpretation. How does the NF want us to handle these murky situations? College or NBA refs won't help us here. They don't have the authority of the NFHS rules committee. You may be right about how it needs to be handled. Dan may also be right, or the answer may be some compromise between the two positions. The answer is completely unavailable, because it doesn't depend on your logic, my logic or anyone else's logic. It depends on the Rules Committee and what they decide. In the meantime, we have to each do the best we can with how it is called in our associations, or our local high school leagues. That's not something Nunez can help me with -- he doesn't do any high school games around here.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

BZ -- the question isn't one of authority, it's of interpretation. How does the NF want us to handle these murky situations? College or NBA refs won't help us here. They don't have the authority of the NFHS rules committee. You may be right about how it needs to be handled. Dan may also be right, or the answer may be some compromise between the two positions. The answer is completely unavailable, because it doesn't depend on your logic, my logic or anyone else's logic. It depends on the Rules Committee and what they decide. In the meantime, we have to each do the best we can with how it is called in our associations, or our local high school leagues. That's not something Nunez can help me with -- he doesn't do any high school games around here.

Part two was a joke.

Dan has brought up the use of path in NF and NCAA in his posts. Did you know that the NCAA rule for closely guarded says 6 feet and in a guarding stance? Let's add that to the confusion.

You have never said if you would stop your count on A1 if you had a count and they turn and retreat with B1 agressively following within 6 feet, would you?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

BZ -- the question isn't one of authority, it's of interpretation. How does the NF want us to handle these murky situations? College or NBA refs won't help us here. They don't have the authority of the NFHS rules committee. You may be right about how it needs to be handled. Dan may also be right, or the answer may be some compromise between the two positions. The answer is completely unavailable, because it doesn't depend on your logic, my logic or anyone else's logic. It depends on the Rules Committee and what they decide. In the meantime, we have to each do the best we can with how it is called in our associations, or our local high school leagues. That's not something Nunez can help me with -- he doesn't do any high school games around here.

While I agree 100% with you on this I'll take issue with this part:

You may be right about how it needs to be handled. Dan may also be right, or the answer may be some compromise between the two positions.

Dan has not given his position on how this should be handled, except I did slip & say I do not end my 5 counts while the dribbler has his back to the defender and is moving away from him - not an all inclusive statement just an answer to Chuck's specific question. All I keep saying is while there are acceptable ways of handling the closely guarded counts the rules are not written clearly enough, period. And I don't care what Zamir Kennedy thinks or how many names fall out of his pockets while he's telling us.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra


Part two was a joke.

Dan has brought up the use of path in NF and NCAA in his posts. Did you know that the NCAA rule for closely guarded says 6 feet and in a guarding stance? Let's add that to the confusion.

Yes, I do know what it says but I'll bite.

Why is this so confusing? It is virtually identical to the fed, which does not include the word "stance" I believe. And if you look at the ncaa definition of "guarding" you'll see it uses that damn word again.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

While I agree 100% with you on this I'll take issue with this part:

Dan has not given his position on how this should be handled, except I did slip & say I do not end my 5 counts while the dribbler has his back to the defender and is moving away from him - not an all inclusive statement just an answer to Chuck's specific question. All I keep saying is while there are acceptable ways of handling the closely guarded counts the rules are not written clearly enough, period. And I don't care what Zamir Kennedy thinks or how many names fall out of his pockets while he's telling us.

So we all misread the following, " BTW, if A1 turns his back & dribbles away from the basket, no way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!" Sure sounds like you do end your count to me.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Yes, I do know what it says but I'll bite.

Why is this so confusing? It is virtually identical to the fed, which does not include the word "stance" I believe. And if you look at the ncaa definition of "guarding" you'll see it uses that damn word again.

I take stance to mean actively guarding, not just standing there, within 6 feet.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

So we all misread the following, " BTW, if A1 turns his back & dribbles away from the basket, no way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!" Sure sounds like you do end your count to me.

Maybe you can explain to us how these 2 are different?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Maybe you can explain to us how these 2 are different?

In the first you said, " I do NOT end my 5 counts," so when you reach 5 you would call 5 seconds.

In the second you said," No way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!"

In the first you do not specify basket, but you do in the second.

So in the first, as written, you would call 5 seconds in the following play.

A1 is facing away from their basket, B1 is guarding in the path toward the back court, your count begins. A1 then turns TOWARD their basket, away from B1 and you would call 5 seconds.

That makes sense.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

In the first you said, " I do NOT end my 5 counts," so when you reach 5 you would call 5 seconds.

In the second you said," No way in hell I'm calling 5 seconds!"

OK, I gotcha.

When I said "I do not end my 5 counts" I meant I don't call a 5 second violation. Poorly worded, my mistake.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

You have never said if you would stop your count on A1 if you had a count and they turn and retreat with B1 agressively following within 6 feet, would you?

No, I haven't said, and I'm not going to. The whole point of this thread in the first place was to figure out what I'm supposed to do, I we definitely haven't reached that point! Why should I say what I do? It's meaningless. The question isn't what do I think, what does BZ think, what does Dan think, what does the majority of refs think, or any other opinion. The question is, what's the official, proper NF-approved way to handle it, and the answer is WE DON"T KNOW.

[footlocker]

Man, I can't believe after reading this many pages I'm jumping in.

Dan, you frustrated with junior yet?

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

No, I haven't said, and I'm not going to. The whole point of this thread in the first place was to figure out what I'm supposed to do, I we definitely haven't reached that point! Why should I say what I do? It's meaningless. The question isn't what do I think, what does BZ think, what does Dan think, what does the majority of refs think, or any other opinion. The question is, what's the official, proper NF-approved way to handle it, and the answer is WE DON"T KNOW.

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by footlocker
Man, I can't believe after reading this many pages I'm jumping in.

Dan, you frustrated with junior yet?

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?

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.

[blindzebra]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.