Had a "disagreement" with a coach about a no-call on a try for a 5-second count. Coach kept insisting that they had "taken out the part about breaking the plane." I think he meant that the defender didn't have to stay between the dribbler and the basket. I was remembering a phrase of "getting head and shoulders past the defender" and that the count should end at that point. But I couldn't find it in the book anywyere. Not rules or case. I know the "head and shoulders past" is also used in the context of block/charge. Was I just getting them mixed up? Does the count end when the dribbler gets past? Where does it tell that?

Are you sure he wasn't refering to "breaking the plane of the defense"?

The rule book defines guarding as legally being in the path of the offensive player.

You are not guarding if you are trailing the offensive player.

This is what I told a coach last year when he asked me a similar question.

What if the offense is attempting a "comeback"? ;)
mick

Yes, he WAS referring to breaking the plane of the defense. Has that changed? In the last 10 years?

Isn't there anything more specific in the rule book about this?

What is the "plane of defense" I've never heard of this! There has been times that the defense really wants the ball and the offense really wants to keep it, so we see very good ball handling (juking and jiving) and agressive defense to the point that the defender is not between the ball and the basket but very much closely gaurding.

Thanks, Stan

Juulie - I think this coach probably was referring to an old rule regarding "penetration" (and yes - I've heard all the jokes). I don't remember all the particulars of the rule, but if a team was behind, they had to "attack the basket" on offense. There were some hash marks on the side as guidance.

It sounds like he is not familiar with the closely guarded rule and thought you were imposing the old rule.

Juulie,

I think this is one of those situations where you have to look at how specific rules work together - apply a logical reasoning if you will......

Rule 4-23 defines guarding, LGP, etc.

Rule 4-10 defines closely guarded, and by reference includes rule 4-23 and adds the 6 ft. requirement.
Rule 9-10 defines the related violation.

Rule 4-7, while specifically defining block charge, not only includes the requirements of 4-23, but in 4-7-2-b specifically defines what the offensive player has to do to negate the legal guarding position of the defender. It clearly states that when the offensive player gets head & shoulders past the defender's torso the defender has lost LGP. I believe this is consistent with the "in the path of an offensive opponent" requirement of 4-23-1.

Put more simply, 4-23 & 4-10 define what the defender must do to establish a closely guarded situation, while 4-7-2-b describes one way that the offensivc player may negate it.

Chasing an opponent that has beaten you is not guarding them. Also the defender must maintain the "within 6 ft" requirement - if in the officials judgement the distance between them & the offensive player widens beyond that - even for a split second - the count restarts.

Bottom line, it's a judgement call on the part of the official whether or not you think the defender maintained the closely guarded situation. In a situation like you described, I'd probably say something like "Coach, to be legally guarding the defender has to stay in the path of the opponent with the ball - in my judgement your player wasn't." If he/she listens, great - if not & they push the issue, there's always "Coach, I've heard enough" then 10-4-1-b if you need it........

That seems like asking an awful lot!

I see. This is very helpful.

You could even say when the distance between them heads down into the negative numbers!

"...in the path." That's very useful. Definition of closely guarded includes definition of guarding. Legal guarding position is also an applicable rule.

Thanks, Tim. Maybe we should figure out a way to have the Federation allow you to re-write the rule book.

Being "in the path" is not exactly true.

Consider the following: A1 guarded aggressively by B1. A1 attempts to drive but B1 stays right in front of A1 and causes A1 to abort the drive and retreat to a position well above the 3 point line. B1 continues to aggressively defend A1 and stays within 6' of A1 at all times. A1's path, during the retreat, is towards the division line and B1 is following. I'd not consider A1 to be free of being closely guarded and my count would continue.

The offensive team's objective is to score, unless we are talking Harlem Globetrotters, an offensive player moving toward the division line is, at that moment, not attempting to score.

But if you don't take path absolutely literally, the defender behind the offensive player moving AWAY from their basket, is still in that player's path TO the basket.

So we could word it "between the dribbler and the basket, and within 6 feet"?

Legal Guarding Position has nothing to do with closely guarded violation.

I know that one part of the rules says guarding is in the path...but path to what? path to basket? or is it defining Legal guarding position when there is contact and a foul? or is this definition also applied to closely guarded?

If the player is moving from sideline to sideline (facing sideline) then the player has to be in front of him cutting him off from going to the sideline? I dont think that was the intent... It would be for a charge but not for 5 second count. He could be agressively guarding him from the side...(between the dribbler and the basket and not in his path"

Are you telling me that a dribbler cannot be guarded from the side? Because you can guard from the side look at every fast break down the floor. ( not in path but still being guarded..(but does not have legal guarding position...

Does defense have to be between player and basket? I do not see a requirement for that unless in the path means specifically that.

So we are saying that if you have a quick guard dribbling the ball and a defensive player on him (not in his path)but defender is guarding the guy at midcourt forcing the dribbler to change and move around that this is not a 5 second count? Clearly the intent is to keep the offensive from just dribbling the ball around the defense...when the defense is out there trying to get the ball.

I can buy that chasing from behind is probably not closely guarded but if you recall

closely guarded was a point of emphasis in 2000-2001 and

This year there is the new major editorial change that

"Clarifies that a closely guarded situation occurs when the player holding or dribbling the ball is continuously guarded by any opponent who is within six feet"

Clearly when there is a screen and one defender gets picked off, another can be there to keep guarding and may not be infront of the path the dribbler has chosen.

The idea of the 5 second count is to encourage Good Defense. If the D is agressive and forcing the play then the 5 second count should be on...

You are not guarding if the dribbler is passed you.

Like Camron said, depends on what direction the dribbler is going.

I remeber that rule. Never did understand it when I was in HS. All I know is they repealed it at some point between 1991 and 1994 because in 90-91, I was a HS Senior and it was still a rule. Come 93-94 it wasn't because at our state's AAU Final 4, a winning team was stalling and the losing team didn't come out on defense. The offensive team had the ball for like the first 3 minutes of the third quarter. :D

I explained it in an earlier post. The path is TOWARD the basket. A defender that is behind a dribbler moving AWAY from the basket is still in the path to the basket.

Once the ball is in the front court the offense's objective is to score, so a defender is guarding if they are in the path between their opponent and the basket.

Kelvin, I don't understand your point here. I agree that LGP doesn't have to be in front of the dribbler, it can be at the side. I don't think anyone said otherwise.

My question is where in the rule book to find the cconcept that the 5 second count ends when the dribbler gets past the guard. It makes sense to say that if legal guarding position means the guard is "in the path" of the dribbler, and then the dribbler's path is taking her away from the guard, that the guard is no longer guarding, and the count should end.

I dont think you will find the concept in the rule book that actually states that once the the dribbler is past the guard that the count stops. Generally it does but it is judgement not rule...

The rule says closely guarded within six feet. I am curious to see how they are going to rewrite the section this year....

I think that we are taking the path thing way out of context for the 5 second count.

The idea of "path" must be related to guarding for contact. (Especially given the context of Rule 4, where it is located, etc... I) f we were to interpret path as between offense and basket (as suggested above) that means you could only have a charging foul while the offense is moving to basket, and we know that is incorrect.

Path is always established by the moving players. Path could be away from basket to reset on play, could be to the sideline, could be to mid court. Player in those would being moving directly away from the basket...

I personally think that we read too much into this. The goal is to reward good defense and to force the offense to pass to others on the team (prevent one person from dribbling or holding the ball too long while he is being defended) The intent of the rule is to force play and not allow a team that has a super dribbler to dribble around taking time off the clock while defense is trying to make a play on him/her.

If we take the "path" thing too far a player could not guard from behind or from the side. I dont think that was the intent of this rule.

I'll give you a couple of examples where I think the concept of "path" is shaky at best...

Remember closely guarded aslo applies to those holding the ball.


A1 has ball. A2 sets up between A1 and basket for a screen. B2 sets up to A1's left and B1 sets up to A1's right, niether one are between A1 and the basket. Yet guaranteed we would start the count.


A1 is dribbling. B2 is matching stride for stride and for whatever reason B2 is on the outside of B2 but is still guarding, forcing the play, harassing A1, etc. are we going to take that defense away because he is not between A1 and the basket?

There are plenty of plays where defense may not be between the offense and the basket yet are meeting the intent of the rule.

At some point in time we have to use our judgement to determine if player is being guarded. If that means player broke free to basket (if gets ahead of one defender remember there may be another one there NFHS and NCAA rules differ here I believe) and no other defender around he may not be guarded at that point.

How many times if A1 is dribbling and B1 comes out just stands there at about 5-6 feet, not looking like he is really forcing the action, do we not start the count? I suggest lots...Defender is in the "path" and within six feet so we have to start our count right? We dont do that...

Well, Ive never seen this, but frankly, if I do, I'm NOT going to count. I suppose mostly I wouldn't count because the dribbler would be headed for the basket, and there wouldn't be time.

According to the fed "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent." Closely guarding ..."occurs when a player in control of the ball in his/her team's frontcourt, is guarded by an opponent who is with 6 feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball."

NCAA men's is the same. NCAA women's do not apply here since there's no closely guarding for them while dribbling.

I'm not sure where you get your interp from, under the rules.

Care to explain?

To me, it's rather simple. "In the path" means in the path of where the dribbler wants to go. If the dribbler is trying to go sideways, then "in the path" can be either directly in front of her or between her and the basket (based on the assumption that the goal of the offense is to score a basket from as closely as possible). If the defense is beat (Can't define it, but I know it when I see it) then my count restarts.

My interp fits with how 99.9% of officials judge closely guarded. If you don't include path, as between the offensive player and the basket, there will be a lot of 5 second violations in the middle of lay ups!

You gonna keep your count if the dribbler is past the defender, attacking the basket, but this CHASING defender is within 6 feet?

The intent of the rule is to keep the game from becoming actionless or a Curly Neal/And One dribbling show. It is to reward GOOD defense, but not BAD defense.

What?

99.9% of officials call the jump stop wrong.

I have to call it wrong too?



WTF? :shrug:



Where did I say this? In your play the defender is no longer IN THE PATH.
Sigh...once again WTF? You telling us that ncaa women are happy to allow thier game to become an actionless blah blah blah?

The intent of the rule is to consider closely guarded when the defender is IN THE PATH of the player with the ball. The rules, AS WRITTEN, say nothing about the defender being between the player and the basket. Just says he needs to be in the path.

Obviously you don't have a rule or case play to back up your interpretation so I guess we're done.

I can't make it any easier. I'm sorry if you can't understand something this simple.

The book says path right?

If we take that literally, then a defender would need to run around a dribbler, that turns AWAY from the basket, and defend what? A back court violation? An OOBs violation?

Once the ball is in the front court, what is the normal objective of the offense? To score at their basket.

What is the defense's objective? To stop them from scoring.
Any defender that is even with or between the offensive player, with the ball, and the basket is IN THE PATH. The direction the offensive player is facing does not matter.

Is it sinking in yet?

Remember if we take path literally, you can not call 5 seconds on a player that dribbles toward the basket then turns towards the division line with the defender now BEHIND them, because they are no longer guarding in the PATH. The same way it's not on a drive to the basket, RIGHT?

NCAA women have a shot clock, so it does not benefit the offense to hold the ball, now does it?

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 18th, 2004 at 06:52 PM]

Path is not toward the basket. Never has. never will be. Never Never Never... If this were the case you cannot call a charge unless defender is between offense and basket. Offensive player sets the path

I cannot find my most recent books however Case NUmber 9.10.1 from the 2002/2003 casebook

Team A has the ball in their own front court. B1 stands within within 6ft and facing A1 while A1 is holding ball near division line. Ruling In 5 seconds this would be a violation. as soon as B1 has assumed guarding position, both feet on the fllor, facing the opponent, no other specific requirement is in effect. .... dont see path there! In fact they state there is no other specific requirement except to face the player and be within 6 feet!



I am going to be anal about this one... I will concede that guarding is to place the body in the path to get as the rules will call it INITIAL GUARDING position. But nowhere is path defined as between player and basket. If you take this to a logical conclusion then

Article 4 would then read ---If the opponent with the ball is airborne the guard must have obtained legal position BETWEEN THE PLAYER AND THE BASKET before the player left the floor.

Article 5b would then read The guard must BE BETWEEN THE PLAYER AND THE BASKET an must give the time/distance to avoid contact (screening)

It doesnt imply or mean that at all!

We can nitpick the semantics. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree!

There is no play I can think of where you have a charge where the defender is not in the path to the basket. Even when A1 is behind the backboard and jumps back into B1, A1's path was still toward B1 and the basket.

You still have given me nothing more than your opinion. As you say, the book says PATH. Find me where it backs up your interp. That's pretty simple, aint it?

BTw, NCAA mens have a shot clock too.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B]I can't make it any easier. I'm sorry if you can't understand something this simple.

The book says path right?

If we take that literally, then a defender would need to run around a dribbler, that turns AWAY from the basket, and defend what? A back court violation? An OOBs violation?

Once the ball is in the front court, what is the normal objective of the offense? To score at their basket.

What is the defense's objective? To stop them from scoring.
Any defender that is even with or between the offensive player, with the ball, and the basket is IN THE PATH. The direction the offensive player is facing does not matter.

Is it sinking in yet?

Remember if we take path literally, you can not call 5 seconds on a player that dribbles toward the basket then turns towards the division line with the defender now BEHIND them, because they are no longer guarding in the PATH. The same way it's not on a drive to the basket, RIGHT?

NCAA women have a shot clock, so it does not benefit the offense to hold the ball, now does it?

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 19th, 2004 at 06:33 PM]

Dan, you and BZ both focus on the word "path" (despite Kelvin's assertion that you shouldn't). I think BZ's point is that if being in the dribbler's path means that the the dribbler is moving toward the defender (whether that is toward the basket or toward the backcourt), then you would have to stop the 5-second count any time the dribbler moved away from the defender; b/c the defender would no longer be in the path that the dribbler is moving in.

And then in order to restart the count, the defender would have to run all the way around the dribbler so that the dribbler would again be moving toward him/her.

So "in the path" can't mean that the defender places himself/herself in a position so that the dribbler is moving toward him/her. I see the logic of his position.

The most likely alternative to that meaning of "in the path" is that it means "between the dribbler and the basket". Makes sense to me, if you're going to focus on "in the path"; although personally I tend to agree that "in the path" really doesn't matter for purposes of being closely guarded.

Thank you that is exactly what I've been saying.

Deosn't matter?
 

With regard to guarding position, "in the path" is part of the definition in NCAA and NFHS, isn't it?
mick

[/B][/QUOTE]

There is no play I can think of where you have a charge where the defender is not in the path to the basket. Even when A1 is behind the backboard and jumps back into B1, A1's path was still toward B1 and the basket. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry but I have seen them. I ve seen them when offense has been forced back to mid court one way or another, or going toward sideline...

Many Screens ( covered by rule 4 with the "path") do not happen with defense between the basket and player. Traps in low corners with screens set to get out to reset at midcourt....Everybody is moving away from the basket...

You get players airborne and not moving to basket..

Most of the time they are moving to basket but there are enough plays that arent...

Trust me these kind of plays can and do happen. I ve called them

Re: Deosn't matter?
 

Hmmm, yeah. I was thinking of a situation where the defender is "guarding" the dribbler from the side, trying to force him one way or the other. . .

Hmmmm.

Chuck, what I objected to was this post by BZ, where he claims "in the path" is irrelevant compared to being between the dribbler & the basket, specifically when the dribbler is moving AWAY from the basket. I asked him for a rule or case play to back this up. He couldn't. Neither, apparently could you.

That's all.

Can't see what rule basis you have for continuing your count in this case. I've asked you 2 or 3 times to provide one... :shrug:

Nice job of avoiding. I explained it, just the way I BET you'd call it in a game. Go back and read the post that has 4-23-ART 2 and 3 mentioned. If you still can't understand after that, then you are denser than a rock.

THAT'S ALL!

So, Dan, let's say A1 (dribbler) is standing (dribbling) with B1 between A1 and the basket. (a) Now A1 backs up a step, but is still facing the basket, B1 still between. (b) Now A1 turns 90 degrees left, and dribbles across the top of the key, B1 still between. (c) Now A1 turns another 90 degrees left, and now is facing toward backcourt, with B1 still between A1 and the basket. (d) Now A1 takes two or three steps toward the division line, with B1 still between.

At what point, if any, do you stop the 5 second count?

Chuck, where do you stop, if any?

BZ, how 'bout you?

Oh, and give a rules reference, too.

Try 4-10 and 9.10.C. It does not say in the rule that LGP is lost if A1 goes away from B1, now does it? In the situation I described, you do stop your count? Wow, you are probably the only one then.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 19th, 2004 at 11:08 AM]

If A1 has put more than 6 feet between him/herself and B1.
4-10 and 9.10.C .

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 19th, 2004 at 11:07 AM]

Ok, I want to pose a situation even simpler than juulie's, Dan. A1 is dribbling the ball near midcourt, closely guarded by B1, who is directly between A1 and Team A's basket. A1 takes three steps forward toward B1. B1 takes three steps backwards, but remains within six feet of A1 and remains between A1 and the basket. Now A1 takes three steps backwards, back toward midcourt, away from (but still facing) his basket. B1 also takes three steps forward so that he is continuously within six feet of A1 and maintains his position between A1 and the basket.

Are you saying that when A1 takes those three steps back, the official should terminate the closely guarded count? And if yes, then is it terminated b/c B1 is no longer in A1's path?

It sounds to me like you're saying that the count is terminated in this situation, but I want to be completely clear on your position on this before I get any more confused.

And returning to the original question, here's another hypo.

A1 is standing at the top of the key, dribbling, with B1 very closely guarding, and between A1 and the basket. A1 ducks and feints right. As A1 leans right, B1 does also, giving A1 space to lean forward and begin a drive. (a) A1 gets head and shoulders past and (b) steps forward and to the left with the left foot, (c) now having most of her body past B1 toward the basket, B1 still has her back to the basket. (d) Now A1 steps forward with the right foot. B1 begins to turn, but no longer has any claim to being between A1 and the basket.

Where do you stop the 5-second count? Give rules reference, please.

I'm ending my count at A to B in that situation.10-6-ART 2.
LGP is lost at that point, so no count unless B1 re-establishes LGP.

If closely guarded was to be called the way it looks like he is interpreting it, all the offensive player would have to do to end the count is turn around. They could pivot for 8 minutes in one spot.

I agree......

This is how I do it, too, Tim, and BZ. But I don't think the rules reference is very solid. There doesn't seem to be a better one, though.

First of all 4-23-2&3 relates to obtaining and maintaing guarding position, not the requirements for a defender to be in a closely guarding position. Try 4-10 and get back to me.

Secondly, why don't you try and be man enough to engage in polite debate without hurling insults. I'm not your big brother or your mom and you wouldn't even know me if I was peeing on your leg so there's no need to come off with that angry teenager sh1t, OK?

Let's discuss an even easier play:

A1 takes three steps forward toward B1. B1 takes three steps backwards, but remains within six feet of A1 and remains between A1 and the basket. Now A1 turns his back on B1 and moves toward midcourt, away from (but NOT facing) his basket. B1 also takes three steps forward so that he is continuously within six feet of A1 and maintains his position between A1 and the basket but is not in A1's path.

By rule, what do you do?

You are the one with the condescending,WTF and shrug stuff, remember? You started this , so don't even try to pull the I'm taking the high road stuff.

If you actually read what was said, 4-23 was in reference to parts of the rule book that are unclear HOW the NF want us to call something. When they changed the how to establish LGP rule 4-23 ART 2 to include playing court, not something simple like IN BOUNDS, they failed to spell out that inbound statis needed to be maintained. The rule AS WRITTEN says B1 can move OOB after establishing LGP. The NF had to issue an update to the change. That is what I was talking about, parts of our poorly written rulebook are ambiguous, and PATH is one of those parts.


There are only two ways to view path in closely guarded that make any sense:

1. It has no baring at all.

2. Path is between the player with the ball and the basket.

It is stupid to require a defender to re-establish path on an offensive player heading for a boundary. Do we expect B1 to try to stop A1 from GOING OOB? GOING OVER AND BACK?

There is nothing in the rulebook that says LGP is lost if the offensive player turns away. Path is required to ESTABLISH LGP, but is only lost if the player GETS PAST the defender. 9.10.1 SIT C says, " As soon as B1 has assummed 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. Not really clear, like a lot of what we have to go by, but it will do from my end.

BZ -- you're over-reacting a little to Dan, I think. He's not being hostile or confrontive, just grumpy and codger-ish.

And the fact of the matter is that you are absolutely right about the book: it isn't at all well written. What it comes down to is your opinion, my opinion or someone else's opinion. There's no grounds for slinging insults at Dan when he's interpreting things a little differently.

Basically, logic goes out the window when anyone tries to nail down this situation. There aren't any solid, well-thought-through "Supreme Court decisions" for us to build on.

I'm pleased that this discussion is happening. Perhaps the NF will realize that another clarification is needed, and give us something a little more definitive in the near future.

Dan, seems to me your situation begs the question. The real question here is whether or not B1 is in A1's path. This whole thread boils down to: Does "in the path" mean "in the direction the dribbler is moving" or does it mean "directly between the dribbler and the basket"?

That's why I worded my question so that the only thing that changed was the dribbler's direction. So (and I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be snippy), I guess I'd still like to hear your answer to my situation. If the dribbler merely backs up, do you discontinue your count?

To play fair, I'll answer your question point blank. I would continue my count, even if the defender turns his back and moves away from the basket.

I don't think I over-reacted at all. You don't find writing, " How about a rule to back that up, I guess you can't...shrug," comfrontive and condescending? I do.

I explained why I felt that path was not clearly defined in the rule reguarding closely guarded several times. He chose to keep the what's the rule, shrug, WTF stuff up.

He even threw it at Chuck when Chuck said he understood the point I was making.

Sometimes we need to use common sense to interpret the rule book; stressing a poorly written rule book word for word, if that interpretation is completely illogical, does a disservice to the players we our officiating.

Well, okay, perhaps what you see as confrontive is different from what feels that way to me.

I'm saying, if the book is poorly written, and you're agreeing it is, then neither you nor he can say that you've got the right interp, and the other doesn't. There's no way to know. Common sense may seem like the best choice for now, but what's common sense for you may be different from what's common sense for me. And what may seem completely illogical to you may seem like the best logic to Dan. And vice versa. Logic has to be based on assumptions, and when those assumptions aren't held in common, you can't use logic as the best arguemnet.

I mean, the reason I started this thread is because I couldn't see any grounds for what I had been doing, nor for what a coach wanted me to do. There simply is not any established authoritative position. It's a very sticky wicket for everyone.

2 things junior:

- LGP necessary but not sufficient for a defender to be considered closely guarding. 4-10.

- It's bearing, not baring.

Well. For being one of the few people on the planet who understand how to correctly use "beg the question" I will buy you the beverage of your choice down at the Wagon Wheel (or whatever that place is down the hill). Luckily diet coke is cheap. :)

Now, to anwser your question...sort of.

What I call or do not call is not relevant. Fact is the rule book states in the path. And it's not qualified by a case play. Fed or NCAA.

Not easy for me to see how "path", without a special definition within the rules, conforms to your liberal interpretation. Kinda depends on what the definition of is is.

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

Dan,
What if A1, holding the ball, turns his back to B1?
There is no path at all? :eek:
mick

C'mon Mick.

If A1 while holding the ball establishes a path we have a travel.

The sign of a lost arguement; needing to focus on a typo.;)

And 4-10 requires guarding, guarding is defined in 4-23 and no where in 4-23 does it say LGP is lost if A1 turns away.

By your interp, A1 can pivot for 8 full minutes and never reach a 5 second count. All they have to do is turn away from B1. Can't you see how stupid that sounds?

blindzebra,

Is one of your legs, by now, longer than the other? :)
mick

What Dan is saying is that LGP is necessary, which you are agreeing with. He's also saying it's not sufficient. Just having LGP and being within 6 feet isn't enough. THere's more to closely guarding. I'm not saying I agree with him, just that what you're saying doesn't refute what he's saying.

Dan's talking about dribbling, not holding, the ball. The situations are very different, indeed.

How are they different? If I am holding the ball and have not dribbled what is my path? If a dribble is required to establish a path, you can never obtain LGP on an offensive player holding the ball, now can you?

Dan is saying the count is off ANYTIME A1 turns away from B1 and B1 is no longer in the path of the direction A1 is facing. That is ridiculous.

Ask yourself this question.

What is the purpose of the closely guarded count?

Possible answers:

1. To reward good defense.

2. To keep the game from becoming actionless.

3. To penalize showboating, by limiting a Curly Neal/And One dribbling display.

How is it rewarding good defense when Dan is requiring B1 to defend the division line if A1 turns away from the basket? It's not. It is illogical and is contradictory to the intent of the rule.

It also allows both 2 and 3 because A1 can end the count any time they face away from B1.

I agree that there is not an exact case play in the rules that clearly supports either of our positions, but at least mind is based on logic and in the spirit of the closely guarded rule.

How about this one.

A1 is dribbling up the sideline. B1 has established LGP and is giving ground directly in front of A1. A1 crosses the division line and B1 is within 6 feet, a count begins, correct?

A1 then changes direction and moves toward the center of the court and the top of the key. B1 slides diagonally with A1 maintaining LGP and is within 6 feet, but is no longer directly in front of A1, but is moving on a parallel path. Do you keep your count?

BZ -- First of all, the definition of LGP doesn't include being "in the path" so it IS possible to establish LGP on someone who is holding the ball, and not dribbling. All that is required for LGP is to be to have initially had both feet on the floor and be facing the opponent. So here, we discover another problem with the way the book is written. The definition of guarding says, "in the path", but that doesn't seem to be required by LGP, or for closely guarded. And being "in the path" is definitely not defined at all.

Secondly, in the play given above, I would maintain the count when the paths are parallel instead of identical.

I would think if A1 was trying to get away with this, that good defense would include a double team that would effectively cut off any path at all for the ball. Then the count would continue.

BZ -- You think that your interp is based on logic, but anyone who doesn't accept your assumptions, as Dan doesn't, isn't going to agree with your conclusions and at that point, neither of you can use logic as an arguement. Logic is based on assumptions, and those aren't held in common, logic simply disintegrates.

No, Dan is NOT saying that.

What I'm saying is if A1 turns & dribbles away from his defender he is not being closely guarded under the rules as written, becase the defender is no longer in his path.

As I said to Mick earlier, if A1 is holding the ball he has no established path. If he creates one it's a travel. Different sitch, different application of the rules.

I think we are blowing this closely guarded thing way out of proportion. Particularly overanayzing this "path" thing.


Lets add some new cases or editorial comments/point of emphasis to the case book

If a person is not legally guarding then they are illegally guarding. If you are illegally guarding (not facing and not directly between A1 and the basket) then the foul is Always on the defense if contact occurs. (Point of Emphasis)

Player B1 standing on court with back to player near intersection of FT line and FT lane line (elbow) A1 is driving toward basket but likes the elbow for the 15' jump shot. A1 takes two steps to his right bumps displaces B1 and shoot and scores. Ruling: Score the basket and give A1 a shot since B1 was not in legal guarding position and not in the path of A1.

A1 stops near top of key. B1 is on the mid court side facing the player with in 6 ft looking for a place to pass ball. A1 is being harassesd by B1 from behind... now side and cant pass the ball. but B1 never gets between A1 and Basket. Ruling: no 5 second call B1 could not make eye contact with A1 and therefore could not be facing A1, and since was on misdcourt side was not in path. The fact that A! could not pass the ball is is of no consequence in this play.

A1 is being double teamed. A1 has ended dribble. A1 is not being double teamed but triple teamed out on a 45 degree facing his bench) angle from basket and has a clear "path" (dont confuse with NBA here) B1 is on one side (facing him), B2 is on the other side, and B3 is at the rear cutting of the pass to the other guard out there trying to get ball. Ruling: No 5 second count continue to play.

Same play A1 pivots and faces basket yet all three stay where they are at and continue harassing him defenders arms in "path" yet A1 can't pass. Ruling No 5 second count because neither defender is in the path

Same play as above A1 pivots now faces the basket and both defenders are not in his path to basket but harassing that A1 cannot pass or shoot. A1 pivots again now displacing B2. B2 was not in legal guarding position and not in path. Ruling: Foul by B2 since B2 was illegally guarding B1.

As A1 drives from left side of lane to right side of lane A1 is facing bench and moving directly along the FT line to get a better shot. A2 slides to FT line to screen B2 who is in the path of A1 since B2 is between A1 and basket. better shot. B2 contacts A2. Ruling: Foul on B2. He was not in legal guarding position on A2 and was not between A2 and the basket, or in the "path".

A1 secures a rebound near first lane space. A1 decides she needs to dribble to start an new play. A1 is running directly towards midcourt. B1 is at FT line attempting to stop A1 from passing to A2 near mid court line. A1 runs into B1 and then passes to A2. Ruling: Foul on B1. Although B1 was facing A1 there cannot be a foul since B1 was illegally guarding A1. In this play the "path" requirement of not being between the basket and the offender was not met creating the foul on B1.

Player A1 is standing near top of key surrounded by four other offensive players and no defense cannot get to dribbler, Defense is six feet from screenerbut away from the basket. Ruling: Since Defense is not between the dribbler and basket there cannot be a five second count.


Face it we can nitpick semantics all day long and it aint going to work.

Kelvin, the problem is both the fed & NCAA use the term "path" in their definition of what constitutes closely guarded or guarding. The definition of "path" is critical to the rule. Compare that to how the travel and over&back rules, for instance, are written. No doubt as to what the intent of those rule are.

Dan

No doubt that path is critical that's my point exactly..

Path is there but if we interpret it to mean ONLY between player and basket we have missed the boat!

I think we agree.

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.

None of the individual rules say what does or does not need to be done or maintained EXACTLY.

4-10 says 6 feet and guarded while HOLDING or dribbling.

4-23-ART 1 says guarding is legally placing yourself in the path. Both say guarding, correct? 4-23-Art 1 does not say ANYTHING about the offensive player dribbling.

4-23-ART 2 and 3 talk about LGP and how to establish it and maintain it. ART 2 and 3 don't say a word about path or a difference between holding or dribbling, or that B1 loses LGP if A1 TURNS AWAY.

10-6 ART 2 mentions contact on a dribbler and talks about path. It supplies our head and shoulder ruling and talks about B1 riding A1 off their path or establishing in the path forcing A1 to turn to avoid contact.

What does that leave us? A mess.

If all we do is take 4-10 and 4-23-ART 1 as written, then A1 can NEVER commit a 5 second violation unless B1 is directly in front of whatever direction A1 is moving or FACING. I seriously doubt that is how they want us to interpret closely guarded.

How about the other play I brought up?

A1 dribbles up the side with B1, with LGP and directly in their path, giving ground. A1 crosses the division line, a 5 second count begins. You'd have this count, right?

A1 then changes direction and moves toward the middle of the court at the top of the key. B1 slides with A1 on a parallel diagonal path and is within 6 feet. Are you continuing your count?

This is important because technically B1 is not in A1's path, unless path is also concidered between A1 and their basket, or path has no bearing on closely guarded.

I'd agree with that, because you are using LGP and not direction of A1 as your guide. I think that is the way that the rule makers intended for us to judge it.

To bad they can't write it that way. ;)

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.

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.

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)- <i>After the initial legal guarding position is obtained-the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position".</i> 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. :D

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

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]

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 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.

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]

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Two Diet Cokes for you!

:)

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.

How nice for you and Bill Kennedy.

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.

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?

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.

Two Diet Cokes for you!

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

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.:D