Closely Guarded

[rainmaker]

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?

[Black&White]

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

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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?

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra
You are not guarding if you are trailing the offensive player.

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Black&White
Are you sure he wasn't refering to "breaking the plane of the defense"?

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?

[Stan]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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

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

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[TimTaylor]

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........

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
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......

That seems like asking an awful lot!

Originally posted by TimTaylor
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.

I see. This is very helpful.

Originally posted by TimTaylor
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.

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

Originally posted by TimTaylor
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........

"...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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
Juulie,
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........

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.

[blindzebra]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Kelvin green]

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...

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
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.