Ok, at the risk of piling on from a previous thread, here is a closely guarded scenario that may or may not support or clear up some discussion from said thread.

A1 has picked up his dribble and is holding the ball at the top of the key. A1 is trying to stall because Team A is ahead by Xpts. with XX seconds left. Coach A has this funky stall play which requires players A2-A5 to be at the division line, behind A1.
B1 is "guarding" A1 behind him, between A1 and his teammates, trying to prevent A1 from making a pass. There is nobody between A1 and the basket...but Coach A does not want A1 to shoot, he would like him to pass to a teammate. A1 is having a heck of a time getting rid of the ball because of B1's "defense".

My question...is this considered closely guarded by B1 on A1 if in fact B1 is within 6 feet and is "guarding" for at least 5 seconds?
Notes:
A1 does not want to go towards the basket...he's trying to stall.
Is A1's path relevant at this time?
Does any part of this scenario clear up anything from the previous thread?

Just stirring the pot a little...but in this scenario, I got closely guarded. Do we all agree with that call?

As I said in the other thread, what is the purpose of the rule?

Yes, that is a closely guarded situation.

I don't think that is a contradiction of my previous stance, either.

p.s. That is a pretty stupid strategy by A's coach. :D

What's stupid about it!?! If he's only ahead by 5 or 6 and there are 50 or 60 seconds left in the game, it seems pretty smart to me. Even if B manages to steal, A has four players between the ball and B's basket, and a much better chance of slowing the game down than just to score two points.

But I agree about it being closely guarded. And I hope B is double-teaming the ball.

Very much agree, good defense.

Ask yourself, would you rather be 5 or 6 ahead with 60 seconds or 7 or 8 ahead?

The description said no one was between A1 and the basket, I'd take the lay-up, but that is just me. ;)

Also from a defensive stand point, there is no need to defend the 4 players at the division line, they are already being defended by the line. So as team B, I have all 5 players on A1, and it is my ball, either after 5 seconds or the steal.

The way to stall is with spacing and motion, not holding and standing in one spot.

Oh...I didn't tell ya...it's one of those Rec leagues that requires playing one on one with no switching or double teaming.

I would also, except A1 had picked up his dribble...and A1 was oh for XX on 3 pointers for the season.

Well, would you rather be ahead by 7 with 60 seconds, and their possession, or would you rather be anead by 5 with 30 seconds and their possession (steal)?

The defender may not be between the ball and the basket, but he's not over in the corner picking his nose, either. If the dribbler makes a strong move to the basket, defnender stays on him, fouls, and prevents the shot, the clock stops, the shooter may or may not make the shots, and then B gets the ball. With only a 5 point lead, and 60 seconds to go, that doesn't seem very smart to me.

Or A1 makes a strong move with B1 ALREADY behind him and the contact is deemed intentional and A1 makes both FT and now I have a 7 point lead with 58 seconds and the ball. ;)

Or better still, A1 is my stud, so he makes the shot and the FTs and I have a 9 point lead with 58 seconds and the ball.

As I said in the rest of my first post spacing and moving the ball is how you stall, by isolating one player and lumping the other four against a boundary, you just made the defense's job easier.

But, hell we are officials. If you believe Bobby Knight none of us know anything about coaching. :D

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 02:31 PM]

Well, there is one thing I do know about coaching, which is that there is always more than one possible way to handle a given situation, and the best way isn't always the same. Your strategy of driving and shooting will certainly be the best thing to do sometimes. Other times, keeping four players out in order to stall could be the best strategy. There's nothing inherently stupid about either one. What's best is going to depend on the various kids involved, and the way they handle their emotions, their skills and their teamwork. And how the opponents handle all those things. You can't just unilaterally declare that such-and-such is always stupid. Doing so is.... well, I won't stoop.

I guess the :D and ;) thingies threw you, from now on I'll add a p.s. this is a joke. :D

Yea, I admit, I'm not very good with smilies. But in the past, I haven't understood them to negate anything anyone said. A joke is usually a play on words or a humorous misstatement or a gentle jab at a human failing of some sort. Which kind of joke were you trying to make with your smilies?

Go back to the first post again. Rookiedude calls it funky.
He made it as unlikely as he could to flip the closely guarded thread.

Is a play smart if it is hurt if your kid picks up their dribble? Is it smart if you line up your kids against a boundary, where a high pass is a turn over? Is it smart if the coach says don't score if they give you the lay-up?

Maybe we should ask Hawks Coach, about it?

Better yet, Rob Evans. I could go to Tucson to ask Lute. :D

Soooo......

Which kind of joke were you trying to make with your smilies?

And in this post, which kind of joke are you trying to make with your smilie?

Okay, RookieDude made the play up as an extreme example to flip our view of closely guarded.

In his reply to me he pushed it even farther, by using a youth rec league with mandatory man defense, with his own smilies. He got it.

My reply to you and your," What's stupid about it," post I was needling you.

The last one, was because of your and everyone else's reaction to Bill Kennedy. That is know as self-deprecating humor.

Okay, well thanks for explaining it. That post in reaction to my "What's stupid about it?" post doesn't have a smilie, so I was confused. But then, I'm not very good at smilies. This is not self-deprecating humor. It's just the reality. I still don't think it would always be a stupid play, and I still don't think you can say that. But I won't take you too seriously after this, since that's probably not what you were saying, anyway, after discounting for the humor.

Just for the record, I have had no reaction to Bill Kennedy at all. I've never heard of the guy. This isn't humor, just basic fact.

The last one, was because of your and everyone else's reaction to Bill Kennedy. That is know as self-deprecating humor.

[/B][/QUOTE]The only reaction that I had to Bill Kennedy was "who?". Followed by "who cares?".

No you reacted to the reaction of others about Bill, when I used Nunez, Garretson and Rush. ;)

p.s. I said it was a joke, I can't guarantee it will be funny. :D

Yea, where is Hawks' Coach, or theboys, or PA-Coach, or any of the others that grace our board? Why aren't any coaches chiming in on this thread or the other closely guarded one? Hmmm......