A closely guarded clarification

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
...and Juulie, what's this something we got at home??? When did WE get a home to have something in???

I sure hope he meant "homeSSS". Considering that you live about 4000 miles from me, I'm definitely not willing to handle the housework, if we're supposed to be doing the singular.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

How about WTF school? Dan is the principal. [/B]

I understand they tried to recruit MTDjr but he turned them down for some odd unknown reason. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, MTD didn't turn them down. When he showed up for his first day, he said WTF twice, earned two Ts (from himself) and ejected himself. Never been seen since. WTF?!

[Hawks Coach]

I am not sure why A1's body position was ever relevant. B1 can legally guard A1 by facing her, regardless of whether or not A1 wants to face B1.

As for head and shoulders, I have read these threads, but lets be honest, you will call what you see. IF B1 maintains position between A1 and the basket, a lead shoulder that is slightly past B1 on a direct line to the basket may or may not be seen by the observer as having "beaten" B1 and halted the closely guarded. I think you should be sure they have beaten the defender to drop the count, but that's just my opinion.

In my experience, 6 feet is rarely enforced, it is more like 3-4 feet. An offensive player is routinely given the benefit of the doubt, espcially when driving into a defender, then pulling back to get separation. They frequently don't get much separation, certainly not 6 feet, but most refs see that move back and a slight increase in separation, and they will drop the count immediately. Not all, but most. and most players don't do that much work to create space.

Not complaining mind you, because my "point" guards were pretty poor this season, and we needed all the dropped counts we could get! But we should have had at least twice as many closely guarded calls as we got.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am not sure why A1's body position was ever relevant. B1 can legally guard A1 by facing her, regardless of whether or not A1 wants to face B1.

As for head and shoulders, I have read these threads, but lets be honest, you will call what you see. IF B1 maintains position between A1 and the basket, a lead shoulder that is slightly past B1 on a direct line to the basket may or may not be seen by the observer as having "beaten" B1 and halted the closely guarded. I think you should be sure they have beaten the defender to drop the count, but that's just my opinion.

In my experience, 6 feet is rarely enforced, it is more like 3-4 feet. An offensive player is routinely given the benefit of the doubt, espcially when driving into a defender, then pulling back to get separation. They frequently don't get much separation, certainly not 6 feet, but most refs see that move back and a slight increase in separation, and they will drop the count immediately. Not all, but most. and most players don't do that much work to create space.

Not complaining mind you, because my "point" guards were pretty poor this season, and we needed all the dropped counts we could get! But we should have had at least twice as many closely guarded calls as we got.

I don't think it is really the distance that is being mis-applied, it is the level of defensive activity.

The NCAA uses guarding stance, which implies actively guarding. I think many officials enforce their counts requiring an active defender, so if A1 takes two steps back and B1 does not pursue, they will drop their count even if B1 is within 6 feet. This is not even implied in the NF definition. In fact case play 9.10.1.C says the exact opposite.

[Hawks Coach]

bz
I am not talking NCAA, I am talking HS. And you can be in your stance and not immediately react to the change in direction. What I observe is that any bounce back, regardless of whether or not it creates the requisite 6 feet (assuming that B1 really is guarding A1), is generally rewarded with a dropped count. Maybe I am seeing something that nobody else does, but that is what I see from my seat on the bench and when I am in the stands.

Bounce back and get a yard of space, count is over. Not by rule, but by practical application.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
bz
I am not talking NCAA, I am talking HS. And you can be in your stance and not immediately react to the change in direction. What I observe is that any bounce back, regardless of whether or not it creates the requisite 6 feet (assuming that B1 really is guarding A1), is generally rewarded with a dropped count. Maybe I am seeing something that nobody else does, but that is what I see from my seat on the bench and when I am in the stands.

Bounce back and get a yard of space, count is over. Not by rule, but by practical application.

Coach, read it again. I'm saying NF.

What I said, is exactly what you described. A1 moves back, not creating 6 feet, but B1 did not move with her and many officials drop the count. Not because of distance, but because they are incorrectly adding ACTIVELY guarding to the NF definition.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 25th, 2004 at 05:18 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

Even in NCAA, I think that if you are in a defensive stance and the player does a slight bounce back, 3 feet of separation shouldn't give them a free pass. I would consider B1 to be actively guarding. Note I am not saying that B1 ceased to guard, just that A1 created a little bit more space than when driving into B1. And I think in NCAA, if B1 maintains a stance and A1 only backs up 3 feet, and B1 closes down, they would be considered to be actively guarding.

Also, I don't think this is as much an issue in college, because the players move quicker and create more space. They cover more floor space in less time than most HS guards.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

A1 moves back, not creating 6 feet, but B1 did move with her and many officials drop the count. Not because of distance, but because they are incorrectly adding ACTIVELY guarding to the NF definition.
[/B][/QUOTE]Many officials, including a pile of NCAA ones, won't start or keep a count going unless the defender IS ACTIVELY guarding. They know how the rule is worded too. But that's how they call it. Just an observation, not a judgement.

[Hawks Coach]

I have no issue with not starting a count if B1 just happens to be standing in the general vicinity of the player with the ball. To me, closely guarding at least implies you are trying to play defense. The literal reading of the rule that allows somebody who isn't trying to defend to earn a closely guarded count due to accidental proximity is not my cup of tea.

I know you can construct a case that (in NF) accidental proximity equals closely guarded through a technical reading of the rulebook, but it doesn't seem to meet the intent of the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
[B And I think in NCAA, if B1 maintains a stance and A1 only backs up 3 feet, and B1 closes down, they would be considered to be actively guarding.

[/B]

I think that's usually how it is called. If the defender doesn't close up though, the official will terminate the count- even though the defender may still be within his 6-foot cone of defensability.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by blindzebra
I e-mailed Gary Whelchel AIA State Commissioner of Officials, rules interpreter for the state of Arizona, and he served on the NF rules committee.

Here is what Mr. Whelchel had to say:


The key phrase is "maintain legal guarding position" - emphasis on maintain. Defensive players with their back to the offensive player are NOT in legal guarding position.

Oh, really???

4-23-3a
...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

My count will continue. Thank you very much.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Oh, really???

4-23-3a
...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

My count will continue. Thank you very much.

Oh yeah? Well, if you do, I'm telling Peter Kennedy!

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Oh, really???

4-23-3a
...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

My count will continue. Thank you very much.

The question was about closely guarded, and not all situations where LGP is applied. That facing reference is in the rule, so players can turn away from a charge and still get the call.

For purposes of closely guarded, guarding position is lost if you turn away.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
For purposes of closely guarded, guarding position is lost if you turn away....

....ymmv.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

....ymmv.

The defender, not the offense.

Nice try though.