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.

The rule of thumb and by interpretation is that if the offensive player gets beyond the defensive player, then the count is ended - and the usual criteria is based upon "shoulders past the defense".

This does apply to all directions, and if B is not in legal guarding position (by turning away) then the count ends.


I hope this helps. Perhaps he will pass it on to the NF.

Did he say anything about when A1 turns her back on the defender?

That's not a very good question, but i think your were being recalcitrant.


A better question is:

What if B1 is turned "sideways" to A1 and either with B1's face turned or not turned to A1?

How much "sideways" can B1 be?

:)

I posted his entire reply. I take the shoulder past B1 to mean that is the way to lose LGP by A1's actions. All other count ending criteria was by B1's doing.

I wrote him back thanking him and asked if he'd pass our issues along to the NF.

So I guess we can some up "closely guarding" as being:

B1 is mostly facing A1 and within a 6 foot radius of A1 and is not on the side of either of the imaginary lines (through A1's shoulders and at 90 degrees to the sidelines or baselines) which is the opposite side to what can be described as the side to which A1 is mostly facing.


How's that?

[EDIT]:


Hmmm...that doesn't seem to cover when A1 is running directly away from B1...for instance with back turned...so I guess Rainmaker I was wrong calling your question bad...sorry...

How about with this extra condition:

B1 is mostly facing A1 and within a 6 foot radius of A1 and is not on the side of either of the imaginary lines (through A1's shoulders and at 90 degrees to the sidelines or baselines) which is the opposite side to what can be described as the side to which A1 is mostly facing, unless A1 is dribbling away from B1 where "dribbling away from" is described as dribbling in a direction eminating from B1 ....blah blah blah....wow..this got too tough for me



[Edited by ShoeBall on Jun 23rd, 2004 at 03:00 AM]

Actually, if we are using LGP as our guide. That needs to be established:

Both feet touching the floor in bounds facing A1. Add within six feet and the count ends or restarts when:

1. A1 gets head and shoulder past B1, in whatever direction A1 is going and B1 is guarding. Usually this is toward the basket.

2. B1 is no longer within six feet.

3. A1 starts or ends a dribble. This resets the count.

I'd say that means A1's direction has no bearing on your count, as long as B1 has obtained LGP and moves with A1 to maintain the 6 feet.

Yeah, she's certainly been a repeat offender at being calcitrant. As a matter of fact, she's noted for it. We're sending her to therapy for the problem. We're also trying to arrange a scholarship to Question School for her too.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 23rd, 2004 at 06:45 AM]

Iow, the defender has to first establish a LGP by getting in the path of the player with the ball, face him and get both feet set. Then when the defender now closes up within 6 feet, we start the count. Maintain the count until the player with the ball either stops or starts dribbling. As long as the defender stays facing the dribbler and continuously within 6 feet of him, no matter what direction the dribbler goes or faces, the count continues- unless the dribbler happens to "beat" the defender.

That sum it up, BZ?

Feel free to continue fighting with Dan though. I bought extra popcorn last night, and I'd hate to see it go to waste. :D

It WOULD be great to get a scholarship. The level of ball I work would never pay the tuition. But my husband is very, very tired of the questions. Not to mention my brothers. Maybe you should find me a scholarship to WTH school instead.

Maybe you should find me a scholarship to WTH school instead. [/B][/QUOTE]How about WTF school? Dan is the principal.

How about WTF school? Dan is the principal. [/B][/QUOTE]
I understand they tried to recruit MTDjr but he turned them down for some odd unknown reason.

Hmmm...... Don't think Juulie is being recalcitrant, but I do think Dan and she have some of those recalcitrants at home. :)

Not Dan.
He's got a sawzall at home.
mick

Mick
That's probably why he doesn't have any recalcitrants anymore. Spare the rod, spoil the child! :)

Recalcitrant principals armed with sawzalls...and Juulie, what's this something we got at home??? When did WE get a home to have something in???


Sigh...wtf.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jun 24th, 2004 at 01:21 AM]

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.

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?!

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! :eek:

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.

....ymmv.

The defender, not the offense.

Nice try though. :D

Isn't he related to Chub Kennedy?