Closely Guarded ?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BZ:

We have given you rules references. Its called the definitions of guarding, screening, and closely guarded, which you will find in Rule 4. You can also read about the closely guarded violation in Rule 9. From there you can go to the Casebook and read about these situation is the appropriate sections. The Illustrated Rules Book has a very good picture showing a violation where teammates are screening the ball, not to be confused with a player setting a screen, from a defender along a boundary line. Also re-read the two plays I gave in my original post.

Let me add more plays to this thread:

Play 3: A1 is in his front court and holding a live ball. B1 has obtained/established a legal guarding postion against A1. When B1 first obtained/established his legal guarding position against A1 he was twelve feet away from A1. B1 has not move from his spot on the court, when B2 steps between B1 and A1 at a spot eight feet from A1. B2 has both feet on the floor and is facing A1. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1? YES.

Play 4: Referring to Play 3, when B2 obtained/established his legal guarding position against A1, is B1 still considered to be guarding A1? NO.

Play 5: Referring to Play 3, instead of taking the position described in this play, B2 takes a position besides B1 and has both feet on the floor and is facing A1. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1? Yes. Follow up questioin: Are both B1 and B2 in legal guarding positions against A1? YES.

Play 6: In Plays 3, 4, and 5, has B1 or B2 caused a closely guarded situation to occur? NO.

Play 7: Referring to Play 1, after B2 obtains a legal guarding position against A1, he then moves to within five feet of A1. Does this cause a closely guarded situation to occur? YES.

Lets go back to my Play 2:

Play 2: Same situation as in Play 1 but A3 is standing in between A2 and B2. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2? Has B2 created a closely guarded situation to be in effect? No; and no. Follow-up question: Since B2 has not obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2, has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against any player on Team A? And if so, who? The answers are YES, and B2 has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A3 but not against A2.

The rules are pretty clear, just look at the defintions of guarding and screening.

MTD, Sr.

I must have missed the part that says a screen ends guarding, it ends LGP, it ends the closely guarded count. No, wait, it's not there.

I'm sorry I don't read, " delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position," as meaning guarding stops.

The NF needs to re-write this entire area. Path is not defined, closely guarded is extremely vague, and there are no case plays about losing the count for changed path or screens.

We will continue to disagree.

[Kelvin green]

I am joining this way late but

although not in the rule book I believe that screens MAY OR MAY NOT terminate the Clasely guarded count but I am going to use common sense as my guide Heres my two cents (Lets not get hung up in the semantics crap)

A1 has ball and is being aggrssively guarded by B1. A2 steps in between a1 and B1. B1 stops guarding A1 then the count stops.

If the screen forces B1 to go around and B1 is now chasing A1 from behind (the old get past the plyare to the basket the count stops thing) The count stops

If they are going from sideline to sideline and B1 steps around the pick, and the pick does not displace the B1 outside of a 6' distance I will keep the count just the same as if a player had switched on a pick and B2 had picked this up. If B1 is diverted on the pick outside of the 6', drop the count.

1) we all know when a player is being guarded and when a player is not.

2) You have to have LGP to establish closely guarded. Duh facing the player and guarding...

3) I believe we have to becareful about extending this path stuff too far (we have had this discussion before) but 99.78 % of the times(by the way thats scientifcally measured, path means between player and basket. ) I could actually see a few times a player is closely guarding a player from the backside (not between player and basket) due to placement of A's own team members but this will be the RARE exception!

THE BOTTOM LINE to closely guarded. NFHS wants us to get a count on when a player is being guarded within 6'. Not 1, not 2, not 3,4,or 5. I believe the POE is there because too many offcials were making closley guarded a 3 foot rule or not enforcing it at all.
It is designed to prevent a good ball handler from running around all day even though he may being harassed significantly from a defender .
It is designed to reward good defense.
It is designed to keep the game moving.
If the defense is working hard they should have counts to get rewarded for good D.

The NFHS wants us to swing our arms. Too many of us havent or dont, and it has created in some circumstances an actionless contest.

How many times has the offense stood out and waited for Defense to come out, running time off the clock. We will stand there forever, and I bt there is a player 10-15 ft off the offensive player in LGP. After a while the coach tells them go get them. the player steps in to 6' but we dont give the count.

As soon as this player steps in the count starts.

personally I'd like to see the NCAA drop the counts and reduce the shot clock by 5 or so seconds. (NBA style)

Which one are coaches more likely to complain about not getting a count on defense or getting one while they are on offense.

If the coach sees an arm counting the coach or team will yell out that we are counting. I have never seen a coach yell
"Ref you cant count, the defense is 6 1/2 ft away!"
"Ref I know my player is just screwing around wastuing time but you cant count because the defended wasn't in LGP to start!"
"you cant count, youre using the wrong path!"

Most coaches want the ball moved around even if they are in a 4 corner stall, and if youre counting because his player is being guarding and it is clear he is being guarded, the coach will get on the kids not us.

They WILL complain when their kids are playing great D and we are not counting or when they think we are slow.

The problem with a lot of officials is that we look to the rules to solve all of our liitle problems on the floor. They dont!. We have to use common sense to enforce the rules. If we cant figure out what closely guarded is when we step out on the floor, maybe we shold not be there.

Sometimes there is a stupid rule that we hate to enforce, but we enforce it.. I have even told a coach that.

Example. Kid just makes a great hustle play and rebound, but in doing so falls to the ground. Under NF rules it is a stupid violation but I call it anyway. I will tll a coach that he went down with the ball, and a travel, and that it is a stupid rule on a great hustle play but that's what we have do do...

[ChuckElias]

This doesn't happen very often, but I completely disagree with Tony. Tony's point seems to be: If A2 is between A1 and B1, then it is never the case that B1 is guarding A1.

I don't see any way to support that claim in any rule or case in the FED book. I re-read the whole definition of guarding and there's nothing there that says guarding ceases when there's a player between the guard and the player being guarded.

Originally posted by bob jenkins
NCAA 4-11.4 "When a player is positioned between the player in control of the ball and his or her opponent, who is within 6 feet (men) or 3 feet (women), a closely guarded situation does not exist.

And even tho Tony's point is explicitly in the NCAA book, I think it's ridiculous. Any time a defender goes around a screen, the count ends. Dumb.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This doesn't happen very often, but I completely disagree with Tony. Tony's point seems to be: If A2 is between A1 and B1, then it is never the case that B1 is guarding A1.

I don't see any way to support that claim in any rule or case in the FED book. I re-read the whole definition of guarding and there's nothing there that says guarding ceases when there's a player between the guard and the player being guarded.

And even tho Tony's point is explicitly in the NCAA book, I think it's ridiculous. Any time a defender goes around a screen, the count ends. Dumb.

Closely guarded has less impact in situations where you have a shot clock. Since the intent of the rule is to keep a game from becoming actionless, the shot clock already does that very thing.

The NF rules leave way too much up to interpretation in this area.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by blindzebra
the intent of the rule is to keep a game from becoming actionless

I disagree that this is the intent of the rule. (I'm disagreeing a lot tonight. Sorry) The intent is not to keep the game moving. The intent is to promote team play by preventing one player from trying every move in his arsenal before squeezing off a shot -- i.e., the NBA "isolation" play. (Even the NBA has changed its rules to eliminate this type of play in certain situations by instituting the 5-second "back-to-the-basket" rule. Their shot clock is even shorter than the NCAA clock, so they certainly didn't put this rule in to keep the game moving.)

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I disagree that this is the intent of the rule. (I'm disagreeing a lot tonight. Sorry) The intent is not to keep the game moving. The intent is to promote team play by preventing one player from trying every move in his arsenal before squeezing off a shot -- i.e., the NBA "isolation" play. (Even the NBA has changed its rules to eliminate this type of play in certain situations by instituting the 5-second "back-to-the-basket" rule. Their shot clock is even shorter than the NCAA clock, so they certainly didn't put this rule in to keep the game moving.)

Wasn't that an anti-Barkley, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq rule change as opposed to the Jordan clear out/4 teammates in the corner play?

Closely guarded is there to reward defense as well, but don't you think it has less emphasis at the NCAA level? I think the shot clock puts less emphasis on closely guarded, because unless you are in a game ending situation a player can dribble around all they want, but the shot clock forces them to attack the basket or violate.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I disagree that this is the intent of the rule.

And I disagree with you and agree with BZ. The 5-second rule was a natural progression from a line of rules designed to keep the game from being actionless. The time periods in different forms went from 30 seconds to 10 seconds to 5 seconds since I've been officiating, but it's been the same rule in different forms and the intent of the rule has always been to keep action in the game.

If you don't believe me, I'll commission MTD Sr. to undertake a mission to Mt. Attic.