6 feet. Why do I see officials throwing their arms out to their side instead of counting 5 seconds? Am I missing something here? I understand why they are putting their arms out, but I don't understand why they don't just start the 5 second count. Within 6 feet. That's all it takes.

This is an unofficial mechanic to communicate that the defender is not within the closely guarded distance.

I don't use it myself.

It doesn't take a yardstick to estimate 6 feet. It seems lots of officials can't estimate this distance.

You're right it actually takes TWO yardsticks. Officials should be required to carry them during the game. :rolleyes:

Obviously, their 6-feet doesn't agree with yours. Get over it. I don't use that non-NFHS mechanic either but no big deal.

Z

Well done, Nevada.

For those of you who want to have something measurable, just remember that the radii of the FT circle and the jump ball circle are both 6'.

I use it, especially when the coach is yelling for 5 seconds.

It's used to show the coach (usually) that you are watching the play, but judge that the defender isn't within the required distance. Without the mechanic, the coach might think you are watching something else.

As others have said, it's not an approved mechanic in FED, but is an approved mechanic in NCAA.

I use it sometimes. Depends on the situation. And, my 6' is more like 4 and a half.

For me I only use it to show that the closly guarded has been broken. Otherwise I think you should be conting the closly guarded count

I never use it. If I'm counting, the defender is within six feet. If I'm not, the defender is not. I don't see a need for another mechanic.

If I'm at 4 seconds and the guy backs out to loose the count I might show it real quick to show "hey he lost it"

Also - If a coach is like "5 seconds, 5 seconds" I'll generally shake my head no to show that they're not within the 6` for the count.

6` is a lot of room... If your standing 6` infront of an oppononet not playing defense. Yeah, your not gunna get the count.

I utilize the "un-mechanic" in a tight game. I know it isn't correct, but many coaches appreciate seeing that you are working/watching everything.

My 6 feet is definately 6 feet and I have been commended on calling it the way it is stated. Many coaches want you to call 5 seconds more...........as long as you are consistant from the beginning through the end of the game.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Officials DON'T throw their arms out to their sides instead of counting 5 seconds. If they throw their arms out to the side, it's because there's nothing to count -- the defender is too far away. They can't start the count until the defender gets closer. The official mechanic for indicating this situation is to do nothing, but a lot of refs feel uncomfortable with that, especially if a coach is nagging. SO the put their arms out to indicate that the defender is too far away. THen after the coach yells at the player to step in, the ref puts one arm down and starts counting with the other. Does that help you understand beter?

It is a NCAA Men's/Women's mechanic that tells the coach that the official recognizes the fact that there is not a closely guarded situation. I think it is a stupid mechanic. If I am not visually signaling a closely guarded count then it should be obvious that a closely guarded situation does not exsist.

MTD, Sr.

I've had a friend in the stands use a laser to measure and mine is actually 6.345 ft. when I start to signal it. My wingspan is 75.018 inches, so I have to make an adjustment on the spread of my arms. It all seems to work out.

While it is not the mechanic in Fed it is in NCAA and it does show the coach that you are aware of the situation.
What most people (other than officials) do not understand is what you are looking for for 6'.
the measurement it isn't forehead to forehead of players leaning over like most people think it is toe to toe which makes it look wider than it is.
So I think the mechanic is useful and I use it at all levels - if you do not feel comfortable or your assoc. says don't use then don't.

I agree - it should be obvious - but you have to realize that we're communicating with coaches, players, fans, the media, etc.

Yes, it is an unoffical signal in Fed, but it's common in college and the coaches and fans are used to seeing it. I cetainly don't use it all of the time, but I do use it sometimes because it can be helpful and can alleviate misuderstanding.

Seeing that's not the letter or the spirit of the NFHS rule, I certinaly wouldn't be happy if I was a coach and this shorter distance was obvious (such as by the mid court or free throw circles). It would also likely garner a lower officials rating, also.

Why doesn't it meet the spirit and intent of the <b>closely-guarded</b> rule? Do you really believe that a defender passively standing 6 feet away from a dribbler and making absolutely no attempt to play any kinda real defense is <b>closely-guarding</b> anything?

Six feet might meet the <b>letter</b> of the rule, but it's debatable whether it really meets the <b>spirit and intent</b> of the <b>closely-guarded</b> rule.

I also think that an official calling the 6' distance by rote on a passive defender is gonna get a much lower rating from an evaluator than the official who's calling it more according to the intensity of the defense being played. To use one on the modern buzz words, imo it's a game interruptor to call it the way that you're suggesting.

And who cares what coaches think anyway? We don't call games to please coaches- that's impossible to do anyway. As long as this play is called consistently and the same at both ends, coaches have got no b!tch at all imo.

LOL!

May we have permission to add your creative remark to our own repertoire of come backs?

And it's not about the inches... it's all about the feet!

;)

IMO, the intent has 2 parts... 6 feet or less and defending a player. It should not be called if both criteria’s are not met.

But I think the main problem is when officials use that arms extended mechanic that is not listed officially by the NFHS.

Some even use the "fingers-to-hand-slap" indicating a ball was blocked. Now that mechanic might be useful when during a dead ball words won’t be heard to communicate to an irate coach.

I don’t think it is a useful mechanic. I am not a certified NCAA official, yet there isn’t any need to use a signal that means the same by not using any signal at all to indicate there isn’t any closely guarded situation.

This NCAA signal can confuse usage of a full second time-out. The difference being that one uses an open hand instead of a cup like hand.

By the way... the NCAA signal chart has both the team control and play control fouls using the same men's/women's mechanic.

Some officials act as if a signal isn't listed in the mechanics manual it has no value. I disagree. Not that I think a "clean block" mechanic on a shot has any value.

Working 3-person, I'm C opposite table. Pass out to the key is deflected by B into the backcourt. T has no clue if the pass hit A's hand or B's hand on the way to the backcourt. He looks at me and I'm giving a tipped ball signal and play continues. No doubt in my mind had I not given this signal that the T would've called a backcourt violation because he told me later he would've. :)

Who said anything about a passive defender?

If there is a defender in a guarding stance within 6', the count should be on. We should not wait until 4.5'.

Mark:

Unlike my post in the Inadvertant Timeout thread, I hope that this post was not circumlocutory. :D


MTD, Sr.

Wow! If there are many more comments on this thread we're gonna need to petition NFHS to include this topic on next seasons 'Points of Emphasis'.
My main point was that in my judgement the defender (2 feet on floor facing opponent) is WELL within 6 ft on MANY occasions when the official is observed holding both arms out to side as if the defender must be within 2, maybe 3 ft before a 5 sec. count will begin...
To me...it's just elementary being able to judge whether there is good defense and will we as officials recognize that and give him/her a count.
Most HS players are, on avg., 6 ft tall.
If a HS player is standing at a distance that once lying flat on floor would be touching their opponent, BEGIN THE COUNT, they are close enough. What are we waiting on?

Who said anything about a passive defender?

[/B][/QUOTE]I did.

This is how I judge it, although I adjust for whether the player is taller or shorter than 6 feet. I've also heard that it can be guestimated by whether both sets of hands reaching straight out to each other would touch. I simply can't visualize the radius of the free throw circle.

The criteria for a closely guarded count are being within 6' and ACTIVELY Guarding the player with the ball. A defender who is just standing within 6' of the player with the ball should not cause you to start a count.

How can you adjust for players being shorter or taller? the distance between the players feet is what you are looking at, it is a static distance always 6'. If two players are 6' tall and both are bent at the waist that puts them almost touching with their upper bodies If they are shorter then the distance will be larger between their upper bodies but they will still be 6' apart.

If the mechanic bothers you or your assoc. says do not use it then do not use it - I seriously do not believe it is going to hurt your ratings any evaluator worth their salt will look at the whole picture of how you are officiating. The book says nothing about talking to players about pushing and shoving or telling them to move out of the paint that is just good preventive officiating - but will it get you a lower rating - doubt it.
But if I have a coach in a NFHS game who is constantly harping for a five second call and the player isn't within the 6' or is moving in and out of that zone I am going to use it as a communication tool for that coach to realize that IMO we do not have a count and why. The hope is that it will shut them up.

But the most important thing that needs to be said is that when both criteria are met, the defender is within 6' and actively guarding the ball - YOU HAVE A COUNT. That will make the rest of this conversation irrelevant.

While I certainly agree with the concept of actively-guarding, by rule you are completely wrong. There is no requirement listed anywhere in the rule or case book listing "actively-guarding" as a criteria. The requirements to start and maintain a closely-guarded count are spelled out in case book 9.10.1Sitc. Nowhere in that case book play is it stated that you must be "actively guarding" someone at any time. Note the wording at the end of the RULING- <b>"The amount of movement or the actual body position of the player is irrelevant"</b>.

Rick,
While you argue your position with passion and do have the spirit of the rules behind you, please consider that the word "actively" is not used in the rules book regarding this situation. Just in case any newer officials who read this thread might take what you have written as definitive, I feel compelled to mention this. It is true that the player with the ball does have to be "guarded", but how you define that word is of the utmost importance. The NFHS definition is below.


RULE 4
SECTION 10 CLOSELY GUARDED
A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his/her team's frontcourt, is continuously guarded by any opponent who is within 6 feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball.

SECTION 23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded.


Using these definitions a solid case can be made that just standing in front of an opponent constitutes guarding, and just being within six feet of that opponent qualifies as closely guarding.

That durn JR is just so durn fast! He beat me to it again! :) That is a great case book reference BTW.

Here's the case book play that he cited:

9.10.1 SITUATION C: Team A has the ball in its own frontcourt. B1 stands within 6 feet and facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. RULING: In five seconds this would be a violation. In the situation outlined, as soon as B1 has assumed a guarding position, both feet on the court, facing the opponent, no other specific requirement is in effect. The amount of movement or the actual body position of the player is irrelevant.


[The bold emphasis is mine.]

That's true *IF* there are only two choices.

In this case, though, there are three.

1) The player is closely guarded (count)

2) The player is not closely guarded (spread hands)

3) The official isn't watching.

Objection, your honor! Opposing counsel is using big words!

Personally, i think 6 feet is too far and I like the NCAAW rule (3 feet) better.

Yet, since I take a check, I follow the rules. Unless the ball is held way out front, I usually have a count of some kind working. And the better the coach, the quicker they'll demand a count when the defender is within six feet.

This is a big pet peeve of mine. Some also use the Gator chop <.

I was watching a game last night and the lead used this mechanic to indicate that it was blocked. The trail was near half court and didn't have position to help on the play but there was definitely a foul and if I was trail I would have called it. That makes the crew look great when one calls a foul and the other is saying that it was blocked! :rolleyes:

JR and Nevada
You are correct - actively is not used.
Guarding is - I interpret Guarding to be a verb - but then again so is standing.
So under the spirit of the rule I state my case.

Exactly
 

Exactly

It's not THAT bad. "I had a different angle/view of it, coach."

Yes but the tip signal does nothing but cause problems. Obviously if we didn't call a foul then we determined that it was a block shot. The only thing that can be accomplished by using this signal is making the crew look bad IMO.

That's why I use this very, very rarely. In situations where I do, it's after the play has gone the other way, and in response to a coach's question - basically when I don't have time to give a 3 minute explaination of how a block is not a foul.

Its not a "stupid" mechanic. I think there's good reason for it to be used AFTER a count has started, but it being stopped due to the 6 foot minimum distance being compromised. I confess to using it probably more than I should, but I err on the side of communication.

I think the use of the mechanic will eliminate some arguments from coaches. They may not agree that the defender was outside of 6 feet, but at least they understand that YOU think he is and aren't forgetting to count.

Like I said in an earlier post. It is a stupid mechcanic. If the official is not giving a visual count then there is no closely guarded situation.

MTD, Sr.

Got it. We heard you the first time...If it's not spelled out in the NFHS rule book then it can not possibly be of any use and users of the mechanic should be shot on sight, right?

Imho, this mechanic will be NFHS approved within two years. It does provide good communication during certain situations...especially when the count is on, you're at 4 1/2 when the guard breaks contact momentarily but the defense is right back on him, using that mechanic lets everybody know that the count was off and starts over. If you simply switch from the left arm to the right arm and start counting again, it's going to be less effective, period.

Our local association
 

discussed this at our last meeting. Decision: personal preference, just make sure all the refs are on the same page for consistency during the game. Personally, I do use it to show the coaches I am paying attention to closely guarded.

No, H.S. officials should not be shot on sight if seen using this mechanic. I don't like seeing college officials using it and I am a college official myself. The closely guarded mechanic is self-explainatory: If an official is showing a visual hand count then a closely guarded situation exsists; if an official is not showing visual hand count then a closely guarded situation does not exsist; and if a closely guarded situation changes from dribbling to holding or vice versa, the official will change hands for his visual hand count. That sounds pretty logical to me. What more communication is needed? The out strectched hand mechanic was adopted by coaches (remember, coaches make up the entire NCAA Rules Committee), need I say more.

MTD, Sr.

This seems to fall under the same category as pointing to the floor when a shooter is on the 3 point line for a shot release.

If you are consistently giving visual counts throughout the game, then by NOT giving a visual count when the defender is more than 6 feet away, you are eliminating the 'need' to use that mechanic.

Actually, I've been told by some very good officials that this action is done to communicate to their partner in a 3-person crew that they have the shooter inside the arc. This lets the other official, C or T, know that this official has the play covered and not to signal a 3 pt goal.

Only time I would use this mechanic is if the coach was asking for a 5-second count, I would use it purely as communication to let the coach know that its greater than 6 feet.

I have learned to not worry anymore about what mechanics officials use. I want officials that are going to call the game properly, not sweat a mechanic that communicates something. I work college ball and I rarely use the "no closely guarded" signal at all. I do wish I had the signal this past week on a play where the defender for some reason was scared to get close the ball handler, but wanted a 5 second count (it was a HS game) at that same time. The mechanic in my opinion serves a purposed and can be used properly. I think the NF is too uptight about adopting things from the higher levels and does not want to admit a signal or lack of signal would be useful. Signals are used to communicate to everyone in the stands, TV or benches what we are doing or sometimes what we are looking at. Why not use a tool that will help the understanding process?

Peace

MTD, I have a question for you. I know that one is approved and one isn't, but what kind of signal do you use, at the table, when a coach calls a full timeout?

Re: Our local association
 

If someone told me to pre-game the use of this mechanic so we all do the same thing, that would be someone I wouldn't listen to anymore! IMO, this is almost as ridiculous as the thought that everyone should wear patent leather shoes or pleated pants.

You are so right. NFHS is too worried about adopting things from NCAA/NBA/ becausse they are too uptight. Basketball has evolved and NCAA and NBA have adopted things to make game better yet NFHS is way to afraid to admit the game has changed and we should learn from others

You guys better be careful, there are people who don't like the NBA, even though they spend money and a considerable amount of time making sure officials are in the right places to see plays. But, there are people who almost worship some college officials who jump around and make officials all over the world look like fools!

You guys both sound like bitter people with an axe to grind. Tomegun you didn't used to be so cynical. What gives?

Z

Zebraman,

I'm not bing cynical, just being real (with a realistic viewpoint of how things in life are). Did I say something that isn't true? There are many people who have voiced a disdain for anything dealing with the NBA. Whatever the commissioner tells them to do,they do, and for a rookie salary of more than 100k I would too. That doesn't change the fact that they are still the best officials in the world. Whether a "buzzword" or a new mechanic, I think we should take advantage of ANYTHING to make the game better. One HUGE element of making the game better is taking the responsibility to be an example for younger officials. How can I (we) do that if I don't want to do the same for someone at a higher level?

I know you are not talking about someone being bitter and having an axe to grind. Every time I make a post that does not jive with your area, you start name calling and making all kinds of claims. You are not in the position to say anything about what others should think when you go around all high and mighty about officiating or anything else said on this board. Give me a freakin break. :rolleyes:

Peace

Rut,

You are non-existent on this board. You have alienated just about everyone on this board at one time or another. Does it ever enter your mind of why so many posts end with one of your posts? It's because most of us just ignore most of your blather. I have no axe to grind nor am I bitter.... I just don't agree with many of your senseless and mindless diatribes. I have agreed with you occasionally when you have put a decent argument together and used sentences that actually make sense.

Z

I wasn't talking about what you said about NBA refs. I think NBA refs are the best. I just didn't understand why you took a shot at college refs when you said, "college officials who jump around and make officials all over the world look like fools!" Where did that come from?

Z

The typical internet officials speaks once again.
 

Who are these people that do not respond to what I say? I get responses all the time on this board and by people that come to all the boards I frequent. I might get responses by you (and were very quick to respond to this thread I see) and a couple of people that I personally do not care for, but to say that I am non-exsistent is not only wishful thinking on your part but a flat out lie. Now do not flatter yourself and the other internet officials that come here. I am not going around responding to every person that comes here and I can say with confidence I almost never respond to a few people but that is because I have deemed their points of view as usless. But I do not come here and try to make those people public or care to.


I do not know what being bitter had to do with this conversation. Other than you trying to play sotto psychiatrist and tell everyone why they post, no one here is bitter. Tommy was making a joke about something that is not only true, but many posters wear with a badge of honor. Every time someone says something about the NBA, you would think the “wanna be elite” of this board tries to shoot down anything about it. Or at the very least tell everyone how much they do not like the NBA. Now I am not the biggest NBA fan, but I know I can learn a lot more about officiating from people that are from the NBA than the likes of someone like you that has only worked a State final (in girls at that). Juulie had to tell you a few weeks ago to just shut up when I was giving my personal opinion. My comments were not directed at you or anything that dealt directly with you. But as usually you think your **** does not stink and I had to be subjected to your whining because I said something that might not apply to the basketball Mecca that you deal with in your neck of the woods. At least when I see you or anyone post something, I realize that everything being said does not apply to me. You on the other hand want to talk about being bitter but you are the first one to say something when it does not jive with your personal feelings. You are just an internet officials and that is all you will ever be to me.

Tommy must have struck a nerve, you came calling as predicted. Tommy has a right to feel that way and so do you. But that does not mean he is bitter or has a problem to say it. If you did not like what was said, why do you have to make a personal attack when you were no where to be found in this post before his comments?

Peace

Re: The typical internet officials speaks once again.
 

blah, blah, blah........more senseless long-winded diatribes.

Z

It comes from the truth. I don't have an axe to grind about officials. I just think it is funny to NOT listen to the best officials in the world but listen to officials that aren't mechanically sound. Personally, I would listen to just about anyone and throw away that which doesn't apply to me. There is far too many arguments on this board because of someone's personal opinion. I will constantly get jumped on but I will continue to say some people on here carry influence based on things other than personal contact. I think that is very shallow or should I say those influenced are gullable. Chest thumping with a keyboard is nothing to me; if I'm involved in a game as the R, U1 or U2, I have one objective: do the best job possible. Any information I can use to get there is obviously a no-brainer. So the choice is use some information, new or re-branded, from someone who makes a living at this or listen to someone who jumps around like a court jester on Saturdays because a coach feels comfortable with him. Is that a hard decision to make? I would like to think I'm a little smarter than that. It is that same old thing. We are probably smarter than the previous generation and the next generation will be smarter than us. Why not just act accordingly and don't BS the younger officials.

[Edited by tomegun on Jan 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 AM]

Z, an internet officials until the end.
 

I guess the truth hurts Z man. Tell me more about your self-righteous crap and why we anyone should listen to a word you say?

Peace