Legal Guarding Position

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Oh, and you can't accuse those of us trying to actually see what the rule says of being like Old School and then turn around and offer your comment in red; which is a lot closer to OS's rules philosophy.

The rules are not there to cover every possible situation. The casebook is supposed to clear up common and sometimes uncommon occurrences that might actually happen. If a defender falls, I do not think it is to our benefit to call something that clearly is not what the rules were made for. Unless you see something in writing that makes this very clear, I would think common sense should prevail. This has nothing to do with what OS thinks or how he forms an opinion. At the very least I would like to see something so unusual in writing before making such a big call. As I said before, I do not know many ball handlers that are just going to stand there while a defender is on their back, so I really do not see the issue either way. Just a guess on my part.

Peace

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know many ball handlers that are just going to stand there while a defender is on their back, so I really do not see the issue either way.

Exactly. Which is why I'm shocked this thread has made it to 4 pages.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rules are not there to cover every possible situation. The casebook is supposed to clear up common and sometimes uncommon occurrences that might actually happen. If a defender falls, I do not think it is to our benefit to call something that clearly is not what the rules were made for. Unless you see something in writing that makes this very clear, I would think common sense should prevail. This has nothing to do with what OS thinks or how he forms an opinion. At the very least I would like to see something so unusual in writing before making such a big call. As I said before, I do not know many ball handlers that are just going to stand there while a defender is on their back, so I really do not see the issue either way. Just a guess on my part.

Peace

You're right, the odds of the stars aligning in such a way as to have this happen are so slim as to be practically zero. Like I said, if the defender stays down that long, I'm likely to blow it dead for injury.
If he slips (to his knees for example) and gets immediately back up all the while continuing to guard the dribbler, I see no reason to suspend or restart the count.
You're also right that the rules don't seem to address this as smoothly as I'd like, so disagreement here is to be expected.
My reference to OS was in response to deecee's invokation; because I frankly don't give a crap about how OS would rule this play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

Exactly. Which is why I'm shocked this thread has made it to 4 pages.

Actually, we don't have to wonder whether a dribbler would stand there for 5 seconds. All it takes is part of a second. If B1 slips just before your hand strikes 5, are you going to make the 5 second call?
If B1 slips and gets immediately back to his feet between your second and third strike, are you going to start your count over or continue as if nothing had happened?

[JRutledge]

Snaq,

The main point that I am addressing, is the fact that even if you call this by what you see as the rule, then no one is going to understand it or accept your explanation. I understand that we as officials want to be as correct and follow the rules to the letter. But I feel this would be trying to find something rather than calling something based on what makes the most sense. I hardly doubt a coach is going to complain to any of us about keeping the count. And if they happen to complain, they would have to show me or explain to me what the rules specifically say. We all know that is not going to happen. Coaches do not even know rules that are written and you expect a coach to know an obscure reference to whether the feet stay on the floor?

Peace