When to stop closely guarded count?

[Y2Koach]

Originally Posted by Splute

weeeeeellllll, if the defender is just standing there chomping gum and not actively guarding the dribbler, I dont have a count at 6-foot. Such as when the offense comes into their front court and the D is in a zone. If the D is actively engaging the dribbler I will count.

so if the D is within the 6' range with the O dribbling in place, D is in a defensive stance but not swiping or mirroring the ball, just in stance within 6', do you count? How is "actively guarding the dribbler" defined?

[Coltdoggs]

If he's within 6' and in LGP we have to start the count....

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Y2Koach

so if the D is within the 6' range with the O dribbling in place, D is in a defensive stance but not swiping or mirroring the ball, just in stance within 6', do you count? How is "actively guarding the dribbler" defined?

If he is in a defensive stance; yes I will count. Otherwise he feels like he has to move closer to get a closely guarded count, and that would put him at a disadvantage. He does not have to swipe to have a closely guarded call. But simply standing at the top of the key or other position in a zone does not necessarily equate to defensive stance or "actively guarding" imo. Other views??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Splute

But simply standing at the top of the key or other position in a zone does not necessarily equate to defensive stance or "actively guarding" imo. Other views??

If a defender is simply standing at the top of the key and is within 6 feet of the player with the ball, he has met the criteria needed to be "closely guarding" under the rules. There is not, and never has been, any requirement for a defender to be in a guarding stance. They just have to be within 6 feet of the player with the ball.

Some areas don't follow the rule as written. They use their own philosophy of calling it. Shrug.

[jer166]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Some areas don't follow the rule as written. They use their own philosophy of calling it. Shrug.

Most of the time it is not the unit but just some their officials. And most of the time they are the first ones to condem another who disregards a rule or mistakenly applies it. Then the rule is the gospel, never to be overlooked or misapplied. Go figure!

[Splute]

Yes I agree that is what is stated. Is that what is intended? that the offense can walk into a closely guarded state without the defense having to move a muscle? hum... interesting.. Lets assume that 4 of the D is setup on the 3 point arc, spread equally apart around it and the 5th is in the paint. the dribbler comes into his FC and within 6' of the D at the top of the key and maintains this 6' distance but moves around the arc. The defense never moves. By rule the closely guarded count would continue as the dribbler goes by each defensive player. and the defense can be picking their nose. Is that really what we are trying to Ref here? That seems to run in conjunction with the 3-second violation.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Splute

Yes I agree that is what is stated. Is that what is intended? that the offense can walk into a closely guarded state without the defense having to move a muscle? hum... interesting.. Lets assume that 4 of the D is setup on the 3 point arc, spread equally apart around it and the 5th is in the paint. the dribbler comes into his FC and within 6' of the D at the top of the key and maintains this 6' distance but moves around the arc. The defense never moves. By rule the closely guarded count would continue as the dribbler goes by each defensive player. and the defense can be picking their nose. Is that really what we are trying to Ref here? That seems to run in conjunction with the 3-second violation.

Your point being?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Splute

If he is in a defensive stance; yes I will count. Otherwise he feels like he has to move closer to get a closely guarded count, and that would put him at a disadvantage. He does not have to swipe to have a closely guarded call. But simply standing at the top of the key or other position in a zone does not necessarily equate to defensive stance or "actively guarding" imo. Other views??

What about the first sentance of 4-23-1? "Guarding is the act of legal placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent." It doesn't say anything about "defensive stance", "actively guarding", or any other such term. In Art. 2, it states to obtain an initial legal guarding position, both feet must be on the playing court, and the front of the torso must be facing the opponent. Standing there chomping on gum (as long as they are facing the opponent) counts as "guarding", according to the rules.

[FrankHtown]

Maybe it is a Texas thing, but the interpretation we use is that the defender has to be doing more than standing there, even within 6 feet.

I'm thinking the logic is: If the defender is attempting to play defense (and we can get into what "continuously guarded" means until we are all sick) and is within 6 feet, start the count.

On the other hand, the mere presence of an offensive player within the defender's 6 foot "halo" does not mean we reward the defender if he/she is making no attempt to defend, since they are not "continuously guarding."

It sounds like Texas follows the rule as written.

[FrankHtown]

2007-2008 rules page 30 Rule 4-10....blah, blah, blah "The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler." more blah, blah, blah

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

2007-2008 rules page 30 Rule 4-10....blah, blah, blah "The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler." more blah, blah, blah

Interesting. As I said I'm looking in the 2006/2007 book, which does not have those words.

Thanks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Interesting. As I said I'm looking in the 2006/2007 book, which does not have those words.

It's an unannounced addition to 4-10 in the 2007-08 rule book. The FED added the sentence "The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler." There was no mention of the addition in the front of the book or under "new rules changes" at the back. Iow, they just snuck the l'il mother in.

Can I say "mother"? Or should I say "father"?

[truerookie]

I think we need to take a poll.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Maybe it is a Texas thing, but the interpretation we use is that the defender has to be doing more than standing there, even within 6 feet.

It sounds like Texas follows the rule as written.

Nope, you're following a Texas interpretation. They're definitely not following the rule as written. There is nothing listed anywhere in the rules that states that a defender doesn't have to be doing anything but be within the 6 foot space.

If you still have the 2004-05 rule book, they had a POE on "closely guarded" that laid out the criteria used. Here's the relevant stuff:

1. Closely Guarded.
A: When To Start: A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his or her team's front court, is guarded by an opponent who is within six feet of that player who is holding or dribbling the ball. It must also be emphasized that the defensive player must obtain a legal guarding position.
When To Stop: A closely-guarded count ends when no defensive player is within six feet.

That's it! They mention the different counts, beating a defender by head and shoulders, multiple defenders, etc.There's no mention anywhere that says that a defender has to be "actively" guarding and there never has been at any time that I know of.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, you're following a Texas interpretation. They're definitely not following the rule as written. There is nothing listed anywhere in the rules that states that a defender doesn't have to be doing anything but be within the 6 foot space.

If you still have the 2004-05 rule book, they had a POE on "closely guarded" that laid out the criteria used. Here's the relevant stuff:

1. Closely Guarded.
A: When To Start: A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his or her team's front court, is guarded by an opponent who is within six feet of that player who is holding or dribbling the ball. It must also be emphasized that the defensive player must obtain a legal guarding position.
When To Stop: A closely-guarded count ends when no defensive player is within six feet.

That's it! They mention the different counts, beating a defender by head and shoulders, multiple defenders, etc.There's no mention anywhere that says that a defender has to be "actively" guarding and there never has been at any time that I know of.

So, Jurassic, not being a smart aleck here, and not necessarily disagreeing. Just wanting some clarification. I know this sounds like nit-picking words, but I think that it's important to get to the point of what the words mean. What's the difference between "actively guarding", which you say they don't require, and just plain ol' guarding, which I assume you'd agree is required?