I guess I could yell a bit and call you some names, if that would help you feel like it's the good old days. ;)

The notion of what "in the path" really means is problematic. We've debated it ad nauseum in the past. Some hold it means between the offensive player and the basket. Some hold that it is relative to the direction the offensive player is moving. Thus far the NFHS (also AFAIK the NCAA, NBA, nor FIBA) has not felt the need to further define it. That's probably okay. In practice it turns out to be more of an "I know it when I see it" thing. We pretty readily recognize situations where we should have a count. (Although it appears there may be some regional variance in how we apply closely guarded to post play)

But what would the summer lull be without discussions like this. ;)

For discussion purposes, I'm liking Snaq's definition: "I think the path can be defined one of two ways: the general direction between the player and where he could reasonably be expected to want the ball, and the direction he is obviously moving."

Generally if the offense is trying to advance the ball, dribbling east-west is only a tactic to shift the defense and locate or create an opening to advance the ball. But good defense dictates that the guard remain between the dribbler and the basket, otherwise the dribbler may find a lane for a layup. Since an uncontested layup is the highest percentage shot, you have to consider the direct line from the dribbler to the basket the "path" he would most like to take. Depending on what the offense is trying to do, there are other "path"s that could/should legitimately be defended too. OTOH, there are places that it makes no sense for the defender to be, even though the supposed guard is within six feet. Generally speaking, behind the dribbler is one of those places.

As a hueristic, I think you can pretty reliably ask yourself, "Is the defender really guarding the offensive player?" If so, then he most likely is using his position on the floor to hinder or disrupt what the offensive player would like to do, and is therefore in the offensive player's path.

As for "head and shoulders," the rule makes no mention of "on a drive to the basket". From NFHS 4-10: "A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player." However, a drive to the basket is when we normally apply this rule. And it certainly implies a much more precise spatial relationship between the dribbler and defender than merely "in the path".

You may be right about why the "in the path" language was added. I wasn't yet reffing when the closely guarded rule was added. I'm only passingly familiar with the "lack of action" rule that it replaced. I do know that it required the offense to move the ball toward the basket (or at least accross the 28 foot marks) under certain conditions. But, as with all "policy decisions" there are intended and unintended consequences.

The intended ones, obviously, have to do with forcing the offense to act, keeping the game from getting boring, but more importantly maintaining the balance between offense and defense by ensuring the defense has the opportunity to play defense. I think it's worked pretty well. If the offense is stalling, and the defense wants to force the issue, all they have to do is come out and "get a count." Pretty universally the offense will begin to move the ball in some fashion, and the defense has an opportunity.

The unintended consequences, well they're not so bad. As you mentioned, what if the post player dribbles out and the defender follows. The count on this play...well, I'm not sure the rules committee exactly went looking for that. After all, a player dribbling the ball within the arc already gives the defense the opportunity to play D. But, by rule, we have a count. Such is life. And hey, the fact that there is a rule that is regularly enforced just encourages a style of play that continually moves the ball and forces the action.

Overall, I think you can't go too far wrong if you consider the purpose of the closely guarded rule when you're making decisions about its application. I'm not suggesting we ever ignore the rule, only that it be applied most rigorously when its intent is most imperative. If the offense is moving the ball and forcing the action, we should be slow to start a count. If the offense is doing something a little different, like running out the clock at the end of the game, as long as the defense still has the opportunity to play defense (and they want to), the intent of the rule is being met and we should be reluctant to begin a count. When the offense is withholding the ball from play, denying the defense a chance to obtain the ball by simply not playing basketball, that's when the closely guarded rule is a great tool to get the offense back to playing the game.

Those who suggest that we're penalizing the defense by not starting an immediate count...who suggest a five second count is the defense's "reward" for playing good defense...well, I disagree. The intent of the rule is not to "give" the defense anything except the opportunity to play defense, to obtain the ball through their own efforts. Good defense is its own reward.

As always, my just $0.02

Hey, even with the down economy, I'd say that was worth more than $0.02...maybe as much as $0.04. :p

Nicely said.

As I am the one who brought the whole "reward" concept into this discussion, I'll admit it's a poor choice of words. I will alter it, then.

Failure to properly apply the closely guarded rule leads to players playing tighter and tighter defense, which leads to rough play. If a defender thinks he's getting the count, he's less likely to get stupid and start slapping at the ball. Well, not all, as we've all had to call a foul on the defense just as our count was hitting 4 and the offensive player looked completely trapped.

Now, this has nothing to do, really, with the OP.

As I said before NO count in Camron situation since they did not face each other. Sitiation 9.10.1C quite clearly says when a count has to be started. The "closely guarded" count rule is in Rule 9 not rule 4.10.

As you know the interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committee and are "OFFICIAL"

Therefore please read situation 9.10.1c when a count should start and explain to me how camrons example fits is.

becasue something is obvious to some, it might not be in the rule book :)

Now to anwer the direction question

A1 defender is facing his/her FC and has both feet on court standing there. B1 comes along and faces A1 torso (LGP). B1 moves 45 % from A1 into the 6 foot radius. Count starts. A1 runs straight. B1 passes header and shoulder of A1. Count stops so direction ha NO bearing for a count.

now for Cameron


Please read rule 9.10.1b The situation you site (9.10.1D) is specific for that rule We are discussing 9.10.1A... Good try :)

Like Camron says, it says what is sufficient, but not what is required. The difference is key.

Dragging the pivot foot is sufficient for a travel call, but it is not required.

It doesn't....but it doesn't need to. As I said, this case mentions what is sufficient to get a count but it doesn't say that it is necessary. Two very different things.

.....

Note that 9.10.1B says "In the situation outlined..." That expressly means the comments that follow are targeted at that very situation and are not intended to establish a general requirement.

9.1.1D is mentioned to disprove the claim that LGP is required for a CG count. And it does just that.

We're talking about the definition of CG vs. LGP. You've yet to cite one rule/case that says says CG requires LGP...only that LGP within 6' satisfies the requirement for CG.

but this is an other discussion. for a new thread. :D
Since I could ask what about momentum... joking.... an other thread perhaps :)

It's analogy to illustrate the difference between what is sufficient and what is required.

Oh quite contrar (did I spell it right?) The situation is very very specific about the necessity of placing both feet on the playing court and facing the oppponenet before a count is started.

for starters the situation 9.10.1c is under the heading FrontCourt Closely-guarded Action
Secondly the wording is specific to say ".. As soon as B1 has assumed a guarding position" and now the situation emphasis what this is: "both feet on the court, facing the opponent, no other specific requirements"
Tell me what situation does 9.10.1c not cover as described. Even the one given in the thread is covered.

now for part 2
Sitaution 9.10.1d is under the sub title "Screening teemmates" and is sitautaion for rule 9.10.1B we cannot mix. this is a very different discussion then a closely guarded count or so i think
I have sited the situation numerous times and explained why CG COUNT requires LGP.

This discussion is : When does a CG 5 second count start? ie in reality rule 9.10.1A

OR

is this a discussion on what is CG (ie rule 4.10) but without a count?

Ok let me ask you this then, when player A1 jumps in the air and catches the ball in the air and lands on one foot (the other has not touched the floor), has a pivot foot been established?

Unfortunately sufficiency is not always clear.
The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation

This is really a subject for an other thread

It is very specific...."for the situation oulined". The inclusion of those very words tell you that they don't intend for that to be the general rule but are describing that one play.

You're not quoting rules....you're quoting cases that give examples.

All of 9.10 is about CG, not just a-c.

"D" is precisely relevant in that it provides a counter example to your claim that LGP is required for CG. The only way to come to the right conclusion is to mix the rules/cases. It doesn't matter that it mentions "Screening Teammates". It is giving you a case (screening teammates) when a CG count can happen even if there is no LGP.

The fundamentail question that is backed up by both rules and cases is that while LGP (being a strict subset of the more general "guarding") @ < 6' is suffienct to have a count it is also possilble to get a count without LGP merely by being within 6' in a guarding position...even if it is not LGP.

Cameron,

I am quoting situations and as you should know are considerd to be "official supplement" Show me where I mis quoted and I shall step back. So situations ARE VALID to discuss and understand the rules. They are blessed by the appropiate BB bodies. and they are as official as the rules. Can we at last agree on this before I continue. It would be a pointless discussion other wise.
If you have access to the IAABO hand book for example I refer you to the forward in the case book. If you have publications by the NFHS you should also find this statement ( stating that situations are official and supplement the rules)

Until you can agree that situations are official supplemets then it would be pointless to continue.

Were are the official interpretors when you need them :)

You must at least concede that Situation 9.10.1.D is under the official heading of "screening teammates" (with 9.10.3's situation odd they bundled them together ?) and that 9.10.1.a-c are under the official heading of "Front court closely guarded Action" and one could correctly state that the authors thought that the sitautions describe different scenarions ?

9.10.1D has no bearance to our discusion based on CG and when a count should start.

Until we agree on Rules and situations having the same weight for understanding and applying the rules ... all this is pointless.

thank you

Absolutely agree....but you have to use them all, not just the ones that serve your argument. It doesn't matter how official they are if you apply them incorrectly or incompletely.

You make the claim that LGP is a necessity for a CG count. If there is any case, anywhere, in any "official" source that says otherwise, your claim is proven false.

9.10.1D does exactly that. It defines a time when a CG count can/should start....all without ever mentioning anything related to having LGP.

All of 9.10, regardless of the casebook sub-categorizations are about closely guarded situations. That is what rule 9-10 is about...nothing else. Each case lists an example that a CG count can apply...each case is not restricting other situations. Having LGP is one way to get a count started but it is not the only way...as demonstrated by "D".

Rules are "broad" by their very nature. Cases, on the other hand, are typically "narrow", applying to the situation mentioned an ones similar to it. Cases rarely establish a broad meaning, but show examples of where the rules apply.

It's not a subject for another thread, because it's clearly to demonstrate the logic of differentiating between what is sufficient and what is required.

The answer to your first question is "maybe." If the player stops moving upon that landing, then yes, the pivot has been established. If he jumps off that foot and lands on both feet simultaneously, then neither foot is the pivot.

My point was a player may be called for traveling by merely dragging his pivot foot (that is sufficient), but he may also be called for traveling even when his pivot foot doesn't drag (such as the example of when there is no pivot foot established) and he breaks other rules of movement.

To claim, "The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation" while at the same time making an inference from case plays is pretty inconsistent. You're making an interpretation.

The case plays are supplements to the rules, not rules themselves. The fact remains that neither the rules nor the case plays state LGP is "required" for CG to be in play. You're infering it based on a case play that says CG should be started since LGP was established. There is no case play or rule that says CG should not be started because LGP wasn't established.

ILMalti,

Your argument seems to hinge on a single case. Yes, cases are official and have the force of rule to them. But they are not the rules; they are some specific examples of how to apply the rules. It is usually a mistake to try to derive the actual rule from a single case. So let's look at closely guarding in more depth, starting with the actual rules.

NFHS 4-10 - 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 six feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball. The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler. A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player.

What are the requirements?

1. A player in control of the ball
2. In his/her team's front court
3. Continuously guarded by any opponent
4. Who is within six feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball.

What is up for discussion is what it means to be "guarded". But please note that it says only "guarded". It says nothing about Legal Guarding Position.

What is guarding?

NFHS 4-32-1 - 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....

That is the fundamental definition of guarding. Not LGP, just guarding.

What are the requirements?

1. Placing the body - The implication here is a location on court (the distinction between a location on the court and how the guard's body is arrayed is central to your case)
2. In the path - The rule does not define it, but it does require it
3. Of an offensive opponent - restricts guarding to an activity the defense performs against its opponent
4. No minimum distance required between the guard and opponent - The guard and opponent could be 96 feet apart
5. The maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded - Short of making contact, the only distance of significance in guarding is the 6 feet required for a closely guarding.

Those are the requirements for closely guarding. Again, note that there is no mention of LGP. If I am in my opponents path, I am guarding him. If I am within six feet of him, I am closely guarding him. It's that simple.

Now, rule 4 is fundamental to most other rules in the rules book. It is common for a definition to contain multiple facets. Some will relate to one rule and some to a another rule. The guarding definition is that way.

Article 1 defines guarding, and establishes that when done from within six feet it is closely guarding. Articles 2 and 3 build on that and define LGP, how it's obtained, and what additional rights it grants to the guard. Articles 4 and 5 set specific time and distance requirements for guarding moving/stationary opponents with/without the ball. Articles 2-5 build on the definition of guarding, but they don't change it's relationship to closely guarding in any way. Whether you have LGP or not, whether you are guarding a moving or stationary opponent, you are still guarding. And if you are within six feet you are closely guarding.

That understanding is fundamental to understanding the cases. Let's look at your favorite:

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.

B1 is clearly guarding A1 (but how we know that really muddies the water). That he's within six feet means B1 is also closely guarding A1. That he is standing (implying two feet on the floor) facing A1 clearly bestows the additional status of LGP. Since the opponent has the ball, and is stationary, no time or distance is required. That's a lot of info we're given, and only some of it is relevant.

But why is B1 standing there, facing A1? It has nothing to do with LGP, and a little to do with guarding. The 9.1.x cases address rule 9-1, the closely guarded violation. And this particular case is even narrower than that.

The specific situation being addressed is easily deduced from the ruling. The narration looks right past the basic requirements of guarding and distance to address a single question, "Must the guard do anything else to be closely guarding?" The answer is, no. "No other specific requirement is in effect. The amount of movement or the actual body position of the player is irrelevant."

You see, there exists a widespread (mis)interpretation that the defender must be "actively guarding" or in a "guarding stance" or "guarding posture" or some such nonsense to "earn" a closely guarded count. The classic example has the ball handler standing near the division line, holding the ball. The defender come out within six feet to get a count. But both the ball handler and the guard are just standing there. Some referees will not give the defender a count.

The point of the case is that the defender can just stand there and get a count. All that is required is for the guard to have "assumed a guarding position". This guarding position is a place on the floor in the opponent's path, and within six feet. It is not, as some believe, a particular stance. Not even the "stance" required to attain LGP.

The phrase "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" in the ruling is obviously tripping you up. I can see why. If you're looking to derive the definition of closely guarded, it surely reads like those are requirements. But don't be mislead. This is not a case about the definition of guarding or LGP. It is a case about whether you can just stand there with "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" and get a count.

The answer is yes. You can just stand there with "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" and get a count.

But it's not the only way to get a count.