Closely Guarded Dilemma

[Zoochy]

There are senior officials who preach that they will not cal a CG if the play is moving E-W nor will they call Hand Checking when the play is moving E-W.
They consider both of them as 'game interupters'.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

There are senior officials who preach that they will not cal a CG if the play is moving E-W nor will they call Hand Checking when the play is moving E-W.
They consider both of them as 'game interupters'.

And there are senior officials who would call this logic a load of crap.

Jurassic Referee just rolled over in his grave.

Do they ignore CG if the offensive player is standing still? No. Then why ignore if he's retreating even though the defender is doing what's required?

Same goes for hand check, how many hand checks are they letting go because they are successful in steering the dribbler sideways?

Some senior officials I know would call that stupid.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And there are senior officials who would call this logic a load of crap.

Jurassic Referee just rolled over in his grave.

Do they ignore CG if the offensive player is standing still? No. Then why ignore if he's retreating even though the defender is doing what's required?

Same goes for hand check, how many hand checks are they letting go because they are successful in steering the dribbler sideways?

Some senior officials I know would call that stupid.

Hey... don't shoot me. It is not my stichk. I try to discuss this in pregame and if that is what they want to do, then I go with the flow.
It's not a battle that is worth fighting.

Originally Posted by Zoochy

There are senior officials who preach that they will not cal a CG if the play is moving E-W nor will they call Hand Checking when the play is moving E-W.
They consider both of them as 'game interupters'.

That's odd, I've been to a couple of camps so far this summer that preached hand checks on E-W plays fall under RSBQ & should be an immediate whistle.

On N-S drives to the bucket, they wanted a patient whistle on hand checks to allow the player to finish under the SDF philosophy.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

RSBQ.....SDF

OK, guys. Although I'm far from being a rookie, I'm a rookie here. Long version, please. Thanks.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

OK, guys. Although I'm far from being a rookie, I'm a rookie here. Long version, please. Thanks.

RSBQ = Rhythm, Speed, Balance, Quickness....if any are negatively affected, it is a foul.

However, even being a veteran of the board, I have no idea what SDF is.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

RSBQ = Rhythm, Speed, Balance, Quickness....if any are negatively affected, it is a foul.

However, even being a veteran of the board, I have no idea what SDF is.

I don't know either, but I have some thoughts:

Save Da Foul?

Slow Da Flow?

Solid Delayed Foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

On N-S drives to the bucket, they wanted a patient whistle on hand checks to allow the player to finish under the SDF philosophy.

SOME DAMN FOOL might have ruined this play with a quick whistle.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

That's odd, I've been to a couple of camps so far this summer that preached hand checks on E-W plays fall under RSBQ & should be an immediate whistle.

On N-S drives to the bucket, they wanted a patient whistle on hand checks to allow the player to finish under the SDF philosophy.

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

OK, guys. Although I'm far from being a rookie, I'm a rookie here. Long version, please. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

RSBQ = Rhythm, Speed, Balance, Quickness....if any are negatively affected, it is a foul.

However, even being a veteran of the board, I have no idea what SDF is.

• Start
• Develop
• Finish

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

• Start
• Develop
• Finish

Otherwise known as "See the whole play" or see the "Beginning, Middle, end End" or "Have a patient whistle". This is one that appears to have several variations of names that all really mean the same thing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Otherwise known as "See the whole play" or see the "Beginning, Middle, end End" or "Have a patient whistle". This is one that appears to have several variations of names that all really mean the same thing.

"Let 'em play"

[lmeadski]

I tried to articulate team A trying to stall out the balance of the game by moving the ball across the court, not advancing to the hoop, and avoiding a closely guarded call. As B1 came up on A1 to induce a chop, A1 would dribble parallel to the half court line. B1 trailed behind him to the other side within a 6 foot radius. The coach was screaming for closely guarded, but, I couldn't make that call as B1 was squarely behind A1. It wasn't that he had his back turned to him. It's probably that I have never seen anyone, HS, NCAA or pro ever call closely guarded in this scenario. However, I think we can admit we see it regularly, especially in HS or JR high.

[Adam]

I think you could justify either way in your scenario, frankly. I would agree that this does not likely represent guarding, however, especially if he's just walking. Get in front, in his path, or between the dribbler and the basket. Or, if the offensive player was really trying to retreat and the defender was moving quickly to keep pace, I would call it.

It's not the direction necessarily, in other words.

And I've never seen this play happen, period. The defender should try to steal the ball or get in front of the moving dribbler, if the dribbler was only walking.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by lmeadski

I do know how the rule is written. However, I have never seen an official make a five second call on a player who is not advancing to the basket and his defender is squarely behind him (not uncommon when teams are trying to run down the clock). In fact, in watching many games during this summer tournament, I rarely saw refs chop on closely guarded at all? JW - how many closely guarded calls do you all make in the course of a normal varsity game?

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.

If the defender is behind the dribbler, he ain't guarding. Therefore there is no count. Therefore you got it right.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

If the defender is behind the dribbler, he ain't guarding. Therefore there is no count. Therefore you got it right.

Let me ask a few questions to probe whether such an interpretation has any merit....

Are you saying you can't have a CG count if the player with the ball has his back to the defender? that all a player with the ball has to do to break the count is spin around so that the defender is behind him?

Are you suggesting that all a dribbler has to to to break the count is to take a single step away from the defender? (perhaps while facing away).

What if the dribbler is moving laterally with the defender tracking right with him in a parallel path? Is that not CG?

What if the dribbler is not even moving? By your interpretation of "path", there is no CG count since a stationary player has no "path". So, could a stationary player hold the ball indefinitely?

It would be nearly impossible, with such an interpretation, to ever get past 1 or 2...or even 0 with a clever player holding the ball in the corner facing OOB (no player could legally get in front of such a ball holder).

Can such an interpretation with so many holes be right?

That said, I don't think the OP's play is a CG situation...not with the defender following the player all the way across the court. Sounds like he was not containing or corralling the dribbler at all.