Closely Guarded Dilemma

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Ok then let me ask

how does "guarding' start?

By placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent....nothing more.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Is there a difference between "legally guarding" and guarding.

Yes. LGP has additional requirements....facing and two feet down initially.
LGP has restrictions on what movements are permitted and offers protection against being guilty of a foul when the defender is moving within the parameters of LGP. Guarding doesn't have any restrictions but offers no protection either.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

One is defined by rules as to how it is established the other is not?

Both are defined. The first article defined guarding. The next two defined LGP.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Since there is only a count on "close legal guarding" then i stand with my originial post.

and I do not believe i am playng with words

The count is not restricted to "close legal guarding"....just "closely guarded". LGP is not required for a count...although it may often be present.

Legal Guarding and Closely Guarding are both subsets of guarding. They partially overlap but do not completely overlap.

EDIT:

Image B1 who takes a position between A1 (dribbler) and the basket (guarding). However, B1 never faces A1 (no LGP). A1 is furiously attempting to drive to the basket but B1 constantly moves to cut off A1's path while never facing A1. There is never any contact so LGP is not relevant. However, B1 continuously maintains a position that is 2'-4' from A1.

B1 has satisfied the requirements for a count. However, B1 has not satisfied the requirements for LGP and is not protected from being guilty of a foul if B1 is moving at the time of contact...even if B1 is moving laterally.

[ILMalti]

Ahh I think I now see were our ideas differ.

You indicate that closely guarding does not require obtaining LGP.

I think Situation 9.10.1.C addresses this nicely. Although used earlier in the thread I am going to quote it again:

Team A has the ball in its own FC. B1 stands within 6 feet facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. RULING: In five seconds this would be a violation. In the sitaution 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" Emphasis added

As you probably recognize, the highlighted words reflect how LGP is initially established 4.23.2.
As you know situations supplement the rule book.

So in the example you outlined,

"Image B1 who takes a position between A1 (dribbler) and the basket (guarding). However, B1 never faces A1 (no LGP). A1 is furiously attempting to drive to the basket but B1 constantly moves to cut off A1's path while never facing A1. There is never any contact so LGP is not relevant. However, B1 continuously maintains a position that is 2'-4' from A1."

No count can start in this example until B1 "has assumed a guarding position, both feet on the court, facing the opponent" (Sit 9.10.1c).

So hence the only conclusion we can come too is that once LGP is established "PATH " (direction) has no bearing on guarding. and since "Closely guarding" requires LGP a violation (Closely guarded) should have been called after 5 seconds based upon the description in the OP. Seems like such a long time ago.

I hope this also answers BACK_IN_THE_SADDLE comments

Thank you both for your thoughts

[Back In The Saddle]

You seem to have overlooked a rather basic rule:

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. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

This section defines regular old guarding, article 2 further defines legal guarding position. Article 1, regular old guarding, plus a distance restriction, clearly is sufficient for a closely guarded count. Even without the further requirements of LGP. Also, as the basis for LGP, regular old guarding cannot be disregarded. In other words, path still matters to LGP because without path you are not even guarding, let alone have LGP.

Consider:

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

This is one of the extra protections afforded the guard by obtaining LGP. What "position" is it that the guard is moving to maintain? It is a position in the opponents path. That is the fundamental basis for guarding.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Isn't this fun?

No, of course not. There's no yelling and name-calling.

I'll have to admit I've never considered these ideas when thinking about closely-guarded. Perhaps it's because my focus is in NCAA-W, where the closely-guarded count is only on a held ball, and there is no "path" to consider.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This is one of the extra protections afforded the guard by obtaining LGP. What "position" is it that the guard is moving to maintain? It is a position in the opponents path. That is the fundamental basis for guarding.

So the only time you would have a count is when the guard is in front of (or trying to stay in front of) the direction the opponent is moving? So how do you justify a count in the case where B1 is in between A1 and the basket, while A1 dribbling "east/west"? A1's "path", if taken literally, is the direction they're moving, and B1 was never in front of that direction. (Or are you going to add another term not mentioned or defined in the rules: "assumed path"? )

Fwiw, I think the mention of the word path in the guarding definition was meant to dissuade the very action mentioned in the OP - simply following or shadowing a dribbler without trying to hinder their direction for the sole purpose of getting a 5-sec. violation. For example, to obtain LGP there is no mention of being in the path. We all know LGP can be obtained by the defender setting up behind the offensive player, such as in the post. What if that post player dribbles away from the basket to create space, but the defender moves with them - the defender is obviously not in the path, but yet we would continue the count when the defender stays within 6 feet. Or are you going to use that undefined term of "assumed path", since you would "assume" A1 was going to move towards the basket and B1 was in that "assumed" path, not the "actual" path? And what rules basis do you use to determine "intent" of a path?

Also, there is a specific mention in the rules that the count stops once the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender on a drive to the basket. Why isn't the count stopped if the same thing happens in all other dribbling and guarding situations?

I understand the phrase "in the path" is used in the definition of guarding, but I'm not sure we should get too literal in it's use without additional case plays or guidance.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Also, there is a specific mention in the rules that the count stops once the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender on a drive to the basket. Why isn't the count stopped if the same thing happens in all other dribbling and guarding situations?

I understand the phrase "in the path" is used in the definition of guarding, but I'm not sure we should get too literal in it's use without additional case plays or guidance.

The rule does not state direction ie on a drive to the basket. The rule states :

A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulder past the defensive player." Nothing about direction or PATH or any other words

Also once as Situation 9.10.1.C says once LGP has been established, movemnet does not matter, so the count starts the second offensive is facing defender who has his/her 2 feet planted, ans is within the 6 foot circle. They could dance and go any direction the count continues as long as the offensive player and defender remain with 6 feet and the LGP requirement spelt out in 9.10.1C has been initially obtained. (will not talk about defender 2 taking over)

Please see previous thread

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

The rule does not state direction ie on a drive to the basket. The rule states :

A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulder past the defensive player." Nothing about direction or PATH

Well, crap, you're right - there goes one of my arguments. Maybe I should just stay out of this. Well, ok, maybe not.

Does this section then provide the basis for not counting in the OP? Since the defender trailed the dribbler, was the dribbler's head and shoulders past the defender, and thus the count ends?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, crap, you're right - there goes one of my arguments. Maybe I should just stay out of this. Well, ok, maybe not.

Does this section then provide the basis for not counting in the OP? Since the defender trailed the dribbler, was the dribbler's head and shoulders past the defender, and thus the count ends?

Well, I think "on a drive to the basket" is clearly the intent of the rule, otherwise all a dribbler would have to do to end the count would be start heading towards the division line.

If I'm defending a dribbler, and he's heading towards a sideline or the division line, I'm likely to let him and just shadow him that direction.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

The rule does not state direction ie on a drive to the basket. The rule states :

A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulder past the defensive player." Nothing about direction or PATH or any other words

How do you define getting the head/shoulder past the defender then? Your interpratation breaks down with this citation. Path is implied otherwise there would be no point to the rule...."past the defensive player" relative to what?

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Also once as Situation 9.10.1.C says once LGP has been established, movemnet does not matter, so the count starts the second offensive is facing defender who has his/her 2 feet planted, ans is within the 6 foot circle. They could dance and go any direction the count continues as long as the offensive player and defender remain with 6 feet and the LGP requirement spelt out in 9.10.1C has been initially obtained. (will not talk about defender 2 taking over)

Please see previous thread

Except that the rule you just cited says that the count shall stop....and it doesn't say anything about losing LGP.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No, of course not. There's no yelling and name-calling.

I'll have to admit I've never considered these ideas when thinking about closely-guarded. Perhaps it's because my focus is in NCAA-W, where the closely-guarded count is only on a held ball, and there is no "path" to consider.



So the only time you would have a count is when the guard is in front of (or trying to stay in front of) the direction the opponent is moving? So how do you justify a count in the case where B1 is in between A1 and the basket, while A1 dribbling "east/west"? A1's "path", if taken literally, is the direction they're moving, and B1 was never in front of that direction. (Or are you going to add another term not mentioned or defined in the rules: "assumed path"? )

Fwiw, I think the mention of the word path in the guarding definition was meant to dissuade the very action mentioned in the OP - simply following or shadowing a dribbler without trying to hinder their direction for the sole purpose of getting a 5-sec. violation. For example, to obtain LGP there is no mention of being in the path. We all know LGP can be obtained by the defender setting up behind the offensive player, such as in the post. What if that post player dribbles away from the basket to create space, but the defender moves with them - the defender is obviously not in the path, but yet we would continue the count when the defender stays within 6 feet. Or are you going to use that undefined term of "assumed path", since you would "assume" A1 was going to move towards the basket and B1 was in that "assumed" path, not the "actual" path? And what rules basis do you use to determine "intent" of a path?

Also, there is a specific mention in the rules that the count stops once the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender on a drive to the basket. Why isn't the count stopped if the same thing happens in all other dribbling and guarding situations?

I understand the phrase "in the path" is used in the definition of guarding, but I'm not sure we should get too literal in it's use without additional case plays or guidance.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

Nicely said.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Ahh I think I now see were our ideas differ.

You indicate that closely guarding does not require obtaining LGP.

I think Situation 9.10.1.C addresses this nicely. Although used earlier in the thread I am going to quote it again:

Team A has the ball in its own FC. B1 stands within 6 feet facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. RULING: In five seconds this would be a violation. In the sitaution 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" Emphasis added

As you probably recognize, the highlighted words reflect how LGP is initially established 4.23.2.
As you know situations supplement the rule book.

Nice try, but no cigar. All this says is that LGP within 6' is sufficient for a CG count. It doesn't say it is necessary.

Go check out 9.10.1D. It's ruling is a CG violation when a player is within 6' and says nor implies nothing about LGP.

So again, LGP is not necessary for CG.....but is usually present and is sufficient for a CG count if it is within 6.

Also note that 9.10.1C is for a stationary player. It implies nothing about a moving/dribbling player...where the definition of guarding requires being in the "path" to be guarding. 9.10.1C is merely present to cover the hole with the definition of guarding and its requirement of being in the "path" (which doesn't exist for a stationary player).

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

You seem to have overlooked a rather basic rule:

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....

I am sorry there has been so much discussion in regards to this I do not follow. I thought all was covered. The 6 foot distance applies only to Closely guarded (4.23) which requires LGP at per Sit 9.10.1.c
So in th OP it was stated

OK in OP

Originally Posted by lmeadski

...A1 still dribbling in the corner as B1 comes up to defend. I start chopping for closely guarded. ...towards bucket. B1 follows A1 (it looks like they are playing follow the leader, A1 being the leader), within 4-5 feet all the way to the opposite side of court. ...

I conclude that the count should have continued and a 5 second violation called.


Now there was a discsuion in regards to "path",
path simply means to confront the opponent direction; the route the opponent would like to go. this means any direction. Does not play any role in obtaining Legal guarding position.

Guarding does not require any of the parties to have a ball;
Gurading does not mean it is a 1 on 1 either

to obtain legal guarding position the guard must mave both both feet on the court, facing the opponent. See rule/s 4.23.2a AND 4.23.2b for exact definition .

to obtain closely guarded position the defender must have legal guarding position and be within a 6 foot radius of the ball player (Sit 9.10.1C) for a count to start.

So my friends I am not quite sure what you are referring too.

What I think you are might be doing is reading 4.10 and assuming. The situation 9.10.1C clearly addresses Closely guarded and when a count should start. Rule 4.10 is a bit vague and says nothing about a count Rule 9.10 does. but is clarified by Situation 9.10.1C

As you know in BB you cannot read just one rule/article and assume (I am NOT preaching). We need to understand all or at least try too, hence these type of discussions.
I believe it was stated that we as officials tend to make the rules more complex and involved. I do not profess to know the rules but when a rule or sitaution spell it out in no uncertain terms (I refer again to 4.23, Situations 4.23.1-3, 9.10.1c) then I stick too it. as they say Keep It Simple . If it is in the book noone can argue ... but wait the answer to the OP question should have ended a long time ago

I wish there is an interpretter who could guide us is this forum.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

I am sorry there has been so much discussion in regards to this I do not follow. I thought all was covered. The 6 foot distance applies only to Closely guarded (4.23) which requires LGP at per Sit 9.10.1.c
So in th OP it was stated

No where does it explicitly state that LGP is required to start closely guarded. I have to ask, would you start counting in Camron's play?:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Image B1 who takes a position between A1 (dribbler) and the basket (guarding). However, B1 never faces A1 (no LGP). A1 is furiously attempting to drive to the basket but B1 constantly moves to cut off A1's path while never facing A1. There is never any contact so LGP is not relevant. However, B1 continuously maintains a position that is 2'-4' from A1.

B1 has satisfied the requirements for a count. However, B1 has not satisfied the requirements for LGP and is not protected from being guilty of a foul if B1 is moving at the time of contact...even if B1 is moving laterally.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No where does it explicitly state that LGP is required to start closely guarded. I have to ask, would you start counting in Camron's play?:

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice try, but no cigar. All this says is that LGP within 6' is sufficient for a CG count. It doesn't say it is necessary.

Go check out 9.10.1D. It's ruling is a CG violation when a player is within 6' and says nor implies nothing about LGP.

So again, LGP is not necessary for CG.....but is usually present and is sufficient for a CG count if it is within 6.

Also note that 9.10.1C is for a stationary player. It implies nothing about a moving/dribbling player...where the definition of guarding requires being in the "path" to be guarding. 9.10.1C is merely present to cover the hole with the definition of guarding and its requirement of being in the "path" (which doesn't exist for a stationary player).

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