Closely Guarded Dilemma

[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.