Closely Guarded Dilemma

[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).