Closely Guarded Dilemma

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

.....

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

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

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.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

OR

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

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.

[ILMalti]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Cameron,

I am quoting situations and as you should know are considered 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 appropriate 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 supplements then it would be pointless to continue.

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.

Originally Posted by ILMalti

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 situations describe different scenarios ?

9.10.1D has no bearance to our discussion 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

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.