Closely Guarded Dilemma

[ILMalti]

Thank you Cameron,

I will endeavour to find what rules (although I still believe the situation we talked about so much) and post them in a very different thread.


You also note it is a 2009-10 NFHS POE,,, Not so old ... I had to start somewhere .

Can I have the $1 that you offered to back_in_the_saddle ? (my silly sense of humour).

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Thank you Cameron,

I will endeavour to find what rules (although I still believe the situation we talked about so much) and post them in a very different thread.


You also note it is a 2009-10 NFHS POE,,, Not so old ... I had to start somewhere .

Can I have the $1 that you offered to back_in_the_saddle ? (my silly sense of humour).

Not so fast there, my friend. Unfortunately this new POE only says "a legal guarding position" which is ambiguous as to whether they mean a legally obtained position in the opponent's path, which is specifically required by 4-23-1 for guarding, or whether it refers to LGP, which 4-23-2,3 call "initial legal guarding position".

It would be helpful if the NFHS would be a little more precise in their wording.

But the real issue is this...No, you cannot have the $1. It's already spent!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not so fast there, my friend. Unfortunately this new POE only says "a legal guarding position" which is ambiguous as to whether they mean a legally obtained position in the opponent's path, which is specifically required by 4-23-1 for guarding, or whether it refers to LGP, which 4-23-2,3 call "initial legal guarding position".

It would be helpful if the NFHS would be a little more precise in their wording.

But the real issue is this...No, you cannot have the $1. It's already spent!

Crappy Beer night?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Crappy Beer night?

No, just a nice cold can of Pabst Blue Ribbon. Yes, you can still find it that cheap at some places around here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

A nice cold can of Pabst Blue Ribbon. Yes, you can still find it that cheap at some places around here.

I've got to be the last person on Earth who drinks Schaefer.

YouTube - Schaefer Beer Ad

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've got to be the last person on Earth who drinks Schaefer.

YouTube - Schaefer Beer Ad

At the risk of veering OT for a second...Do they still make Schaefer? True story...first time I ever got intoxicated was from rusty cans of Schaefer I stole from the basement when I was 15. No telling how long my old man had them there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

At the risk of veering OT for a second...Do they still make Schaefer?

I just bought a six pack yesterday. I reward myself with an ice cold Schaefer after mowing the lawn on a hot summer day. My late father used to drink Schaefer, and now ever time I drink a cold one, it reminds me of him.

Mary Ann. No question.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not so fast there, my friend. Unfortunately this new POE only says "a legal guarding position" which is ambiguous as to whether they mean a legally obtained position in the opponent's path, which is specifically required by 4-23-1 for guarding, or whether it refers to LGP, which 4-23-2,3 call "initial legal guarding position".

It would be helpful if the NFHS would be a little more precise in their wording.

But the real issue is this...No, you cannot have the $1. It's already spent!

2. CLOSELY GUARDED. Well-officiated, closely-guarded situations provide for better balance between offense and defense. When the closely-guarded rules are not followed, there is a significant advantage for the offense. The following areas are to be emphasized:
A. Rule basics. A closely-guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his or her team’s frontcourt, is guarded by an opponent who is within 6 feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball; the defensive player must obtain a legal guarding position. A player shall not hold the ball for five seconds or dribble the ball for five seconds while closely guarded in his or her frontcourt. A player can legally hold the ball while closely guarded for four seconds, dribble the ball for four seconds and hold the ball again for four seconds before

I am amazed that you can argue with this especially when the POE heading is "CLOSELY Guarded: sub title Rule BASIC"

I will blame it on the $1 beer

[Adam]

Dude, you've copy/pasted that same passage half a dozen times, I think. The fact is, the NFHS has been known to put out a ruling or two that go against the rules. And BITS's thoughts here reflect my own. "a legal guarding position" is not necessarily synonimous with LGP, even though they seem to be close. My guess is it basically says you can't get a CG count if the defender is OOB, or is stretching a part of his body unnaturally into the 6 foot space.

As BITS alludes to, the NFHS isn't known for verbal precision in these matters.

Now, the fact is, the cases where a CG situation could come up without LGP being established are minimal.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Dude, you've copy/pasted that same passage half a dozen times, I think. The fact is, the NFHS has been known to put out a ruling or two that go against the rules. And BITS's thoughts here reflect my own. "a legal guarding position" is not necessarily synonimous with LGP, even though they seem to be close. My guess is it basically says you can't get a CG count if the defender is OOB, or is stretching a part of his body unnaturally into the 6 foot space.

As BITS alludes to, the NFHS isn't known for verbal precision in these matters.

Now, the fact is, the cases where a CG situation could come up without LGP being established are minimal.

with all due respect
Could I ask what makes you more knowledgeable then the NFHS? What makes BITS more knowledgeable? Are you or BITS official interpreter? Have you or BITS written to the NFHS to tell them about their elluded lack of "verbal precision". Let us know what they say to that,

An official NFHS statement shouldl be taken seriously, not pick and choose what you think applies or NOT.
I hope this does not sound too strong. Sorry if it does.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

with all due respect
Could I ask what makes you more knowledgeable then the NFHS? What makes BITS more knowledgeable? Are you or BITS official interpreter? Have you or BITS written to the NFHS to tell them about their elluded lack of "verbal precision". Let us know what they say to that,

An official NFHS statement shouldl be taken seriously, not pick and choose what you think applies or NOT.
I hope this does not sound too strong. Sorry if it does.

Don't bother starting a post with "with all due respect." I consider it a meaningless phrase similar to "no offense." For the issue we're talking about here, do a search on this site for discussions regarding an NFHS interp on backcourt violations.

The fact is, "NFHS" isn't some all knowing rules guru. It's a group of people that changes every year. And, in particular, it's a group of people with a propensity for issuing interps and POEs that are worded less than perfectly; hence the ambiguity surrounding whether a CG count requires LGP.

I'm done on this one.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

with all due respect
Could I ask what makes you more knowledgeable then the NFHS? What makes BITS more knowledgeable? Are you or BITS official interpreter? Have you or BITS written to the NFHS to tell them about their elluded lack of "verbal precision". Let us know what they say to that,

An official NFHS statement shouldl be taken seriously, not pick and choose what you think applies or NOT.
I hope this does not sound too strong. Sorry if it does.

None of us claims to be more knowledgeable than the NFHS. But each of us has a vested interest in and deep personal commitment to understanding the rules. So we study, we discuss, we debate. We also take very seriously the admonition from the opening paragraphs of the NFHS rules book: "...it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation." So we dig even deeper.

There is an inarguable lack of clarity surrounding this rule. You understand it to mean one thing; I have a different understanding of the same rule. And we each find clear evidence supporting our understanding when we read the same official materials. Those materials are simply not sufficiently clear, and may not even be consistent.

It happens. Quite a lot, actually. And small wonder when you consider the nature of the beast. Basketball is just a game, made up by a clever Canadian to keep a group of trouble-making American college guys occupied and out of trouble. It is an ever-evolving game, governed by an ever-changing body of rules, overseen by an ever-changing committee of folks who are no different than you and I. They each have their own background and experiences, personal preferences, individual understandings of the game and the rules, and even their own agendas. The real wonder of the thing is that the rules are as clear and consistent as they are.

The challenge for us is to keep on learning. That means we must keep our focus on what is right, and not who is right. So let's study and discuss and debate and argue, but let's not make it personal.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

None of us claims to be more knowledgeable than the NFHS. But each of us has a vested interest in and deep personal commitment to understanding the rules. So we study, we discuss, we debate. We also take very seriously the admonition from the opening paragraphs of the NFHS rules book: "...it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation." So we dig even deeper.

There is an inarguable lack of clarity surrounding this rule. You understand it to mean one thing; I have a different understanding of the same rule. And we each find clear evidence supporting our understanding when we read the same official materials. Those materials are simply not sufficiently clear, and may not even be consistent.

It happens. Quite a lot, actually. And small wonder when you consider the nature of the beast. Basketball is just a game, made up by a clever Canadian to keep a group of trouble-making American college guys occupied and out of trouble. It is an ever-evolving game, governed by an ever-changing body of rules, overseen by an ever-changing committee of folks who are no different than you and I. They each have their own background and experiences, personal preferences, individual understandings of the game and the rules, and even their own agendas. The real wonder of the thing is that the rules are as clear and consistent as they are.

The challenge for us is to keep on learning. That means we must keep our focus on what is right, and not who is right. So let's study and discuss and debate and argue, but let's not make it personal.

Thank you for words and advise. I just realized what BITS stands for.
My questions where written in frustration since it took hours in research and
all that work seemed to have been thrown out of the window with a "ah well NFHS is known to be ambiguos".
Nothing personal was intended. I should have had a "patient enter key"