Closely Guarded Dilemma

[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.