Closely Guarded Dilemma
 

What say all of you re this situation that happened at a summer camp today. Boys V, 30 sec left in 2nd half. Team A has 6 point lead and the ball just past mid court in the left corner. A1 still dribbling in the corner as B1 comes up to defend. I start chopping for closely guarded. A1 dribbles parallel to mid court, never making move 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. B's coach is screaming for a five second call. I stopped my chop as I deemed B1 was no longer in legal guarding position. Did I boot the call?

1. What did he do to lose LGP?
2. LGP isn't technically required. All that's required is that he be guarding him from within 6 feet.
3. If the offensive player is walking away and the defender is following, that's guarding in my book.

Answer: I would have continued the count.

Closely Guarded ...
 

NFHS 4-10: A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his/her team’s frontcourt, is continuously guarded by any opponent who is within six feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball. The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler. A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player.

NFHS 9-10: CLOSELY GUARDED
ART. 1 . A player shall not while closely guarded:
a. In his/her frontcourt, hold the ball for five seconds or dribble the ball for five seconds.
b. In his/her frontcourt, control the ball for five seconds in an area enclosed by screening teammates.
ART. 2 . A closely guarded count shall not be started during an interrupted dribble.
ART. 3 . A closely guarded count shall be terminated during an interrupted dribble.
PENALTY: (Section 10) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.

9.10.1 SITUATION C: Team A has the ball in its own frontcourt. B1 stands within
6 feet and facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. RULING:
In five seconds this would be a violation. In the situation 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.

I was told once by a veteran official that a player owns their space "all the way up to the ceiling" and if another player protrudes into that space and then there is contact caused by the first player, it is the second players fault and, depending on the severity of the contact, could be a foul.

And this relates to the closely-guarded question how? :confused:

OOOPS, sorry. I prepared that answer for another thread (L of a play) and just started typing without thinking.

Maybe I should get some meds from Padgett. :)

A bit of a rephrase
 

I do know how the rule is written. However, I have never seen an official make a five second call on a player who is not advancing to the basket and his defender is squarely behind him (not uncommon when teams are trying to run down the clock). In fact, in watching many games during this summer tournament, I rarely saw refs chop on closely guarded at all? JW - how many closely guarded calls do you all make in the course of a normal varsity game?

One or two at most, but an offense player retreating from the defender is not sufficient reason to cease your count. By not rewarding good defense in this way, you're opening the game up to rough play.

And I have made this call.

Agreed. I've made it too. Most recently, Saturday. ;)

On CG situations, I don't get out a tape measure and check the exact distance if the defender is not at least "harassing" the offensive player with the ball. By this, I mean, the defender may technically be within the 6 foot guideline but not actually be doing any guarding if the offensive player is not really reacting to the defender. I'm not going to reward the defense for not actually defending. However, the threshold for actually playing defense isn't all that great. He doesn't have to be a good defender, just a defender.

Also, "past the defensive player" doesn't necessarily mean "toward the basket." Perhaps this is an editorial change the committee needs to address.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

The rule book does mention getting by the defenders shoulders. Do you all read that to mean past the plane formed by his shoulders (N - S plane), or, by his shoulders on the E-W plane?

I'm not sure what your directional markings are supposed to indicate.

Perimeter defenders set up between an offensive player and the basket. If the offensive player has the ball and the defender is within 6', you count. If the ball carrier is dribbling around the perimeter and the defender stays within 6', you continue the count. If the player drives the basket and gets past the defender, you stop the count.

That's not hard. Don't make it so.

E-W vs N-S
 

There are senior officials who preach that they will not cal a CG if the play is moving E-W nor will they call Hand Checking when the play is moving E-W. :eek:
They consider both of them as 'game interupters'.

And there are senior officials who would call this logic a load of crap.

Jurassic Referee just rolled over in his grave.

Do they ignore CG if the offensive player is standing still? No. Then why ignore if he's retreating even though the defender is doing what's required?

Same goes for hand check, how many hand checks are they letting go because they are successful in steering the dribbler sideways?

Some senior officials I know would call that stupid.

That's odd, I've been to a couple of camps so far this summer that preached hand checks on E-W plays fall under RSBQ & should be an immediate whistle.

On N-S drives to the bucket, they wanted a patient whistle on hand checks to allow the player to finish under the SDF philosophy.

Take the best if he offers you options, otherwise just take what he gives you! :D

OK, guys. Although I'm far from being a rookie, I'm a rookie here. Long version, please. Thanks.

Hey... don't shoot me. It is not my stichk. I try to discuss this in pregame and if that is what they want to do, then I go with the flow.
It's not a battle that is worth fighting.:D

RSBQ = Rhythm, Speed, Balance, Quickness....if any are negatively affected, it is a foul.

However, even being a veteran of the board, I have no idea what SDF is.

I don't know either, but I have some thoughts:

Save Da Foul?

Slow Da Flow?

Solid Delayed Foul?

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.

If the defender is behind the dribbler, he ain't guarding. Therefore there is no count. Therefore you got it right.

SOME DAMN FOOL might have ruined this play with a quick whistle.

Let me ask a few questions to probe whether such an interpretation has any merit....

Are you saying you can't have a CG count if the player with the ball has his back to the defender? that all a player with the ball has to do to break the count is spin around so that the defender is behind him?

Are you suggesting that all a dribbler has to to to break the count is to take a single step away from the defender? (perhaps while facing away).

What if the dribbler is moving laterally with the defender tracking right with him in a parallel path? Is that not CG?

What if the dribbler is not even moving? By your interpretation of "path", there is no CG count since a stationary player has no "path". So, could a stationary player hold the ball indefinitely?

It would be nearly impossible, with such an interpretation, to ever get past 1 or 2...or even 0 with a clever player holding the ball in the corner facing OOB (no player could legally get in front of such a ball holder).

Can such an interpretation with so many holes be right?

That said, I don't think the OP's play is a CG situation...not with the defender following the player all the way across the court. Sounds like he was not containing or corralling the dribbler at all.

A rule is a rule; in place for fairness between team A and Team B

So regardless of what direction the LG is happening (as long as it is in the front court) a count should take place. May I also add that if B2 came to take over B1 at mid-court the count continues NOT restarted. The rule references have been posted in previous responses :)

I disagree with this concept as written. The call I'm thinking specifically is of a dribbler driving towards the basket, then retreating when he's been stopped. While retreating, the defender follows him closely. Are you saying you'll terminate the count once the dribbler begins his retreat because the defender is no longer in his path?

"In the path" is, IMO, subjective. I wish I could see the play in the OP to make my call. I see nothing in the OP that tells me there should be no count, but I could be seeing it wrong.

I think the path can be defined one of two ways: the general direction between the player and where he could reasonably be expected to want the ball, and the direction he is obviously moving.

Otherwise known as "See the whole play" or see the "Beginning, Middle, end End" or "Have a patient whistle". This is one that appears to have several variations of names that all really mean the same thing.

"Let 'em play"

In my original post
 

I tried to articulate team A trying to stall out the balance of the game by moving the ball across the court, not advancing to the hoop, and avoiding a closely guarded call. As B1 came up on A1 to induce a chop, A1 would dribble parallel to the half court line. B1 trailed behind him to the other side within a 6 foot radius. The coach was screaming for closely guarded, but, I couldn't make that call as B1 was squarely behind A1. It wasn't that he had his back turned to him. It's probably that I have never seen anyone, HS, NCAA or pro ever call closely guarded in this scenario. However, I think we can admit we see it regularly, especially in HS or JR high.

I think you could justify either way in your scenario, frankly. I would agree that this does not likely represent guarding, however, especially if he's just walking. Get in front, in his path, or between the dribbler and the basket. Or, if the offensive player was really trying to retreat and the defender was moving quickly to keep pace, I would call it.

It's not the direction necessarily, in other words.

And I've never seen this play happen, period. The defender should try to steal the ball or get in front of the moving dribbler, if the dribbler was only walking.

I think "path" needs to be defined by the defender, not by the offensive player.

If the defender is trying to prevent the offensive player from getting to (or toward) the basket, then the count stops when the head and shoulders are closer to the basket.

In this play, the defender is trying to prevent (I guess) the defender from going back W-to-E, so I'd still have a count -- or a violation.

This is a funny old rule, isn't it? So much of the time it's HTBT.

In your scenario, it's not a given that I'll have a count on the guy driving to the basket in the first place, it depends on what happened previously. If I had a count before he began his drive, then I'm probably continuing it...slowly. But if I didn't have a count before the drive there's no way I'll start a count during it. However....if he stops his drive and backs out, the reality is that he is almost certain to break distance with the defender because it'll take a moment for the defender to react to the change in direction.

For the most part I agree with your interpretation of "in the path". But clearly the first half, "where he could reasonably be expected to want the ball", requires us to make some judgments about his intent. And, though I'm sure to get crispied up by the literal interpretation crowd for saying this, I believe proper application of the closely guarded rule absolutely requires good judgment.

My thinking goes like this:

* In the game of basketball the defense has ample opportunity to obtain the ball through their own efforts. They can steal it from the ball handler, intercept a pass, force a poor shot and get the rebound, pressure the ball handler into violating, etc.
* The intent of the closely guarded rule is to force the offense to act, not to reward the defense. A five second count is not an end, only a means.
* When the offense is moving the ball and forcing the action, the intent of the rule is met and we should be reluctant to start a count. We don't want to send the ball the other way when the offense is complying with the intent of the rule.
* When the offense is holding the ball AND the defense is playing defense, we should be quicker to start a count. Not to reward the defense with a turnover, but to force the offense to act and thereby allow the defense the opportunity to obtain the ball through their own defensive efforts.
* However, if the defense isn't up to the task, if they don't have the skill and quickness to obtain the ball, that is their problem. In this situation when you begin hearing coaches, players, fans hollering for "five seconds!" you know they've given up on their own efforts and are looking for you to bail them out. We should be slow to do so.

So, as I imagine the original situation, the defender running after the ball handler, *trying* to guard him, but unable to do so... he ain't gettin no stinkin count from me. Playing keep away is a legitimate, if perhaps undesirable, offensive tactic. But it does not deny the defense the opportunity to play defense. So why help the defense?

This thread is the perfect collision of rulebook officials and common sense officials (I don't mean either phrase pejoratively). I sit somewhere in the middle. I'd probably have a count going, but I can't guarantee I would.

Interpretation? Okay, I guess so. I'd say my understanding of the written rules, which is what I quoted. But we are talking about application of the written rules, and I suppose it's fair to call that interpretation.

I'm not saying can't, never, no-how. In the original situation, the dribbler is moving away from the guard, and the guard is "squarely behind" him. As I envision it, that's the guard trying hard to keep up with the dribbler but unable to get into his path. And since the dribbler's intent is to just run out the clock, his legitimate path, in my judgment, is from side to side and not to the basket. So the would-be guard is not in the path, and is therefore not actually guarding, and the dribbler is therefore not guarded, closely or otherwise.

As for merely being behind the dribbler...would you have a count on a breakaway layup if the "guard" were able to keep within six feet. I wouldn't.

As for getting out of a count by simply turning your back to the defender, no, it would not end a count. However, when a post player with the ball is back to the basket, trying to back down his guard, or drop step around him, shouldn't we have a count going? By rule, certainly. But we never do.

So it's probably fair to say that as a general principle turning your back to a defender does not end a count, but we wouldn't normally start one with the dribbler's back to the defender.

Oftentimes, a single step is enough to break distance, even if only for a moment. Six feet, when you're talking about HS age players, isn't very far when measured in steps.

I like Snaq's definition of path on this. If you judge that the dribbler's intent is to advance the ball to the basket, then this kind of "tracking" is guarding and I would most likely have a count. If the dribbler's intent is to not advance the ball, but is to run out the clock, then the dribbler's path is not toward the basket and the would-be guard isn't in the dribbler's path.

Path implies movement, and my "interpretation" was offered in the context of a moving dribbler. Nevada quoted a relevant case play about how to apply the rule to a stationary ball handler.

Again, this is a stationary ball handler. We routinely have a count going on a ball handler trapped in a corner. Though, to be honest, there's usually so much to process at once (count, lots of potential contact to judge, listening for a timeout request) that who has time to consider which way the ball handler is facing? And I've already stated that in my thinking once you've got a count, the ball handler cannot escape it simply by turning his back to the defender.

We've gone round and round a time or two over what exactly "in the path" means, and can't agree on a good, simple, single definition. It very clearly needs some context and requires some judgment in order to apply. But it is the rule.

However, I don't think "in the path" is *the* single, make or break criteria for judging whether a dribbler is closely guarded. But it is an important criteria. And, IMHO, in the OP's sitch, it is a criteria that was not being met.

I agree with your sentiment. But I also think it's even more problematic than "in the path." First, there's no rulebook support for the notion of containing or corralling a dribbler. Second, you have the difficult task of defining what containing or corralling is. Then we have to consider all the "corner cases" and see if it holds up as a useful interpretation. But it also only applies in certain situations. Can you still be guarding even if you're not containing or corralling? Clearly you can.

But I think we're largely in agreement on the basic sentiment. By the criteria we have chosen to base our judgment on, in the OP the would-be guard is not actually guarding the dribbler. So why count?

In the words of Maxwell Smart, "not so fast my good friend".

Agreed. I normally have a count here, unless I forget or something.

Even as L?

Only in the NBA.

And NCAA-W.

But I've been told not in Fed. or NCAA-M. And I do not understand the reason why. (Actually, I've never been told definitively why, just that it is not done.)

Yes.

Question for NCAA-W. If the play starts outside the 3-point line in the corner and then is passed into the post is the Trail going to get that count or will this be the Lead's new primary.

If the rules were applied as the book says we would have a consistency across the board. Until the rule changes or is officially interpreted differently then it should be "ruled/administered" as described in 4.23 and 9.10.2-3. From what I recall the CG count is to eliminate delay tactics and get the game moving.

Based on some threads logic , we should not have a BC 10 second count if the offense move EAST to WEST? I could imagine the "noise" this would create :) I realize that this is a stresh in my discussion

If the rule is followed, nobody can argue. It is in black and white (so to speak) supported by the appropiate BB bodies. I think it is when officials ( I am a young official) who know the rulling and apply them at their discretion is one of the reasons we have so many issues with fans, players and coaches .

For example would a diagonal movement constitue a drive to the basket or just a East-2-West move?

The offense have up to 14 seconds (4.9 sec hold, 4.9 sec dribble 4.9 sec hold integer) to stop a violation from happening that is a very long time and credit should be given to the defense for preventing the ball to move towards the basket.

Well, I like that, even though I've been told the L never has a closely-guarded count.

Now, just to get the discussion back on track, and this question is more for BITS I suppose - since the defender B1 is behind post player A1, would you not count if you knew A1 was not going to make a move for the basket and was simply looking to pass it out to an open guard? Defensive player is behind the dribbler, dribbler is moving "E-W", or even away from the basket? Does proximity to the basket have any effect on whether a count is started or not? If so, how far away from the basket does the player have to be before you decide a count is no longer necessary, and why?

In NCAA-W, the corner and post are both in L's primary. In the case where the ball is in the corner, L would be focused on that matchup, while the T will cover the post players as a secondary matchup. If the pass goes into the post, as I understand it, it will be L's decision whether or not to follow the ball into the post, or stay with the matchup in the corner. If there's an intense trap in the corner for example, L could stay with that matchup, and the L's body language will tell the T they will officiate that trap and the T needs to stay in the post. If there's no real matchup in the corner, the L will follow the ball into the post.

So, to answer your question, theoretically either one could have that count. More often than not the L will have it though.

To me, a defender is guarding simply by virtue of being between the ball and the basket. The only goal of the defense that never really changes is to protect the basket, even if the priorities happen to change. Even a stalling offense will take an open layup.

You are right. We all do much better when we stick to the rules. Of course, that requires knowing and understanding the rules. But they're not always straightforward and easily understood. The reason for this discussion is that the closely guarded rule really is unclear. Some pretty knowledgeable and reasonable people have weighed in and the final answer is...still unclear. :)

Or at least the HS rule, perhaps the FIBA rule reads differently and is more clear?

So...what do you think? If the dribbler is attempting to run out the clock, is not advancing toward the basket and not intending to, and the guard is trailing along "squarely behind" him, is he still guarding the dribbler? What role does "in the path" play in making that determination?

The rulebook itself tells us that it is necessary to understand the intent of the rules to know how to intelligently apply them to game situations. So, how do you feel the intent of the closely guarded rule factors in to its application? Do you take "forcing the action" into considerations when faced with a situation where you have to decide whether to count? Do you consider rewarding/not penalizing the defense when deciding whether to count?

And what does "credit should be given to the defense" mean? Do you realize that making such a statement indicates that you have a personal philosophy toward this rule that colors your thinking about it?

Isn't this fun? :)

Good...that is what I thought you really meant but just wanted to probe the statement about the defender being "behind" the dribbler.

Sounds like we're on the same practical page. ;)

You know, if the offensive kid in the OP was coached correctly, the whole closely guarded thread wouldn't have happened if he would have just ripped a silent, but deadly quaff towards the defender. :D

I was just going to answer in about the same way...but you saved me a lot of typing. :D

All good questions. Earlier I said "never" about counting when a post player has the ball.... Never is too strong a word. I do not have a count when it appears likely the post player is or will make a move to the basket. I don't disagree that the post player is closely guarded in this situation, but (at least around here) it isn't done and isn't expected. You're more likely to hear comments about a three second violation in the post than a five second violation.

But if abandons that move, especially if he dribbles out from the post or the defense collapses on him, I'll begin a count. In my mind that is a different play and a different situation.

As for the dribbler moving E-W, it depends on what the defender does. If he maintains a position between the dribbler and the basket, I'll start/keep my count. If defender gets "left behind", then I'm not likely to start or keep my count. The deciding factor really is whether the defender is still guarding or not. If he's just trying to catch up with the dribbler so he can start guarding him again, he isn't "in the path" and isn't guarding.

The rules make no mention of distance from the basket, if you're in the front court, you can have a count. You are more likely to have a count the farther out you go. After all, the offense will pull the ball out when they want to burn clock, and that's the issue the rule exists to address. As you get closer to the basket, the offense will normally either be moving the ball, looking for an opportunity to attack the basket, or they will be taking it to the hole because they have found a clear path.

But that, of course, can change if the ball settles in any one place, including the post, for very long. But, IMHO, we shouldn't be in a hurry to start a count in these cases.

Ok before I answer we need to agree on some stuff.

Once B1 (defendent) has planted both feet on the playing court and faces A1 (torso to torso) legal guarding position has been obtained. This can last 1 sec or 10 minutes rule does not indicate length of time. (4.23.1-2) . This establishing of LGP can happen when A1 is at his/her BC whilst B1 is in theirs. Rule says that quite clearly (there is no minimum distance required...."(4.23.1)). Agreed? (Note there are specific rules for A1 and B1 ). Also B1 might just be standing feet planted and A1 places their torso facing B1... Legal guarding, nothing about guard having to initiate.

Now rule continues saying that if the distance (toe to toe(?)) between A1 and B1 is 6feet or less and in the FC then we have a Cloesly guarded situation which requires a count if in the FC of A1(9.10). Agreed?

So before going forth, When would a guarded situation end? I do not recall any rules specifically answering that, however by ommision one would say the current Defense becomes the offense; no TC, dead ball....


Once legal guarded position has been established, the rule specifically says the guard "is not required to continue facing the opponent". (4.23.3 a-e)
which means that the offensive player can turn around and give the LG defender their back.

So once B1 has established LG position and closes on A1 to a distance of 6 feet or less, then a count should start(assuming we are in the FC) OR if B1 had obtained LG and A1 advances towards B1 and is within the 6 feet radius again a count should be started.

This is as simple as it gets.

Now to answer "As far as I see it there are 2 teams on the court. So any officiate deviation from the rules could give an advatage to one side or the other. We are not on the floor to decide which rules are to be applied or to be moved aside for game A versus B.
My philosohy about this rule is simple. If legal Guarding was obtained and A1 and B1 are within 6feet of each other in the FC of the offense a count HAS to start; the rule says it.
If the defense is good enough to keep the offensive away from the basket they obviously are doing a good job ; same if the offense manages to move past the CGP. On the other hands if the offense wants to waste time, this rule will make sure they play or loose the ball (edited ILMALTi).

Yes this is a lot of fun, since by this type of discussion we open our minds

Thank you:)

Agreed.
Agreed....as long as B1 is actually in a guarding position..."in the path." For example, facing A1 at a distance of less than 6 feet while trailing A1 starting from the center circle and continuing down the lane towards the basket is not in a guarding position.
When the guard is no longer in the path....since the definition of guarding requires such.
Mixing two different things....the guard is not required to continue facing...this implies nothing about the dribbler.
Again, as long as B1 is in A1's "path"....not just within 6 ft. and facing.

And it is all so simple except for the definition of "path". What is "in the path". I've clearly demonstarted in a prior post that "path" can't logically mean the direction the dribbler is moving...but that it can only something else...the path the offensive team would like to go or [roughly] "the path" to the basket.

Hello CR

Need to do some thinking ,research and re-read your posts.

OK The question to ask is : Where in the rules does it say that to obtain Legal guarding position the path is important?

In the definition of "Guarding" is the only place that "path" is mentioned. (4.23.1)

We cannot add the word "path" to 4.23.2 or any of the remaining articles.

Remember (and I realize you know) that you do not have to guard a person who is moving or has the ball. That is why 4.23.4-5 are rules.

We need to concentrate first on 4.23.3 which states "After the initial legal guarding position is obtained....." there is NO mention of path ..... So "path" meaning and importance disappear when the "initial legal guarding position" has been established. (2 feet on floor torso-2-torso).

Hence all your discusions based on "path" are null and void. Sorry:o

Legal Guarding Position, or LGP, is an extension of guarding. Think of it as regular old guarding with some extras. That's some extra requirements, and some extra protections. None of which negate anything to do with regular old guarding. ;)

Ok then let me ask

how does "guarding' start?
Is there a difference between "legally guarding" and guarding.

One is defined by rules as to how it is established the other is not?

Since there is only a count on "close legal guarding" then i stand with my originial post.

and I do not believe i am playng with words

The base definition of guarding requires the defender to be in the path of an opponent. If a player is not "guarding" they are not "closely guarding" and don't have "legal guarding position" or anything else to do with guarding. I would think that point should be obvious but I guess not. :o

I agree that you don't have to guard a person who is moving or has the ball but what does that have to do with the closely guarded count?

By placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent....nothing more.
Yes. LGP has additional requirements....facing and two feet down initially.
LGP has restrictions on what movements are permitted and offers protection against being guilty of a foul when the defender is moving within the parameters of LGP. Guarding doesn't have any restrictions but offers no protection either.
Both are defined. The first article defined guarding. The next two defined LGP.
The count is not restricted to "close legal guarding"....just "closely guarded". LGP is not required for a count...although it may often be present.

Legal Guarding and Closely Guarding are both subsets of guarding. They partially overlap but do not completely overlap.

EDIT:

Image B1 who takes a position between A1 (dribbler) and the basket (guarding). However, B1 never faces A1 (no LGP). A1 is furiously attempting to drive to the basket but B1 constantly moves to cut off A1's path while never facing A1. There is never any contact so LGP is not relevant. However, B1 continuously maintains a position that is 2'-4' from A1.

B1 has satisfied the requirements for a count. However, B1 has not satisfied the requirements for LGP and is not protected from being guilty of a foul if B1 is moving at the time of contact...even if B1 is moving laterally.

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.

So in the example you outlined,

"Image B1 who takes a position between A1 (dribbler) and the basket (guarding). However, B1 never faces A1 (no LGP). A1 is furiously attempting to drive to the basket but B1 constantly moves to cut off A1's path while never facing A1. There is never any contact so LGP is not relevant. However, B1 continuously maintains a position that is 2'-4' from A1."

No count can start in this example until B1 "has assumed a guarding position, both feet on the court, facing the opponent" (Sit 9.10.1c).

So hence the only conclusion we can come too is that once LGP is established "PATH " (direction) has no bearing on guarding. and since "Closely guarding" requires LGP a violation (Closely guarded) should have been called after 5 seconds based upon the description in the OP. Seems like such a long time ago.

I hope this also answers BACK_IN_THE_SADDLE comments:o

Thank you both for your thoughts:)

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. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

This section defines regular old guarding, article 2 further defines legal guarding position. Article 1, regular old guarding, plus a distance restriction, clearly is sufficient for a closely guarded count. Even without the further requirements of LGP. Also, as the basis for LGP, regular old guarding cannot be disregarded. In other words, path still matters to LGP because without path you are not even guarding, let alone have LGP.

Consider:

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

This is one of the extra protections afforded the guard by obtaining LGP. What "position" is it that the guard is moving to maintain? It is a position in the opponents path. That is the fundamental basis for guarding.

No, of course not. There's no yelling and name-calling. :(

I'll have to admit I've never considered these ideas when thinking about closely-guarded. Perhaps it's because my focus is in NCAA-W, where the closely-guarded count is only on a held ball, and there is no "path" to consider. ;)

So the <B>only</B> time you would have a count is when the guard is in front of (or trying to stay in front of) the direction the opponent is moving? So how do you justify a count in the case where B1 is in between A1 and the basket, while A1 dribbling "east/west"? A1's "path", if taken literally, is the direction they're moving, and B1 was never in front of that direction. (Or are you going to add another term not mentioned or defined in the rules: "assumed path"? ;) )

Fwiw, I think the mention of the word path in the guarding definition was meant to dissuade the very action mentioned in the OP - simply following or shadowing a dribbler without trying to hinder their direction for the sole purpose of getting a 5-sec. violation. For example, to obtain LGP there is no mention of being in the path. We all know LGP can be obtained by the defender setting up behind the offensive player, such as in the post. What if that post player dribbles away from the basket to create space, but the defender moves with them - the defender is obviously not in the path, but yet we would continue the count when the defender stays within 6 feet. Or are you going to use that undefined term of "assumed path", since you would "assume" A1 was going to move towards the basket and B1 was in that "assumed" path, not the "actual" path? And what rules basis do you use to determine "intent" of a path?

Also, there is a specific mention in the rules that the count stops once the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender <B>on a drive to the basket</B>. Why isn't the count stopped if the same thing happens in all other dribbling and guarding situations?

I understand the phrase "in the path" is used in the definition of guarding, but I'm not sure we should get too literal in it's use without additional case plays or guidance.

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

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 :confused:;)

I wish there is an interpretter who could guide us is this forum.

The rule does not state direction ie <B>on a drive to the basket</B>. The rule states :

A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulder past the defensive player." Nothing about direction or PATH or any other words

Also once as Situation 9.10.1.C says once LGP has been established, movemnet does not matter, so the count starts the second offensive is facing defender who has his/her 2 feet planted, ans is within the 6 foot circle. They could dance and go any direction the count continues as long as the offensive player and defender remain with 6 feet and the LGP requirement spelt out in 9.10.1C has been initially obtained. (will not talk about defender 2 taking over)

Please see previous thread

No where does it explicitly state that LGP is required to start closely guarded. I have to ask, would you start counting in Camron's play?:

Well, crap, you're right - there goes one of my arguments. Maybe I should just stay out of this. Well, ok, maybe not. :)

Does this section then provide the basis for not counting in the OP? Since the defender trailed the dribbler, was the dribbler's head and shoulders past the defender, and thus the count ends?

Well, I think "on a drive to the basket" is clearly the intent of the rule, otherwise all a dribbler would have to do to end the count would be start heading towards the division line.

If I'm defending a dribbler, and he's heading towards a sideline or the division line, I'm likely to let him and just shadow him that direction.

And if they manage to get more than 6 feet away from the defender, they would be successful in stopping the count.

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).

How do you define getting the head/shoulder past the defender then? Your interpratation breaks down with this citation. Path is implied otherwise there would be no point to the rule...."past the defensive player" relative to what?
Except that the rule you just cited says that the count shall stop....and it doesn't say anything about losing LGP.

While that may be the primary intent, I don't think it is the only intent.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

there wasn't nearly enough name calling here

I'll agree there are other situations, but I think the large majority of them involve at least advancing the ball towards the basket.

:D

I feel better now.

I guess I could yell a bit and call you some names, if that would help you feel like it's the good old days. ;)

The notion of what "in the path" really means is problematic. We've debated it ad nauseum in the past. Some hold it means between the offensive player and the basket. Some hold that it is relative to the direction the offensive player is moving. Thus far the NFHS (also AFAIK the NCAA, NBA, nor FIBA) has not felt the need to further define it. That's probably okay. In practice it turns out to be more of an "I know it when I see it" thing. We pretty readily recognize situations where we should have a count. (Although it appears there may be some regional variance in how we apply closely guarded to post play)

But what would the summer lull be without discussions like this. ;)

For discussion purposes, I'm liking Snaq's definition: "I think the path can be defined one of two ways: the general direction between the player and where he could reasonably be expected to want the ball, and the direction he is obviously moving."

Generally if the offense is trying to advance the ball, dribbling east-west is only a tactic to shift the defense and locate or create an opening to advance the ball. But good defense dictates that the guard remain between the dribbler and the basket, otherwise the dribbler may find a lane for a layup. Since an uncontested layup is the highest percentage shot, you have to consider the direct line from the dribbler to the basket the "path" he would most like to take. Depending on what the offense is trying to do, there are other "path"s that could/should legitimately be defended too. OTOH, there are places that it makes no sense for the defender to be, even though the supposed guard is within six feet. Generally speaking, behind the dribbler is one of those places.

As a hueristic, I think you can pretty reliably ask yourself, "Is the defender really guarding the offensive player?" If so, then he most likely is using his position on the floor to hinder or disrupt what the offensive player would like to do, and is therefore in the offensive player's path.

As for "head and shoulders," the rule makes no mention of "on a drive to the basket". From NFHS 4-10: "A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player." However, a drive to the basket is when we normally apply this rule. And it certainly implies a much more precise spatial relationship between the dribbler and defender than merely "in the path".

You may be right about why the "in the path" language was added. I wasn't yet reffing when the closely guarded rule was added. I'm only passingly familiar with the "lack of action" rule that it replaced. I do know that it required the offense to move the ball toward the basket (or at least accross the 28 foot marks) under certain conditions. But, as with all "policy decisions" there are intended and unintended consequences.

The intended ones, obviously, have to do with forcing the offense to act, keeping the game from getting boring, but more importantly maintaining the balance between offense and defense by ensuring the defense has the opportunity to play defense. I think it's worked pretty well. If the offense is stalling, and the defense wants to force the issue, all they have to do is come out and "get a count." Pretty universally the offense will begin to move the ball in some fashion, and the defense has an opportunity.

The unintended consequences, well they're not so bad. As you mentioned, what if the post player dribbles out and the defender follows. The count on this play...well, I'm not sure the rules committee exactly went looking for that. After all, a player dribbling the ball within the arc already gives the defense the opportunity to play D. But, by rule, we have a count. Such is life. And hey, the fact that there is a rule that is regularly enforced just encourages a style of play that continually moves the ball and forces the action.

Overall, I think you can't go too far wrong if you consider the purpose of the closely guarded rule when you're making decisions about its application. I'm not suggesting we ever ignore the rule, only that it be applied most rigorously when its intent is most imperative. If the offense is moving the ball and forcing the action, we should be slow to start a count. If the offense is doing something a little different, like running out the clock at the end of the game, as long as the defense still has the opportunity to play defense (and they want to), the intent of the rule is being met and we should be reluctant to begin a count. When the offense is withholding the ball from play, denying the defense a chance to obtain the ball by simply not playing basketball, that's when the closely guarded rule is a great tool to get the offense back to playing the game.

Those who suggest that we're penalizing the defense by not starting an immediate count...who suggest a five second count is the defense's "reward" for playing good defense...well, I disagree. The intent of the rule is not to "give" the defense anything except the opportunity to play defense, to obtain the ball through their own efforts. Good defense is its own reward.

As always, my just $0.02

Hey, even with the down economy, I'd say that was worth more than $0.02...maybe as much as $0.04. :p

Nicely said.

As I am the one who brought the whole "reward" concept into this discussion, I'll admit it's a poor choice of words. I will alter it, then.

Failure to properly apply the closely guarded rule leads to players playing tighter and tighter defense, which leads to rough play. If a defender thinks he's getting the count, he's less likely to get stupid and start slapping at the ball. Well, not all, as we've all had to call a foul on the defense just as our count was hitting 4 and the offensive player looked completely trapped.

Now, this has nothing to do, really, with the OP.

As I said before NO count in Camron situation since they did not face each other. Sitiation 9.10.1C quite clearly says when a count has to be started. The "closely guarded" count rule is in Rule 9 not rule 4.10.

As you know the interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committee and are "OFFICIAL"

Therefore please read situation 9.10.1c when a count should start and explain to me how camrons example fits is.

becasue something is obvious to some, it might not be in the rule book :)

Now to anwer the direction question

A1 defender is facing his/her FC and has both feet on court standing there. B1 comes along and faces A1 torso (LGP). B1 moves 45 % from A1 into the 6 foot radius. Count starts. A1 runs straight. B1 passes header and shoulder of A1. Count stops so direction ha NO bearing for a count.

now for Cameron


Please read rule 9.10.1b The situation you site (9.10.1D) is specific for that rule We are discussing 9.10.1A... Good try :)

Like Camron says, it says what is sufficient, but not what is required. The difference is key.

Dragging the pivot foot is sufficient for a travel call, but it is not required.

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.

.....

Note that 9.10.1B says "In the situation outlined..." That expressly means the comments that follow are targeted at that very situation and are not intended to establish a general requirement.

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.

but this is an other discussion. for a new thread. :D
Since I could ask what about momentum... joking.... an other thread perhaps :)

It's analogy to illustrate the difference between what is sufficient and what is required.

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
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?

Ok let me ask you this then, when player A1 jumps in the air and catches the ball in the air and lands on one foot (the other has not touched the floor), has a pivot foot been established?

Unfortunately sufficiency is not always clear.
The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation

This is really a subject for an other thread

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It's not a subject for another thread, because it's clearly to demonstrate the logic of differentiating between what is sufficient and what is required.

The answer to your first question is "maybe." If the player stops moving upon that landing, then yes, the pivot has been established. If he jumps off that foot and lands on both feet simultaneously, then neither foot is the pivot.

My point was a player may be called for traveling by merely dragging his pivot foot (that is sufficient), but he may also be called for traveling even when his pivot foot doesn't drag (such as the example of when there is no pivot foot established) and he breaks other rules of movement.

To claim, "The rules are. if we keep them simple without our interpretation" while at the same time making an inference from case plays is pretty inconsistent. You're making an interpretation.

The case plays are supplements to the rules, not rules themselves. The fact remains that neither the rules nor the case plays state LGP is "required" for CG to be in play. You're infering it based on a case play that says CG should be started since LGP was established. There is no case play or rule that says CG should not be started because LGP wasn't established.

ILMalti,

Your argument seems to hinge on a single case. Yes, cases are official and have the force of rule to them. But they are not the rules; they are some specific examples of how to apply the rules. It is usually a mistake to try to derive the actual rule from a single case. So let's look at closely guarding in more depth, starting with the actual rules.

NFHS 4-10 - A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his/her team’s frontcourt, is continuously guarded by any opponent who is within six feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball. The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler. A closely guarded count shall be terminated when the offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past the defensive player.

What are the requirements?

1. A player in control of the ball
2. In his/her team's front court
3. Continuously guarded by any opponent
4. Who is within six feet of the player who is holding or dribbling the ball.

What is up for discussion is what it means to be "guarded". But please note that it says only "guarded". It says nothing about Legal Guarding Position.

What is guarding?

NFHS 4-32-1 - 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....

That is the fundamental definition of guarding. Not LGP, just guarding.

What are the requirements?

1. Placing the body - The implication here is a location on court (the distinction between a location on the court and how the guard's body is arrayed is central to your case)
2. In the path - The rule does not define it, but it does require it
3. Of an offensive opponent - restricts guarding to an activity the defense performs against its opponent
4. No minimum distance required between the guard and opponent - The guard and opponent could be 96 feet apart
5. The maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded - Short of making contact, the only distance of significance in guarding is the 6 feet required for a closely guarding.

Those are the requirements for closely guarding. Again, note that there is no mention of LGP. If I am in my opponents path, I am guarding him. If I am within six feet of him, I am closely guarding him. It's that simple.

Now, rule 4 is fundamental to most other rules in the rules book. It is common for a definition to contain multiple facets. Some will relate to one rule and some to a another rule. The guarding definition is that way.

Article 1 defines guarding, and establishes that when done from within six feet it is closely guarding. Articles 2 and 3 build on that and define LGP, how it's obtained, and what additional rights it grants to the guard. Articles 4 and 5 set specific time and distance requirements for guarding moving/stationary opponents with/without the ball. Articles 2-5 build on the definition of guarding, but they don't change it's relationship to closely guarding in any way. Whether you have LGP or not, whether you are guarding a moving or stationary opponent, you are still guarding. And if you are within six feet you are closely guarding.

That understanding is fundamental to understanding the cases. Let's look at your favorite:

9.10.1 SITUATION C: Team A has the ball in its own frontcourt. B1 stands within 6 feet and facing A1 while A1 is holding the ball near the division line. RULING: In five seconds this would be a violation. In the situation 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.

B1 is clearly guarding A1 (but how we know that really muddies the water). That he's within six feet means B1 is also closely guarding A1. That he is standing (implying two feet on the floor) facing A1 clearly bestows the additional status of LGP. Since the opponent has the ball, and is stationary, no time or distance is required. That's a lot of info we're given, and only some of it is relevant.

But why is B1 standing there, facing A1? It has nothing to do with LGP, and a little to do with guarding. The 9.1.x cases address rule 9-1, the closely guarded violation. And this particular case is even narrower than that.

The specific situation being addressed is easily deduced from the ruling. The narration looks right past the basic requirements of guarding and distance to address a single question, "Must the guard do anything else to be closely guarding?" The answer is, no. "No other specific requirement is in effect. The amount of movement or the actual body position of the player is irrelevant."

You see, there exists a widespread (mis)interpretation that the defender must be "actively guarding" or in a "guarding stance" or "guarding posture" or some such nonsense to "earn" a closely guarded count. The classic example has the ball handler standing near the division line, holding the ball. The defender come out within six feet to get a count. But both the ball handler and the guard are just standing there. Some referees will not give the defender a count.

The point of the case is that the defender can just stand there and get a count. All that is required is for the guard to have "assumed a guarding position". This guarding position is a place on the floor in the opponent's path, and within six feet. It is not, as some believe, a particular stance. Not even the "stance" required to attain LGP.

The phrase "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" in the ruling is obviously tripping you up. I can see why. If you're looking to derive the definition of closely guarded, it surely reads like those are requirements. But don't be mislead. This is not a case about the definition of guarding or LGP. It is a case about whether you can just stand there with "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" and get a count.

The answer is yes. You can just stand there with "both feet on the court, facing the opponent" and get a count.

But it's not the only way to get a count.

Forget the $0.04 I mentioned earlier, that was worth far more...maybe even an entire buck.:p

2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules
POINTS OF EMPHASIS
1. 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 four areas are to be emphasized:
A. When to start. A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his or her team's front court, is guarded by an opponent who is within six feet of that player who is holding or dribbling the ball. It should also be emphasized that 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 front court. 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 violating.
B. When to stop. A closely-guarded count ends when no defensive player is within six feet. The count

http://www.laparks.org/dos/sports/yo...tsofemph05.pdf
More sites are coming

Here it is Finaly we can put this topic to rest
http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmana...f_Emphasis.pdf
I cannot include all the text too long so go to the nfhs site above if you want to read further I assume we cannot go against what the NFHS says can we?

I was going to include all the POE but it is too long for the forum, so I included the link and the important stuff :) in green and the very very important stuff in red.:D

I thus rest my case. I do not know how clearer you need this to be. Please only start a CG count as described. It is the rule.

I also highlighted stuff in blue since it applies to comments in this thread

NFHS BASKETBALL
2009-10 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
1. TRAVELING. ....
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 violating.
B. Measuring 6 feet. Officials must define and have a clear image of the 6-foot guarding distance necessary. Too frequently, officials require the defensive player to be within 3 to 4 feet prior to the count being initiated. Good visual examples of this distance can be found on the court as: the distance between the free-throw line and the top of the semi-circle; from the division line to the
jump circle; two adjacent marked lane spaces. Failure to properly judge the 6-foot distance and require the defender to be within 3 or 4 feet of the dribbler before beginning the count puts the defensive player in an unfair position.
C. Ending the count. A closely-guarded count ends when no defensive player is within 6 feet. The count also stops when a closely guarded player: completes a dribble anywhere in the team’s own frontcourt; starts a dribble in the team’s own frontcourt and ends it anywhere in the frontcourt (a new five-second count will start if the player holds the ball); loses possession of the ball for any reason in the team’s own frontcourt; or has his or her dribble interrupted. If a closely-guarded player beats the defender(s) by getting head and shoulders past the defensive player, the count has ended.
D. Multiple defenders. The count should continue even if there is a defensive switch, provided the 6-foot distance is maintained. There is no requirement for the defensive player to remain the same during the count as long as the offensive player is closely guarded throughout.
E. Counting mechanics. The official begins a visible count when the 6-foot distance is established and must switch arms when going directly from one counting situation to another.
3. THREE-SECONDS. ....

4. BLOCK/CHARGE....

Well I guess you are "right" even though neither the casebook nor rulebook actually directly support that ruling. :rolleyes:

Recent editions of the rules committee have been notorious about making rulings/interpretations that have no actual basis in the rulebook (i.e., backcourt situation from a couple seasons ago). Call it an editorial change if they must, but the wording for the closely guarded rule should, if that is the desired interpretation, say that LGP is required....not just that the player be guarding and within 6'. One shouldn't have to dig up 5 year old POE's to find it.

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! :D

Crappy Beer night?

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 :)

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.