Closely Guarded signal discussion

[jritchie]

We had this discussion in our meeting the other night, just wondering how everyone else uses the signal. Here are the two conversations that were going on in our meeting.
Which if either is the correct way to use the signal?

First group says, if a defensive player is not 6 ft or closer to the defender playing defense you should give the "Not closely guarded signal" I guess to let everyone know that you are on top of it and they are not close enough for a count. I feel this is just extra work for us and not necessary.

Group two(my group), thinks that the "NCGS" should only be used AFTER you have started a count and then the defense is no longer within the 6 ft and the count is broken. So you give the signal to show it's been broken and that you have maybe started over if they get back into that 6 ft area right after they broke the count for a split second like point guards like to do.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jritchie

We had this discussion in our meeting the other night, just wondering how everyone else uses the signal. Here are the two conversations that were going on in our meeting.
Which if either is the correct way to use the signal?

First group says, if a defensive player is not 6 ft or closer to the defender playing defense you should give the "Not closely guarded signal" I guess to let everyone know that you are on top of it and they are not close enough for a count. I feel this is just extra work for us and not necessary.

Group two(my group), thinks that the "NCGS" should only be used AFTER you have started a count and then the defense is no longer within the 6 ft and the count is broken. So you give the signal to show it's been broken and that you have maybe started over if they get back into that 6 ft area right after they broke the count for a split second like point guards like to do.

I agree with the first group.

If the "contact" has been broken, switch hands to in dicate a new count.

[jritchie]

So if the defense is close but not close enough are you going to hold out your hands every few seconds to show everyone there is no need for a count?

[JRutledge]

The signal is for clarification purposes, that is all. You only should do it when someone thinks they are close enough, but you judge them not to be. Usually only used if the player is just standing there or the coach is calling for a count. Usually it is used outside the 3 point line and near the division line.

Peace

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with the first group.

If the "contact" has been broken, switch hands to in dictate a new count.

Originally Posted by jritchie

So if the defense is close but not close enough are you going to hold out your hands every few seconds to show everyone there is no need for a count?

I agree with Bob (and the first group) on this one.

However, I don't give the signal every few seconds at you suggest jritchie. I will give it once (per situation) to indicate that the player is not closely guarded. After that, they can figure it out as why I'm not counting. I don't use it too often though. Mostly I use it when the defense is looking over at me to see if they are close enough.

If the count is broke and restarted, I just use the other hand to start a new count.

-Josh

[Back In The Saddle]

I'm not really in either camp. My take...

The NCGS is a communication tool whose best use is clarification. Like most other communication in our game, it is best used sparingly. There are two situations I commonly find it useful.

1. I know the defender and/or coach is looking for a count, but it isn't there. I will bust out this signal to stop them wondering whether I'm paying attention. Not only does it make my life easier, but it gives the defender definitive information about why I don't have a count.

2. Sometimes I'll have a count, but the distance is "only just" six feet. It doesn't take much movement by either player to break distance. So if the ball handler breaks distance, and the guard quickly reestablishes it, I'll use this signal to clearly communicate that.

Neither situation happens very often, so I don't use the signal very often. Many games I never use it at all.

I like the NCGS. For years we argued that everyone should know "if I'm not counting, it's not six feet" and "if I switch hands, it's a new count". But if those arguments were really true, why did we ever have to make them?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I like the NCGS. For years we argued that everyone should know "if I'm not counting, it's not six feet" and "if I switch hands, it's a new count". But if those arguments were really true, why did we ever have to make them?

Out of frustration that the people to whom we signaled didn't know the rules well enough to understand that we didn't have the NCGS?

[BillyMac]

We've been doing the not closely guarded signal as a Connecticut (a 100% IAABO state) only mechanic here for years. Now it appears as an optional signal in the international IAABO handbook.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We've been doing the not closely guarded signal as a Connecticut (a 100% IAABO state) only mechanic here for years. Now it appears as an optional signal in the international IAABO handbook.

Every once in a while a useful tool wins out over dogmatic insistence that we don't need it. Remember when they added the kick signal? Until they announced its addition, I wasn't even aware that I wasn't supposed to be using it.