6 ft is not a great distance. Spread your arms. That is 6 feet unless you are Wilt's offspring. No need to change that unless there is a shot clock.

Big difference between "great distance" and "closely guarded". If you are holding the ball with your toes on the top of the circle and the defender is standing with a toe over the free throw line, I still maintain that this is NOT being closely guarded.

Similar to several other rules that do not get tightly called by the book due to the penalty involved -- such as the technical foul for not re-entering the court on a throw-in, I have seen numerous colleagues NOT start a closely guarded count until the defender gets within 3 to 4 feet. Hence, the reason it is a point of emphasis. I maintain, it would be easier to get consistency by going to a three to four foot rule.

We also don't always start a 3 second count the instant a player touches the lane line - should we change this to a 1.5 second count?

Coach, I don't see how changing it to 3 or 4 feet would increase consistency. It just gives us a different distance to interpret.

6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.

The not entering after a throw-in was actually on the NFHS survey this past spring. Hopefully, they do change the penalty. They did not a few years back because of the penalty for other delays returning to the court, however, that could be covered as an exception or note and leave the T penalty in place for not coming back on the floor after a time-out for example.

I agree with this.

I still work a fair amount of 2-person. Last night the winning team went into a four corner with about 3 minutes left, up 20. The defense stayed with the ball handler and I worked harder as the trail in those next two minutes than I did all night. I was frequently in the backcourt getting angles, across the court getting angles, down to the free throw line getting angles. Counting pretty much the entire time.

It drives me crazy watching officials not work closely guarded situations well when they are on ball. Getting good angles and properly counting are part of the gig.

Since many of us follow the rule as written, we should simply change to the new rule while the non-conformers at 6 feet would likely conform at 4 feet. This is where the increase in consistency would originate as it is currently 6 feet for some and 3 to 4 feet for others.

If it stays at 6 feet, I would prefer to change the wording to "guarded" count because it is certainly not "closely guarded" at that distance -- especially for the jr. high players and below.

You are agreeing with my point just coming to a different conclusion. Due to the fact that MANY OFFICIALS do NOT consider "closely guarded" to be at 6 feet, they DO NOT start their count. Then, the next game, we have an official who calls it at 6 feet and "bang" we have inconsistency.

I am one who calls it as the rule states, but DISAGREE with the rule as a matter of logic and experience. MANY disagree with the rule and therefore call it as they (and I) would prefer to see it -- at four feet or being "close" to the ballhandler. This leads to more inconsistencies than we should have.

In our BV game the other night, my partners and I were starting the count (quite visibly, might I add) when appropriate by rule. A coach just about jumped out of his skin when one of my partners called a 5-count on his point guard. I was the lead and did not see that action out top, but the coach did say "well that certainly wasn't closely guarded last Saturday night."

By the way, I would advocate not charging a T for the violating the time out rule as well -- simply allowing them to play with four entil the next substitution opportunity. Playing short should be penalty enough. Of course, ENTERING the court during play (without being beckoned) would still constitute a T as it is now.

Just a thought, but regarding the 6' "closely"-guarded count:

Instead of changing the rules to conform to officials who do not follow them, how about changing the officials to conform to the rules?

We all have opinions about what rules are good, and what needs to be changed. But there is no way I would bring those personal opinions with me out on the floor - the current rules, as written, should be enforced at all times. For those officials that think their way of enforcing the rules is better than what's written should be publicly flogged.

That's what I would do if I was king. (Oh, that and include a cheerleading crew just for the officials.)

This is brilliant! I also need a massage between games...

Now here's a good reason NOT to go to 2 halves. Heck - a massage between quarters AND between games! :D

Your masseuse is Olga.

Mine is Candi.

(Remember, I'm still king, for now.)

At least he didn't assign you Vladimir! ;)

Olga and Vladimir are siblings. It's tough to tell them apart sometimes.

Just don't tell them you can't tell them apart. :eek:

What does anyone think about the 10 sec count for the free thrower?