Closely Guarded Post Player

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

according to Fed. mechanics, the L does not show a visible count in these situations, even though the players are entirely within the L's area of coverage.

Where is this documented?

[rlarry]

I've been wrong before, but the only count by anyone that isn't visible is the 3 second count

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Where is this documented?

I believe the issue was how the Fed. Mechanics Manual was written. I don't have it in front of me, but I think somewhere in there it says the T and/or C are responsible for the 5-second closely-guarded counts, which many have taken to imply the L would then never have that count.

Again, I don't agree with that philosophy, but when in Rome...

[Fritz]

I agree that the strict language of the rule would indicate that the CG count should apply, but like the earlier comments, I have never seen anyone give a visible count in that instance. And though it isn't like the post player holds the ball or dribbles that long without doing something, it does happen. With no count begin given during this, it would be interesting to suddenly come up calling the violation and have to explain why you weren't signalling.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I agree that the strict language of the rule would indicate that the CG count should apply, but like the earlier comments, I have never seen anyone give a visible count in that instance. And though it isn't like the post player holds the ball or dribbles that long without doing something, it does happen. With no count begin given during this, it would be interesting to suddenly come up calling the violation and have to explain why you weren't signalling.

This reasoning is much different than your OP.

[ODJ]

I would think the C would have a count, but since most often this post-up is in the lane, 3 secs. come before 5.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ODJ

I would think the C would have a count, but since most often this post-up is in the lane, 3 secs. come before 5.

So we've got the L looking for a foul, the C looking for a 5 second count and the T looking for traveling...all on the same post up? Yikes!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So we've got the L looking for a foul, the C looking for a 5 second count and the T looking for traveling...all on the same post up? Yikes!

Can you imagine the C coming across the court for a 5 second call on a post player standing three feet from the L? Talk about fireworks.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This reasoning is much different than your OP.

yeah, I didn't explain myself very well. I agree with what the rule language says but since I have never seen it called by any of the veteran officials I've worked with or watched, I figured there must be a reason. When I have asked, they always responded that the interpretation was it only applied to face-to-face guarding (hence the head/shoulders comment).

Enjoying all the subsequent comments. But could see an interesting scenario crop up - - - L starts giving the 5-second visible count while the post player is actually in the lane trying to decide what to do (don't the mechanics say we supposed to start our visible count immediately?) and then coaches/fans/players think we are now doing a visible 3-second count.............