NFHS closely guarded rule

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Can anyone answer my question here?

No, the count should be maintained.

The distance is measured North/South.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

You may want to re-check the ol' court diagram in any rule book. Or online. Or anywhere.

thanks for catching my egregious mistake
play on

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Considering the last part of this rule, having the head and shoulders past the defensive player, would the offensive player need to be on a path TOWARDS the basket? Would moving in a lateral direction be enough to have the count dropped, provided the dribbler is by the defender?

Originally Posted by letemplay

Can anyone answer my question here?

If A1 is moving laterally (parallel to division line) and the defender maintained a position that would put him in the path of A1 if A1 changed direction towards the endline then yes I would keep my count. If A1 has gotten far enough ahead that he could turn the corner and the defender would be trailing then I would stop my count.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

if a1 is moving laterally (parallel to division line) and the defender maintained a position that would put him in the path of a1 if a1 changed direction towards the endline then yes i would keep my count. If a1 has gotten far enough ahead that he could turn the corner and the defender would be trailing then i would stop my count.

+1

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by truerookie

No, the count should be maintained.

The distance is measured North/South.

Neither 4-10 nor 9-10, nor 9.10 make reference to directional orientation on the floor.
9.10.1(a) references the sideline, and (b) makes no reference to directional orientation.
Of course, the common desire of the offense is to advance the ball towards their basket. And, however rare, it is possible for a defender to be guarding within the 6-foot spec, as the dribbler moves across the court.
Also, in a trapping defensive mode, the defender(s) may be within the 6-foot spec but not on the side of the ballhandler that is closest to the offensive goal.
Please, help me out with your statement.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by tref

No





Yes

disagree with your yes answer on lateral guarding.

Edit: unless 'by' means past defender?

[tref]

Originally Posted by fullor30

disagree with your yes answer on lateral guarding.

Edit: unless 'by' means past defender?

I interpreted "by" as meaning head & shoulders past the defender.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Neither 4-10 nor 9-10, nor 9.10 make reference to directional orientation on the floor.
9.10.1(a) references the sideline, and (b) makes no reference to directional orientation.
Of course, the common desire of the offense is to advance the ball towards their basket. And, however rare, it is possible for a defender to be guarding within the 6-foot spec, as the dribbler moves across the court.
Also, in a trapping defensive mode, the defender(s) may be within the 6-foot spec but not on the side of the ballhandler that is closest to the offensive goal.
Please, help me out with your statement.

I interpret this as moving in attacking the basket to score. Thus, the N/S reference. If the ball handler is moving laterally and is not even attempting to attack the basket (turn the corner), I don't see a need to drop the count just because the ball handler has gotten head and shoulder past the defender.

[Adam]

Bottom line, I'm not dropping my count just because the dribbler retreats (thus making his head and shoulders "past" the defender). If a defender is staying between the dribbler and the basket while the dribbler goes sideways, it's going to seem as if the head and shoulders are past since the defender is maintaining an angle towards the hoop rather than directly in the dribbler's path. I'm keeping my count here, too.

[umpref19]

Coach Bill. Please next time you see this official please point out the rule 4-10 to him. Also please report him to his board because to me officials like this who don't know a basic rule should not be on the court refereeing. An official like this makes up stuff and I can only imagine what else he makes up when he referee's a game.

[umpref19]

Section 13. Closely Guarded
Art. 1. (Men) A player in control in the front court only while holding or
dribbling the ball is closely guarded when his opponent is in a guarding
stance at a distance not exceeding 6 feet. This distance shall be measured
from the forward foot or feet of the defender to the forward foot or feet of
the opponent.
Art. 2. (Women) A player in control anywhere on the playing court while
holding (not dribbling) the ball is closely guarded when her opponent is in
a guarding stance at a distance not exceeding 3 feet. This distance shall be
measured from the forward foot or feet of the defender to the forward foot
or feet of the opponent.
Art. 3. After the start of a five-second closely guarded count, in order for
a closely guarded violation to occur, there shall be continuous guarding by
the same opponent.
Art. 4. When a player is positioned between the player in control of the ball
and his or her opponent, who is within 6 feet (men) or 3 feet (women), a
closely guarded situation does not exist.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

thanks for catching my egregious mistake
play on

I just figured you played on a very small court.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by truerookie

No, the count should be maintained.

The distance is measured North/South.

Gotta a rule reference that says that?

Once the dribbler is head/shoulders by the defender and moving away, the count should stop, as he's no longer in his path. North/South has nothing to do with it.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by umpref19

Coach Bill. Please next time you see this official please point out the rule 4-10 to him. Also please report him to his board because to me officials like this who don't know a basic rule should not be on the court refereeing. An official like this makes up stuff and I can only imagine what else he makes up when he referee's a game.

This was in an AAU game. You get what you pay for - it's quite possible the official was just a kid working for extra zit cream money. It's never a good idea for a coach to whip out a rule book. And report him to his board? A little over the top...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This was in an AAU game. You get what you pay for - it's quite possible the official was just a kid working for extra zit cream money. It's never a good idea for a coach to whip out a rule book. And report him to his board? A little over the top...

Agreed on all counts.