The Official Forum - View Single Post

blindzebra · #41 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 08, 2004, 12:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am joining this thread late in the game but I have the urge to throw my two cents into the discussion. Everything that I am writing applies equally to both NFHS and NCAA Mens and Womens, as well as FIBA rules.

First: The situation where three or four players from Team A are passing the ball among themselves while standing shoulder-to-shoulder, parallel to a boundary line, facing the boundary line, and within three feet of the boundary line is not even similar to the original play being discussed in this thread. This type of screening play does not have anything to do with the definitions of screening and obtaining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA and FIBA) a legal guarding position found in Rule 4.

Second: The fact that the NCAA and FIBA rules require the same defender to closely guard the offensive player with the ball for the violation occur while the NFHS does not does not change the ruling for the play being discussed in the original post.

Third: I would like to suggest to the officials that are of the opinion that the official was correct in the original play that they reread the definition of obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position. One will find that the definition of closely guarded will not be found within the definition of guarding. Closely guarded has its own section in Rule 4 and is intended to allow a defensive player to cause an offensive player who has control of a live ball to commit a floor violation. More importantly, a closely guarded situation cannot occur unless a defensive player first has obtained/established a legal guarding position and must maintain that legal guarding position.

Lets look at two plays:

Play 1: Team A as the ball for a throw-in on the end line in its backcourt. A1 has possession of the ball. A2 is standing in bounds directly under Team Bs (NFHS/NCAA)/Team As (FIBA) basket waiting to receive the inbounds pass from A1. B2 is standing at the top of the key in Team As front court facing A1. A2 then receives the inbounds pass from A1. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2? Has B2 created a closely guarded situation to be in effect? Yes; and no.

Play 2: Same situation as in Play 1 but A3 is standing in between A2 and B2. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2? Has B2 created a closely guarded situation to be in effect? No; and no.

Play 2 shows us that B2 has not obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2 because of the screen by A3. Stat Man in his post of Nov. 07th at 12:22pm gives a very good analysis of how an official should be looking at this play. A1 has control of a live ball inbounds and is being closely guarded by B2. A2 then comes between A1 and B1. A2 has now set a screen for A1; therefore, by definition, B2 is no longer guarding A1.

Now I know I'm right.

Want to give a rule for what you are saying,i.e you can't have LGP or closely guarded through a screen?

We are juggling path, guarded, LGP, and within 6 feet here and not ONE word of a single player screen. There is nothing in guarding or establishing LGP definitions about losing either during a screen.

Rule book, case book, and this year's POE nothing, so justify your interpretation with a rule.

BZ:

What is the a screen? By definition, a screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Now lets look, once again, at the original play. A1 has player control of the ball. A1 is closely guarded by B1. Then A2 comes between A1 and B1. A2 has set a screen. When A2 sets his screen between A1 and B1, B1 can no longer guard A1 according to the definition of guarding. Remember what the definition of guarding states: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. The two plays I gave as examples illustrate even further why B1 is no long considered guarding A1 when A2 sets his screen between A1 and B1.

MTD, Sr.

I've debated this path definition and how it applies to closely guarded until I was blue in the face. Define path. It's not there, it's left to interpretation. It was argued before that if A1 turns away from B1 the count ends unless B1 runs around A1 and defends the division line. That is no different than saying a screen ends it.

Again there is no language within the rules that state a screen ends guarding, LGP, or closely guarded. The FED had 3 chances to spell it out this year and did not.