View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 07, 2009, 03:04pm
todd66 todd66 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 92
screening teammates

While waiting to work the boys varsity game, we were watching the girls varsity game. This play occurred. The offense team dribbled the ball to the corner where the endline and sideline intersect in the frontcourt on the side opposite the table. The dribbler stops in the corner. One teammate stands right next to her and the other three teammates form a wall be standing shoulder to shoulder with each other. The 3 person screen has isolated the other 2 offensive palyers from the defense. The defense can not go through the screen without displacing a screener. The defense also, by rule, can not leave the playing floor to get to the ball. The original dribbler and the teammate next to her keep handing the ball to each other about every two seconds. After about three passes, the covering official call a 5 second closely guarded violation. The coach of the violating team questioned the official how it could be 5 seconds if his player never had the ball more than 2 or 3 seconds. The official said it was covered in the case book on page 74 concerning screening teammates. It reads as follows:

9.10.1 SITUATION D: Team A, while in possession of the ball in its frontcourt:
(a) positions four players parallel with the sideline and they pass the ball from one to another with their arms reaching beyond the sideline plane; or (b) has four teammates surround dribbler A1. In both (a) and (b), the opponents are unable to get close to the ball. RULING: This is considered to be a closely-guarded situation and a violation in five seconds in both (a) and (b), if any B player is within 6 feet of the ball or within 6 feet of the screening teammates and is attempting to gain control of the ball. Preventing opponents from getting to the ball by using screening teammates becomes a violation in five seconds if the opponents are attempting to gain control.

He cited that situation (b) was why he ruled the violation.

Your opinion as to whether this was a proper application of the case play to the play on the floor would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote