Closely Guarded ?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by blindzebra

How can you be guarding him if he's enclosed by teammates?

You can't, so that situation is put in to counter for the fact that a player cannot force his/her way through two opponents standing within 3 feet of each other. If the five second count weren't applicable in this case, then a team trying to stall could just have their dribbler stand next to the sideline, and have the 4 other players stand around him.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

You can't, so that situation is put in to counter for the fact that a player cannot force his/her way through two opponents standing within 3 feet of each other. If the five second count weren't applicable in this case, then a team trying to stall could just have their dribbler stand next to the sideline, and have the 4 other players stand around him.

If you read that section it says control the ball for 5 seconds behind this wall of teammates. The difference between this situation and a normal screen is A1 has 5 seconds TOTAL behind that screen for a violation. Under a normal screen they may hold, dribble, hold for 12 seconds.

Of course this language, like most of the language for closley guarded, is up for interpretation, but no where does it say in the rule book, case book, or the hand out POE that a count ends during a screen.

[Stat-Man]

I'm not sure if it will help any, but I was thinking of the following:

If the situation was slightly different, say B1 is screened by A2 and A1 goes past the screen, we no longer have a closely guarded situation.

But returning to the case at hand, if A2 is about to set screen and B1 avoids it, they have one of two options:
* fight over it and remain in front of A1,
* go behind the screen and be in front of A2 while A1 is behind A2.

In the first one, the minimum distance is still maintained, so I'd undoubtly expect the count to continue.

In the second, the defense is taking the easy way out by going behind the screen and is no longer actively guarding A1. I'd be inclined to stop the count because the defense is not actively guarding the ball and because it doesn't seem right to reward defense that is retreating from the ball handler.

I'm not going to claim this agrees with the letter of the rules in NFHS, but it's just my thoughts on the subject at hand.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Stat-Man
I'm not sure if it will help any, but I was thinking of the following:

If the situation was slightly different, say B1 is screened by A2 and A1 goes past the screen, we no longer have a closely guarded situation.

But returning to the case at hand, if A2 is about to set screen and B1 avoids it, they have one of two options:
* fight over it and remain in front of A1,
* go behind the screen and be in front of A2 while A1 is behind A2.

In the first one, the minimum distance is still maintained, so I'd undoubtly expect the count to continue.

In the second, the defense is taking the easy way out by going behind the screen and is no longer actively guarding A1. I'd be inclined to stop the count because the defense is not actively guarding the ball and because it doesn't seem right to reward defense that is retreating from the ball handler.

I'm not going to claim this agrees with the letter of the rules in NFHS, but it's just my thoughts on the subject at hand.

Active is TRYING to get past the screen. It does not matter which route you take you are still attempting to guard A1.

In fact B1 is more likely to be behind A1 if he goes over the screen, thus killing the count.

[Edited by blindzebra on Nov 7th, 2004 at 12:41 PM]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Stat-Man
I'm not sure if it will help any, but I was thinking of the following:

If the situation was slightly different, say B1 is screened by A2 and A1 goes past the screen, we no longer have a closely guarded situation.

But returning to the case at hand, if A2 is about to set screen and B1 avoids it, they have one of two options:
* fight over it and remain in front of A1,
* go behind the screen and be in front of A2 while A1 is behind A2.

In the first one, the minimum distance is still maintained, so I'd undoubtly expect the count to continue.

In the second, the defense is taking the easy way out by going behind the screen and is no longer actively guarding A1. I'd be inclined to stop the count because the defense is not actively guarding the ball and because it doesn't seem right to reward defense that is retreating from the ball handler.

I'm not going to claim this agrees with the letter of the rules in NFHS, but it's just my thoughts on the subject at hand.

That screen would have to have a enormous girth to automatically force B1 six feet away from A1. If so, then I'd agree that B1 could be closely guarding. However, if B1 is more typical, it's not an automatic termination of the count.

Guarding (above or under the screen). Less than 6 feet. Count continues.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
That screen would have to have a enormous girth to automatically force B1 six feet away from A1. If so, then I'd agree that B1 could be closely guarding. However, if B1 is more typical, it's not an automatic termination of the count.

Guarding (above or under the screen). Less than 6 feet. Count continues.

The plays I've seen have not discussed / considered the momentary nature of a defensive player going under a screen.

The plays I've seen have had A1, A2 and B1 all in (nearly) a line and reasonably stationary -- no count is started here (in NCAA ball, at least).

[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 MenÂ’s and WomenÂ’s, 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 to 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.


LetÂ’s 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 BÂ’s (NFHS/NCAA)/Team AÂ’s (FIBA) basket waiting to receive the inbounds pass from A1. B2 is standing at the top of the key in Team AÂ’s 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.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Nov 8th, 2004 at 08:44 AM]

[blindzebra]

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 MenÂ’s and WomenÂ’s, 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.


LetÂ’s 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 BÂ’s (NFHS/NCAA)/Team AÂ’s (FIBA) basket waiting to receive the inbounds pass from A1. B2 is standing at the top of the key in Team AÂ’s 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

[BktBallRef]

You can't tell him anything, Mark. Bob Jenkins and I have been trying to tell him the same thing for the past week. He just isn't interested in reading the rule and then properly interpreting it.

Fortunately, the NCAA is very clear on this. The NF does not offer a case play but this is not listed as a difference in NCAA and NFHS rules, of which I have an entire book of.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
You can't tell him anything, Mark. Bob Jenkins and I have been trying to tell him the same thing for the past week. He just isn't interested in reading the rule and then properly interpreting it.

Fortunately, the NCAA is very clear on this. The NF does not offer a case play but this is not listed as a difference in NCAA and NFHS rules, of which I have an entire book of.

How about telling me rule support for your OPINION?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

How about telling me rule support for your OPINION?

BZ:

We have given you rules references. Its called the definitions of guarding, screening, and closely guarded, which you will find in Rule 4. You can also read about the closely guarded violation in Rule 9. From there you can go to the Casebook and read about these situation is the appropriate sections. The Illustrated Rules Book has a very good picture showing a violation where teammates are screening the ball, not to be confused with a player setting a screen, from a defender along a boundary line. Also re-read the two plays I gave in my original post.

Let me add more plays to this thread:

Play 3: A1 is in his front court and holding a live ball. B1 has obtained/established a legal guarding postion against A1. When B1 first obtained/established his legal guarding position against A1 he was twelve feet away from A1. B1 has not move from his spot on the court, when B2 steps between B1 and A1 at a spot eight feet from A1. B2 has both feet on the floor and is facing A1. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1? YES.

Play 4: Referring to Play 3, when B2 obtained/established his legal guarding position against A1, is B1 still considered to be guarding A1? NO.

Play 5: Referring to Play 3, instead of taking the position described in this play, B2 takes a position besides B1 and has both feet on the floor and is facing A1. Has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1? Yes. Follow up questioin: Are both B1 and B2 in legal guarding positions against A1? YES.

Play 6: In Plays 3, 4, and 5, has B1 or B2 caused a closely guarded situation to occur? NO.

Play 7: Referring to Play 1, after B2 obtains a legal guarding position against A1, he then moves to within five feet of A1. Does this cause a closely guarded situation to occur? YES.

Lets go back to my Play 2:

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. Follow-up question: Since B2 has not obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2, has B2 obtained/established a legal guarding position against any player on Team A? And if so, who? The answers are YES, and B2 has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A3 but not against A2.

The rules are pretty clear, just look at the defintions of guarding and screening.

MTD, Sr.

[carldog]

I'm trying my best to follow this thread...thinking about my point guard, A1, trying to kill some time off the clock late in the game, with a bigger, faster, quicker B1 closely guarding him.

Maybe I'll have A2 set a screen for A1, and if B1 steps behind the screen instead of fighting over it, I'll have A1 pick up his dribble while directly behind the screening A2...staying up close and tight to A2.

(If) Five-second count stops......

When does it start again? Can I have my A1 just stand there behind a screening A2 and hold the ball for 30 seconds, pivoting now and then to prevent a held ball?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by carldog
When does it start again? Can I have my A1 just stand there behind a screening A2 and hold the ball for 30 seconds, pivoting now and then to prevent a held ball?

Sure you can. Problem is that the opponent who would nor mally be guarding the screener is going to come over, so the plan won't work. But yes, by rule the count would not start again until B1 is once again guarding A1.