What do you think:
NFHS rules
"A1 is holding the ball and is closely guarded by B1, but A-2 is standing between A-1 and B-1. Official after 5 seconds calls a 5 second closely guarded violation. Is the official correct"

I say that the official is correct. Some of the comments made in the NFHS casebook play 9.10.1 situation D are my reference.

No, the official is not correct. If A2 is between A1 and B1, then B1 is not guarding A1.

A2 is setting a screen, and that does not end the count.9-10-1-b. A player shall not while closely guarded: In his/her front court, control the ball for 5 seconds in an area enclosed by screening teammates.

I don't agree
 

Slam me if you want, but the reference to 10-1-b is for screening teamates surrounding the person with the ball keeping an opponent from getting to him or lining up close to the side line and passing the ball to each others outstreched arms over the out of bounds area.

Most people agree that this does not apply to someone moving around a screen and losing the direct contact with the ball handler. In this case, I believe that the closely guarded count ends. I have seen several posts that do not agree, but this was covered in camps this past summer by people that know the rules better than I and they all said it ends.

Re: I don't agree
 

There is no rules reference that says it stops the count, if B1 was guarding A1 and A2 sets a screen the count does not stop.

Just another example of a rule that needs clarifying.

I agree with BktBallRef and Damien. Not only is within 6 feet a criteria, but the player with the ball must be "continuously guarded" (4-10). If the defender is behind a screen, I have trouble visualizing the ball handler being "continuously guarded." Now, if there is a defender on the screener, and the defender pops out and immediately obtains a legal guarding position on the ball handler, I'd continue the count.

Sorry BZ but you're dead wrong.

When one teammate sets a screen, that does not mean that the player with the ball is "enclosed by screening teammates." The fact that only one teammate is setting the screen clearly displays that this rule doesn't apply to this situation.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 3rd, 2004 at 02:52 PM]

IMHO, if B1 is guarding A1 in legal guarding position, and someone from Team A runs in between them you wouldn't stop the 5 second count would you... just because someone is in between A1 and B1 doesn't mean you are not in legal guarding position as long as you are within the 6 feet the count should go on!!! Could be wrong, but i don't think just because someone sets a screen, the count should end, because if that happens, one person could dribble around a whole quarter/half, without ever giving it up as long as their team keeps screening for her/him...

I can't find a rule that supports the official not to count in this situation. However, I can find rule support in the definitions of closely guarded and legal guarding position to start or continue a closely guarded count. The official must determine that B1 is still guarding A1.

Cite a rule reference for the count to end. The fact that there is a reference to screening teammates adds to my stance, not yours.

Cite a rule reference that says the count continues. If the rule that you cite supported your stance, it would not say "enclosed by screening teammates."

How can you be guarding a player if another opponent is between you and the initial player?

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

What if B1 has LGP and A2 sets a screen, B1 slides past the screen and takes it right in the center of his torso by a driving A1. You going to say it's got to be a block, because B1 can't be guarding through A2's screen?

A screen does not keep you from attempting to guard a player, and has no baring on LGP or closely guarded.

How is it that the count continues if you have a switch from B1 and B2 on A1 as long as B2 is within 6 feet before the switch? When does a switch usually occur? Would not be during a screening situation would it?;)

[Edited by blindzebra on Nov 3rd, 2004 at 05:55 PM]

The rule reference's are 4-10 and 4-23. LGP and within 6 feet. The rules do not state any exceptions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
How can you be guarding him if he's enclosed by teammates?[quote]

You can't. That's why the rules address this specific situation. Just as a player cannot lift his foot from the lane to avoid a 3 second call or after gaining position while sitting on the floor, place the ball on the floor, stand up, and then pick the ball up to avoid a traveling call. These are all situations where the player is attempting to circumvent the rules. Such actions are specifically addressed as violations.



Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. If I have a teammate between you and I, you are no longer in my path. You no longer have LGP on me. It would have to be re-established. While a guard doesn't have to do anything to maintain LGP, it does not last forever. It does end.

Ever heard of a trap? Hello??? Is there a screen in this play from the NFHS website.

SITUATION 12: A1 is closely guarded by B1 for two seconds in Team A’s frontcourt. B2 then double-teams A1, and both B1 and B2 are closely guarding A1 for one second. B1 then drops off of A1 to cover another player. B2 continues to closely guard A1 for two more seconds. RULING: A1 has committed a violation since he/she was closely guarded continuously for a total of five seconds.

This screen play that we're discussing has previously appeared on the NFHS website and was not a violation. Think what you will but you're wrong.

I'm done.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
How can you be guarding him if he's enclosed by teammates?

Quote:

You can't. That's why the rules address this specific situation. Just as a player cannot lift his foot from the lane to avoid a 3 second call or after gaining position while sitting on the floor, place the ball on the floor, stand up, and then pick the ball up to avoid a traveling call. These are all situations where the player is attempting to circumvent the rules. Such actions are specifically addressed as violations. Quote: What if B1 has LGP and A2 sets a screen, B1 slides past the screen and takes it right in the center of his torso by a driving A1. You going to say it's got to be a block, because B1 can't be guarding through A2's screen? A screen does not keep you from attempting to guard a player, and has no baring on LGP or closely guarded. Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. If I have a teammate between you and I, you are no longer in my path. You no longer have LGP on me. It would have to be re-established. While a guard doesn't have to do anything to maintain LGP, it does not last forever. It does end. Quote: How is it that the count continues if you have a switch from B1 and B2 on A1 as long as B2 is within 6 feet before the switch? When does a switch usually occur? Would not be during a screening situation would it? ;) Ever heard of a trap? Hello??? Is there a screen in this play from the NFHS website. SITUATION 12: A1 is closely guarded by B1 for two seconds in Team A’s frontcourt. B2 then double-teams A1, and both B1 and B2 are closely guarding A1 for one second. B1 then drops off of A1 to cover another player. B2 continues to closely guard A1 for two more seconds. RULING: A1 has committed a violation since he/she was closely guarded continuously for a total of five seconds. This screen play that we're discussing has previously appeared on the NFHS website and was not a violation. Think what you will but you're wrong. I'm done.

Nope, just 100% wrong. You have nothing but your opinion, so how can I be dead wrong? Cite a rule that says a count ends during a screen.

Two parts of the rule implies a count during a screen. Where does it say exception by the screening teammates? Most times during a trap the second player does not LEAVE, they leave on a switch during a screen, however.

Like I said, cite a rule or leave your ego at the door.

[Edited by blindzebra on Nov 3rd, 2004 at 11:17 PM]

Sorry BZ, I never argue with an idiot. You'll drag me down to your level and then beat me with experience.

Have a great day! :)

Tony, I thought you said you were done! ;)

BTW, I'll keep counting, since the book says to count within 6 feet after obtaining initial guarding position. A player between the defender and ballhandler changes neither of those conditions.

FWIW, I agree with Chuck. I'm counting. An player in between doesn't change guarding status.

I'm still counting 5!!
 

4-23 initial guarding position =
-front of torso facing opponent (got that)
after guarding position obtained =
-not even required to be facing the opponent

if screener is in the way i would say this still lets you keep your count because legal guarding position still applies....

the way i see it, as long as the defense is within 6 ft and has established legal guarding position, the count goes on!!!

NCAA 4-11.4 "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.

I recognize that similar language does not appear in the FED rules book. But, I seem to recall similar language being part of some "official" FED communication (POE, seb-site interp, etc.)

i would say it's not in the book because it is still a closely guarded situation....if there is not any rules against it, then we can't stop the count....

now in ncaa rules, there is a perfect rule that tells us otherwise...

thanks for the ncaa rule bob...

Thank you, Bob. As I recall, it was an interp on the NFHS website. I'm glad someone else remembered it.

Chuck, I am "done" trying to help others understand the correct ruling. But I ususally responded when somebody directs a smartass comment at me.

But I bet you already knew that! :D

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 4th, 2004 at 02:24 PM]

I'm an idiot.

Pot meet kettle. Your arrogance is so strong it screams on every post.

I'll let you in on something everyone else knows, you are not right about everything. This is one of those occassions.

I'd say have a great day, but I'm sure no day could live up to your standards.

There was a complete section of this year's handout where closely guarded was highlighted as a POE.

The FED gave what was needed to start a count and what stops a count. A screening teammate was not mentioned as a count stopper. It would seem that if that stopped a count they would have put it in this POE. ;)

I hope coaches aren't able to get to you as easily as I am. :)

If I have to pick a side on an issue based on what you say versus what Bob Jenkins says, I'll take Bob's side every time. ;)

This is not about sides it's about getting the correct info out about this play. If you are right PROVE it, don't preach it.

Worry about yourself. I needled you and you called me an idiot, remember. I deal with coaches just fine.

:)

Hey, get some for me while you're out there. Thanks.

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.

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]

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).

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 Men’s and Women’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.


Let’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 B’s (NFHS/NCAA)/Team A’s (FIBA) basket waiting to receive the inbounds pass from A1. B2 is standing at the top of the key in Team A’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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I must have missed the part that says a screen ends guarding, it ends LGP, it ends the closely guarded count. No, wait, it's not there.

I'm sorry I don't read, " delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position," as meaning guarding stops.

The NF needs to re-write this entire area. Path is not defined, closely guarded is extremely vague, and there are no case plays about losing the count for changed path or screens.

We will continue to disagree.

I am joining this way late but

although not in the rule book I believe that screens MAY OR MAY NOT terminate the Clasely guarded count but I am going to use common sense as my guide Heres my two cents (Lets not get hung up in the semantics crap)

A1 has ball and is being aggrssively guarded by B1. A2 steps in between a1 and B1. B1 stops guarding A1 then the count stops.

If the screen forces B1 to go around and B1 is now chasing A1 from behind (the old get past the plyare to the basket the count stops thing) The count stops

If they are going from sideline to sideline and B1 steps around the pick, and the pick does not displace the B1 outside of a 6' distance I will keep the count just the same as if a player had switched on a pick and B2 had picked this up. If B1 is diverted on the pick outside of the 6', drop the count.

1) we all know when a player is being guarded and when a player is not.

2) You have to have LGP to establish closely guarded. Duh facing the player and guarding...

3) I believe we have to becareful about extending this path stuff too far (we have had this discussion before) but 99.78 % of the times(by the way thats scientifcally measured, path means between player and basket. ) I could actually see a few times a player is closely guarding a player from the backside (not between player and basket) due to placement of A's own team members but this will be the RARE exception!

THE BOTTOM LINE to closely guarded. NFHS wants us to get a count on when a player is being guarded within 6'. Not 1, not 2, not 3,4,or 5. I believe the POE is there because too many offcials were making closley guarded a 3 foot rule or not enforcing it at all.
It is designed to prevent a good ball handler from running around all day even though he may being harassed significantly from a defender .
It is designed to reward good defense.
It is designed to keep the game moving.
If the defense is working hard they should have counts to get rewarded for good D.

The NFHS wants us to swing our arms. Too many of us havent or dont, and it has created in some circumstances an actionless contest.

How many times has the offense stood out and waited for Defense to come out, running time off the clock. We will stand there forever, and I bt there is a player 10-15 ft off the offensive player in LGP. After a while the coach tells them go get them. the player steps in to 6' but we dont give the count.

As soon as this player steps in the count starts.

personally I'd like to see the NCAA drop the counts and reduce the shot clock by 5 or so seconds. (NBA style)

Which one are coaches more likely to complain about not getting a count on defense or getting one while they are on offense.

If the coach sees an arm counting the coach or team will yell out that we are counting. I have never seen a coach yell
"Ref you cant count, the defense is 6 1/2 ft away!"
"Ref I know my player is just screwing around wastuing time but you cant count because the defended wasn't in LGP to start!"
"you cant count, youre using the wrong path!"

Most coaches want the ball moved around even if they are in a 4 corner stall, and if youre counting because his player is being guarding and it is clear he is being guarded, the coach will get on the kids not us.

They WILL complain when their kids are playing great D and we are not counting or when they think we are slow.

The problem with a lot of officials is that we look to the rules to solve all of our liitle problems on the floor. They dont!. We have to use common sense to enforce the rules. If we cant figure out what closely guarded is when we step out on the floor, maybe we shold not be there.

Sometimes there is a stupid rule that we hate to enforce, but we enforce it.. I have even told a coach that.

Example. Kid just makes a great hustle play and rebound, but in doing so falls to the ground. Under NF rules it is a stupid violation but I call it anyway. I will tll a coach that he went down with the ball, and a travel, and that it is a stupid rule on a great hustle play but that's what we have do do...

This doesn't happen very often, but I completely disagree with Tony. Tony's point seems to be: If A2 is between A1 and B1, then it is never the case that B1 is guarding A1.

I don't see any way to support that claim in any rule or case in the FED book. I re-read the whole definition of guarding and there's nothing there that says guarding ceases when there's a player between the guard and the player being guarded.

And even tho Tony's point is explicitly in the NCAA book, I think it's ridiculous. Any time a defender goes around a screen, the count ends. Dumb.

Closely guarded has less impact in situations where you have a shot clock. Since the intent of the rule is to keep a game from becoming actionless, the shot clock already does that very thing.

The NF rules leave way too much up to interpretation in this area.

I disagree that this is the intent of the rule. (I'm disagreeing a lot tonight. Sorry) The intent is not to keep the game moving. The intent is to promote team play by preventing one player from trying every move in his arsenal before squeezing off a shot -- i.e., the NBA "isolation" play. (Even the NBA has changed its rules to eliminate this type of play in certain situations by instituting the 5-second "back-to-the-basket" rule. Their shot clock is even shorter than the NCAA clock, so they certainly didn't put this rule in to keep the game moving.)

Wasn't that an anti-Barkley, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq rule change as opposed to the Jordan clear out/4 teammates in the corner play?

Closely guarded is there to reward defense as well, but don't you think it has less emphasis at the NCAA level? I think the shot clock puts less emphasis on closely guarded, because unless you are in a game ending situation a player can dribble around all they want, but the shot clock forces them to attack the basket or violate.

And I disagree with you and agree with BZ. The 5-second rule was a natural progression from a line of rules designed to keep the game from being actionless. The time periods in different forms went from 30 seconds to 10 seconds to 5 seconds since I've been officiating, but it's been the same rule in different forms and the intent of the rule has always been to keep action in the game.

If you don't believe me, I'll commission MTD Sr. to undertake a mission to Mt. Attic.