22. A-1 is holding the ball in the frontcourt and closely guarded by B-1.As the official count is at two,A-2 takes and holds a position between A-1 and B-1.Official discontinues the 5 second closely guarded violation count. Is the official correct?

I looked in my Basketball Case book a bit and was still a bit confused(again). IMO A-2 is screening for A-1.Preventing opponents from getting to the ball by using screening teammates becomes a violation in 5 seconds if the opponents are attempting to gain control(9.10.1 CASE situation). so,I think the referee in NOT correct to discontinue the count.Possibly covered in 10 ART. 1 b.

Is B1 attempting to gain control of the ball, as per 9.10.1SitD?

This is another question that is unanswerable without knowing that.



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 15th, 2005 at 11:01 PM]

We had quite a disucssion about this last year, I believe. There is an ambiguity in NFHS rules that is not present in NCAA Rules.

NCAA - This by definition is not a closely guarded situation.

NFHS - No such language exists.

However, as I did before, I'll pose this question: Can B1 be actively guarding A1 if A2 is between A1 and B1? I say no.

Did you bother to read NFHS case book play 9.10.1SitD?

Just wondering.

You might change your mind if you were to do so.

You might want to check out the NCAA rulebook too. NCAA rule 9-14-1(a) seems to be saying something completely different also.

I don't think 9.10.1D (and the NCAA equivalent) applies. That case is specifically for holding a ball "in an area enclosed by screening teammates" -- 9-10-1b. I don't think an area can be "enclosed" by one teammate / player.

I seem to recall that this was included in one of the FED slide shows a few years ago. I've forgotten the answer, though.

Iirc, something got issued somewhere along the line that the concept was the same whether it was one teammate, 2 teammates or several teammates. If the defender was passive, the count was terminated. If the defender was still trying to get at the ball despite the screening teammate(s), the count was to be maintained. I don't that there's that much difference between one teammate or two teammates.

The rules language does refer to "teammates" in the plural though.

have to agree
 

i agree with j.R., it says "if any B player is within 6 ft of the ball..., and is attempting to gain control of the ball", "preventing an opponent from getting to the ball by using screening is a violation in 5 seconds" so from that i gain that it doesn't matter if there is a screener there or not in NFHS rules!

Re: have to agree
 

Actually, that case play does say <b>"opponents"</b>--plural--not "an opponent"--singular.

Bob Jenkins brought up a good question. I remember something being issued on that one too, and I'm not 100% sure of the exact contents. Iow, my recollection might be wrong and the case situation <b>doesn't</b> apply to a single defender. I'm trying to get a definitive answer. If I can manage to find one, I'll post it. If anyone else can dig up some additional info, I'd appreciate that also.

Re: Re: have to agree
 

First, no more Whackinator, now this?! :eek:

Things...hazy...head...spinning...

Why wouldn't it apply to one opponent? I'm not saying this to be argumentative (this time), but isn't the wording "opponents" just to let you know it can include more than one, instead of excluding only one? I remember they added the interp on B1 guarding A1, B2 comes up and guards, then B1 leaves, and A1 could still be called for the 5-sec. violation because they were closely guarded for 3 sec. by B1 and then 2 sec. by B2. Could that be the interp you were thinking of?

Re: Re: Re: have to agree
 

Nope, but thanks for asking.

I <b>think</b> that the case play applies to one screener also. I ain't definitely <b>sure</b> though that it does. I also vaguely remember something like the handout that BJ is talking about above too. Add in the fact that I've been wrong on rules interpretations before and that I'm still learning too, you get........uncertainty (I guess is the best word) on my part.

Re: Re: Re: Re: have to agree
 

Don't worry, that's true for all of us. I don't ever want to work with a partner that thinks they've reached the point of complete knowledge.

until it is actually put in the case or rules book, we will not actually be definitely sure of the situation....so all we can go by is our interpratation of each situation as it comes up!! i would have to agree in this situation, with M&M that them putting OPPONENTS (plural) was there to just make sure it covered from 1-5 people.... so until i hear different, i'm giving them the 5 second closely guarded call!! If anyone hears anything else on the situation, that makes that not the right call, we would all love to hear it!!

Re: Re: Re: have to agree
 

Maybe. But in other situations where the word can be either singular or plural, they've used the form "opponent or opponents" or the form "opponent(s)."

See 8-2 and 8-3 for examples.

From 2003-04 (the most recent NCAA rulebook on my desktop)

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.

NCAA 9-13-1a: A closely guarded violation occurs when a team in its front court (men) or on the playing court (women) controls the ball for five seconds in an area enclosed by screening teammates. (includes AR 23)

9-13-1a and AR23 seems to state that if the offense "boxes in" the ball so that the defense is unable to create a closely guarded situation, a violation will be called after 5 seconds if there is a defender with 3 (W) or 6 (M) feet of an offensive player.

4-11-4 seems to just talk about one player in between the ballhandler and opponent.
<HR>
Now for NFHS, the language of 4-11-4 doesn't exist. Thus creating an ambiguity in administering that situation when looking at the letter of the rules.

[Edited by Stat-Man on Oct 20th, 2005 at 04:18 PM]