Closely guarded clarification

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Rule 4-23-1. Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of the offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and the opponent.

1) If you have a 5-second count going and the dribbler then turns sideways and heads for a sideline, and the defender keeps pace with the dribbler and stays within 6 feet, does the count stop because the defender is no longer in the path of the dribbler?

2) If you have a 5-second count going on a dribbler and the dribbler turns and dribbles backwards, and the defender still maintains the 6 foot distance at all times, does the count stop because the defender is no longer in the dribbler's path?

3) If you have a 5-second count going on a player holding the ball, and that player then pivots so that his back is to the defender, does the 5-second count stop because the defender is no longer in the path of the offensive player with the ball?

You're claiming that the rule must be enforced literally by the plain language of the rule? Does that include all three of these situations then in your opinion?

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This case play certainly makes it clear that a closely guarded count continues when there are players between the guard and the player with the ball, even in the most extreme of circumstances.
....
How can you dispute that? The NFHS comment is very clear here.

Because both the rule and the casebook refer to "teammates" (plural.)

Your citation is about the extrme...when many teammates (the casebook says four; the rule simply says "teammates") are involved. There is no casebook play...or any rule...that says the count continues if a single screening teammate is involved.

As others have said, the NCAA rule is crystal clear and says the count stops. The Fed rule is murky...and subject to all this debate. I am not the rules interpreter for my board, so I follow his instruction. I have disagreed with his rulings in the past...and probably will again. But on this play...in my games...I will end the count when a single player screen comes between the defender and the dribbler.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're claiming that the rule must be enforced literally by the plain language of the rule? Does that include all three of these situations then in your opinion?

To me, the path is a line between the defender and the dribbler, not between the dribbler and the basket (which is what your examples imply). Assuming we are in the front court, it does not matter what the dribbler does ...or which way the dribbler moves...as long as the defender is within 6 feet and there is no intervening screen. That makes it closely guarded. So I would have a closely guarded count in each example you cite.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

To me, the path is a line between the defender and the dribbler, not between the dribbler and the basket (which is what your examples imply). Assuming we are in the front court, it does not matter what the dribbler does ...or which way the dribbler moves...as long as the defender is within 6 feet and there is no intervening screen. That makes it closely guarded. So I would have a closely guarded count in each example you cite.

And therein lies the rub......

Can you cite any language that will back up your statement that an intervening screen actually does stop a closely-guarded count? Rule 4-23-1 can't apply because a literal reading of that rule says that the defender must be "in the path".

Btw, this thread is deja vu all over again.

mFive Second Count Screen

Also btw, in that thread an un-named miscreant who is also an IAABO rules interpreter for his board disagrees with the IAABO rules interpreter of your board. He states that the count should continue. And both IAABO rules interpreters are in the same state too.

It might be a good idea for someone to get a definitive answer on this from your head IAABO interpreter/poobah (not that his interpretation is valid for the rest of us anyway).

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Also btw, in that thread an un-named miscreant who is also an IAABO rules interpreter for his board disagrees with the IAABO rules interpreter of your board. He states that the count should continue. And both IAABO rules interpreters are in the same state too.

It might be a good idea for someone to get a definitive answer on this from your head IAABO interpreter/poobah (not that his interpretation is valid for the rest of us anyway).

The IAABO position has been posted here. It says the count ends. But...I will ask and post the results when I hear.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

The IAABO position has been posted here. It says the count ends. But...I will ask and post the results when I hear.

Yabut, as I said you've got one IAABO rules interpreter that says the count doesn't end. And I gotta tell you that particular IAABO interpreter is probably as rules-knowledgeable imo as you'll find anywhere. And I say that not just because he happens to agree with my position either.

That's why it will be interesting to see what the IAABO head interpreter will say about this one.

[Coltdoggs]

I am in the camp that keeps this count going as long as the screened defender(s) stays within the required 6', even after being screened or switching guards.

My count will not end until the dribbler creates separation from the guard to a distance outside of 6' if moving laterally toward the sideline or back toward the HC line.... or until his head and shoulders are past the defender on a drive toward the basket.

[inigo montoya]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Because both the rule and the casebook refer to "teammates" (plural.)

Your citation is about the extrme...when many teammates (the casebook says four; the rule simply says "teammates") are involved. There is no casebook play...or any rule...that says the count continues if a single screening teammate is involved.

As others have said, the NCAA rule is crystal clear and says the count stops. The Fed rule is murky...and subject to all this debate. I am not the rules interpreter for my board, so I follow his instruction. I have disagreed with his rulings in the past...and probably will again. But on this play...in my games...I will end the count when a single player screen comes between the defender and the dribbler.

So four teammates can't cause a closely-guarded count to end, but one can? If A1 is screened by 1 teammates, with B1 within 6 feet, there is no count. But if A1's three remaining teammates show up, then the count begins? That's absurd.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Think you and your interpreter need to relook at the rule book closely

1) 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.

2) Multiple defenders. The count should continue even if there is a defensive switch, provided the six-foot distance is maintained. There is no requirement for the defensive player to remain the same during the count as long as the offensive player is closely guarded throughout.

Normally in a screening situation (unless I ve missed some basic basketball,
1) The defender either goes around the screen and continues to guard the player and as long as he wiithin six feet (of the dribbler) or the screener and continues to guard it is a violation

2) There is a defensive switch and as long as both defenders maintained the 6 feet the count continues. Some may like the NCAA rule better, but for now until the rule is changed it is the rule.

This may sound terrible, but this is what gets us in trouble. If we make stuff up that just aint there we contribute to the myths and the "inconsistency" that coaches $itch about"

DGP!!! Darn good post.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, this thread is deja vu all over again.

Five Second Count Screen

Also btw, in that thread an un-named miscreant who is also an IAABO rules interpreter for his board disagrees with the IAABO rules interpreter of your board. He states that the count should continue. And both IAABO rules interpreters are in the same state too.

It might be a good idea for someone to get a definitive answer on this from your head IAABO interpreter/poobah (not that his interpretation is valid for the rest of us anyway).

Indeed it is. But it is another thread from 2004, ( Closely Guarded ?) not the one you cite from a few weeks ago, where your un-named guy made his case.

I went back to the 2004 thread and found I was making the same case as a few other officials. We were in the minority then...and still are. That is OK. I have seen other examples where the minority was eventually proven right by a formal NFHS ruling.

Another regular contributor here said then, "Just another example of a rule that needs clarifying." Truer words were never spoken.

The NFHS has been raising the issue of officiating consistency. Yet this play shows just how hard it is to accomplish. If the rules are going to be as murky as this...and we are left to argue amongst ourselves what is the proper rule to apply to a scenario that happens several times a game...then the Fed needs to quickly and easily address these conflicts in a clear, no-nonsense way.

[mj]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

If a screener comes between the dribbler and the defender, the dribbler is no longer closely guarded and the count stops. In order to legally guard a player, you -- or any other defensive player -- must be in the dribbler's path. If an offensive player is in the path, that player is no longer guarded...closely or not.
For those who are pretending otherwise...take the scenario. If a player gets the ball behind a screen, do you start a closely guarded count, even if the defender is within 6 feet? I hope not.

Where in the rule book can I find that? I have the same POE that Nevada posted. If they meant for the count to stop under those circumstances it would certainly be in there under the 'when to stop the count.'

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by mj

Where in the rule book can I find that? I have the same POE that Nevada posted. If they meant for the count to stop under those circumstances it would certainly be in there under the 'when to stop the count.'

That is your interpretation. The rule says neither what you say it does, nor what I say it does. We both are interpreting and extrapolating -- based on many things that are not as clearly spelled out as I would like. If the NCAA can say it so clearly, why can't the Fed?

[mj]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

That is your interpretation. The rule says neither what you say it does, nor what I say it does. We both are interpreting and extrapolating -- based on many things that are not as clearly spelled out as I would like. If the NCAA can say it so clearly, why can't the Fed?

There is a reason I interpret it that way. It is because if the NF wanted it done YOUR way they would specifically say so. There are exceptions to some rules and they specifically say so. In this case they don't, so don't read into something that is not there.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by mj

There is a reason I interpret it that way. It is because if the NF wanted it done YOUR way they would specifically say so. There are exceptions to some rules and they specifically say so. In this case they don't, so don't read into something that is not there.

It is not my way. It is the way I was taught. If you look at the many threads, you will see there are many who profer this interpretation -- and many who do not.

As for reading somthing that is not there...let's not get into that. I explained clearly my reasoning, backed up by rule. To be closely guarded, a player must be continuosly guarded. That is the entire question here. You claim they remain guarded when a screener comes in between. I disagree...and cite the definition of guarding as the ratonale.

I am not so cocky as to say what the Fed wanted...when the Fed has not been so clear.