Closely guarded clarification

[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.

[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.