Closely Guarded Count With Screener

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Who the f*** knows?

The options are:

1) IAABO is wrong. It won't be the first time.


2) IAABO is right, but we'll need for FED to issue a (reasonably) clear case play. That's happened before -- but it takes until the next season.

In any event, this is just one in a relatively long list of items on which there is no consensus.

Maybe Billy is checking to see if anybody has changed their minds since he last asked the same question--about three freaking weeks ago.

Five Second Count Screen

There's an older thread that I didn't bother to look up that's similar also.

Billy, again, if you're struggling with an IAABO interpretation, why don't you just take that interpretation to your Board interpreter for forwarding to the IAABO head interpreter? That should get you an answer that is valid for you IAABO types, even though it still would be meaningless to everyone else not associated with IAABO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Maybe Billy is checking to see if anybody has changed their minds since he last asked the same question--about three freaking weeks ago

You're correct Jurassic Referee. There was a previous thread on this topic. What I did was to compile the many citations, and opinions, expressed on that previous thread into one concise post, which I forwarded to my local board interpreter in the form of an email. Thanks to all those Forum members who offered their input. If I've wasted your time, or your bandwidth on this site, I'm sorry.

[BillyMac]

Much thanks to BayStateRef, who went to the top:

I (BayStateRef) just heard from Peter Webb, IAABO's top rules guy.

Peter says that under NFHS rules, the closely guarded count
continues. I will tell my interpreter this information. And FYI, I specifically
asked Peter about the 2005 IAABO Rules Exam question. He did not
answer.

Here is his email:

"Yes, the closely guarded situation would remain in place.

When one thinks about it from a practical view -- if the rule was
otherwise, the defender would be forced to move left or right to
address the opponent in order to closely guard. Doing so would cause
the defender to be constantly beaten.

The NFHS rule differs from the NCAA's ruling.

The rules support exists within rules 4.10; 4.23; 9.10.1; CB 9.10.1;
2004-05 POE regarding "closely guarded""

[mj]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Much thanks to BayStateRef, who went to the top:

I (BayStateRef) just heard from Peter Webb, IAABO's top rules guy.

Peter says that under NFHS rules, the closely guarded count
continues. I will tell my interpreter this information. And FYI, I specifically
asked Peter about the 2005 IAABO Rules Exam question. He did not
answer.

Here is his email:

"Yes, the closely guarded situation would remain in place.

When one thinks about it from a practical view -- if the rule was
otherwise, the defender would be forced to move left or right to
address the opponent in order to closely guard. Doing so would cause
the defender to be constantly beaten.

The NFHS rule differs from the NCAA's ruling.

The rules support exists within rules 4.10; 4.23; 9.10.1; CB 9.10.1;
2004-05 POE regarding "closely guarded""

Not that anyone would confuse me with a top rules guy...but I told you so.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mj

Not that anyone would confuse me with a top rules guy...but I told you so.

Me too!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Me too!

Me three(bearing in mind that it is an IABBO ruling and not necessarily applicable or germane in non-IAABO states).