Closely Guarded Count With Screener

[BillyMac]

I continue to struggle with the IAABO interpretation regarding a five second closely guarded count with a screener:
2005 IAABO Refresher Exam - Question 22: A-1 is holding the ball in the front court and is 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 violating count. Is the official correct. Answer Yes, Citations 4-10, 4-23-1.

NFHS Rule 9-10-1b: A player shall not while closely guarded in his/her frontcourt control the ball for five seconds in an area enclosed by screening teammates.
NFHS 9.10.1 SITUATION D: Team A, while in possession of the ball in its frontcourt: (a) positions four players parallel with the sideline and they pass the ball from one to another with their arms reaching beyond the sideline plane; or (b) has four teammates surround dribbler A1. In both (a) and (b), the opponents are unable to get close to the ball. RULING: This is considered to be a closely-guarded situation and a violation in five seconds in both (a) and (b), 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.
However, both the NFHS Rule Book, and the NFHS Case Book, refer to "teammates" (plural). There is no NFHS casebook play, or any NFHS rule, that says the count continues if a single screening teammate is involved.

NCAA 4-13-4: "When a player is positioned between the player in control of the ball and his or her opponent, who is within six feet (men) or three feet (women), a closely guarded situation does not exist.
The NCAA is very clear on this, but this is not listed as a difference between NCAA and NFHS rules.

NFHS 2004-05 Points Of Emphasis:
1. Closely guarded. Well-officiated closely-guarded situations provide for better balance between offense and defense. When the closely guarded rules are not followed, there is a significant advantage for the offense. The following four areas are to be emphasized:
A. When to start. A closely guarded situation occurs when a player in control of the ball in his or her team's front court, is guarded by an opponent who is within six feet of that player who is holding or dribbling the ball. It should also be emphasized that the defensive player must obtain a legal guarding position. A player shall not hold the ball for five seconds or dribble the ball for five seconds while closely guarded in his or her front court. A player can legally hold the ball while closely guarded for four seconds, dribble the ball for four seconds and hold the ball again for four seconds before violating.
B. When to stop. A closely-guarded count ends when no defensive player is within six feet. The count also stops when a closely guarded player (a) completes a dribble anywhere in the team's own front court; (b) starts a dribble in the team's own frontcourt and ends it anywhere in the frontcourt (a new five-second count will start if the player holds the ball); (c) loses possession of the ball for any reason in the team's own frontcourt; or (d) has his or her dribble interrupted. If a closely-guarded player beats the defender(s) by getting head and shoulders past the defensive player, the count has ended.
C. 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.
D. Counting mechanics. Emphasis should be placed on the official to begin a visible count when the six-foot distance is established. The official must switch arms when going directly from one counting situation to another.
This does not seem to support the IAABO interpretation to stop the count. The intervention of a screener is not one of the listed reasons to stop the count.

NFHS 4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
This seems to say that when A2 sets screen between A1 and B1, B1 can no longer guard A1 according to the definition of guarding, because B1 is not putting his or her body in the path of A1.

Is the definition of "guarding" the best reason for the IAABO interpretation to stop the count?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is the definition of "guarding" the best reason for the IAABO interpretation to stop the count?

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

Better yet, who the **** cares what IAABO says...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Better yet, who the **** cares what IAABO says...

Some of us have to.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I continue to struggle with the IAABO interpretation regarding ...

This ain't science. This ain't universal truth. Sometimes you just gotta say, "Well, okay. Whatever."

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This ain't science. This ain't universal truth. Sometimes you just gotta say, "Well, okay. Whatever."

Don't worry; be happy?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Don't worry; be happy?

Why, is it a new year or something?