Update Closely Guarded/ Screen
 

Over the past few weeks, I brought up a question to the Forum about a closely guarded situation, with a screen, that was based on an old IAABO Refresher Exam question, and a question from a coach during a scrimmage earlier this season.

For your information, here's an update from NFHS (not IAABO):

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 by IAABO was Yes.

NFHS Ruling as of Jan 8, 2008 - Answer is NO. The closely guarded count continues. 4.10;* 4.23; 9.10.1; CB 9.10.1

While I agree with the answer, I'm wondering how you got a FED interpretation?

NFHS Interpretation
 

From my local IAABO board interpreter.

If you were going by what the FED already had put out, then 9.10.1 Situation D, Ruling b should have been sufficient. I do not know why you needed to seek a ruling that was already in the casebook. Unless in your area what IAABO does trumps the NF Casebook (and that is possible) then current rulings should have been the answer.

Peace

Wrong Answers
 

The IAABO Refresher Exam has at least one or two "wrong" answers on the answer sheet year. IAABO never started that this answer was wrong, and I didn't give it much thought until a coach, with a background in NCAA rules, questioned a five second call, involving a screen, during a scrimmage. I decided to persue this, through the Forum, and through my local IAABO board interpreter.

We have many officials, including our interpreter, who do NCAA games, on our local high school board. Those with an NCAA background were calling this play the IAABO way. Those of us that only do high school games called this play the NFHS way. The NFHS interpretation is the one our local IAABO interpreter wants all of us to now use.

Why did you not question IAABO at the time? This is why I cannot stand the relying on tests. The NF already had a clear ruling and I am not sure why a coach's question would change that?

If IAABO want to use the NCAA Interpretation that is fine with me but the point is I am making is that the NF already has a clear interpretation in place. If you use the NCAA interpretation, not much the NF is going to do about it.

Peace

Get this:
 

From our state NFHS Rules Interpreter:

Let me re-phrase then. How did your interpreter get the FED ruling? IOW, what is the source of your NFHS interpretation?

Just for reference...fwiw...

The 2004-05 rule book has a POE on the closely-guarded count. The POE lists the situations that warrant the <b>ending</b> of a closely guarded count. They are:
-when no defensive player is within six feet.
-when a closely guarded player completes a dribble anywhere in his team's frontcourt.
-when a closely guarded player starts a dribble in his own frontcourt and ends it anywhere in the frontcourt(a new five second count will start if the player hold the ball).
- loses possession of the ball for any reason in the team's own frontcourt.
- has his/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.

That's it for <b>ending</b> a five-second count. Note that a screener coming between the defender and the player with the ball is not mentioned.

BillyMac,
Thanks for checking and confirming what most of us on here said. The NFHS ruling is indeed different from the NCAA one.

Hawkeye,
I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that. Rather than adhere to the NFHS rulings, CA chooses to do many things it's own way. The use of the shot clock is the most salient. This is the very reason why CA does not have the ability to submit rule changes and gets no representation on the national rules committee.

NFHS Rules Editor
 

After forwarding an email to my local interpreter from the IAABO interpreter, Peter Webb, that was forwarded to me from a Massachusetts Forum member, who, along with his local interpreter, contacted Mr. Webb, which stating to continue to count, my local interpreter told me not to jump to any conclusions until he contacted the NFHS Rules Editor.