Snaqs:

Take a look at (b) again. I think this is closer to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

It's a cross between the two plays, IMO. I compared it to (a) because it involved teammates passing it to each other in a way designed to circumvent the rules. No teammate had it for 5 seconds each, but the correct call is a 5 second violation. In (b), only one teammate has the ball, keeping it behind the "wall."

Not to rain on OP parade but:

I do not think that I would rule this a violation. The case play is close but no cigar type of play. Great job of looking up the rule and knowing the page number of the case book.

Why do you not think it's the same? It's a violation of 9-10-1b. The case plays can't cover every possible play (as someone once said, "It's a finite number of words to cover an infinite number of possibilities.")

I suspect that the coach designed his play to exploit the wording of the rule. That's why he had 2 players passing the ball back and forth behind screening teammates. Strictly speaking, you did not have "a" player control the ball for 5 seconds behind screening teammates. Strictly speaking, the team did not violate 9-10-1b.

I think that the spirit of the rule is clearly violated by this play, and I would probably call a violation. From the case plays, situation (a) illustrates the spirit of the rule (that situation also does not strictly conform to the rule as written).