screening teammates
 

While waiting to work the boys varsity game, we were watching the girls varsity game. This play occurred. The offense team dribbled the ball to the corner where the endline and sideline intersect in the frontcourt on the side opposite the table. The dribbler stops in the corner. One teammate stands right next to her and the other three teammates form a wall be standing shoulder to shoulder with each other. The 3 person screen has isolated the other 2 offensive palyers from the defense. The defense can not go through the screen without displacing a screener. The defense also, by rule, can not leave the playing floor to get to the ball. The original dribbler and the teammate next to her keep handing the ball to each other about every two seconds. After about three passes, the covering official call a 5 second closely guarded violation. The coach of the violating team questioned the official how it could be 5 seconds if his player never had the ball more than 2 or 3 seconds. The official said it was covered in the case book on page 74 concerning screening teammates. It reads as follows:

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.

He cited that situation (b) was why he ruled the violation.

Your opinion as to whether this was a proper application of the case play to the play on the floor would be appreciated.

I'd say situation (a) is closer, but kudos for being able to name the case play like that.

Yes

wow, impressive!

We too were impressed with his rules knowledge, so we asked him about it after the game. He said he had the same team last week and they did the same thing but he did not call it illegal. After that game, the opposing coach questioned the plays legality. The official told the coach he would check the rule and case books. Upon doing so, he found the afore mentioned case play. He knew he would have this team again, so he said he was ready for the play. It was a classic to see the coaches face when the official said, "page 74 of the case book, look it up and get back to me."

Wow Impressive again

Obviously, this was not the guy Mark got stuck with the other night. Postgame, this official sure did his homework. And a lot of other officials have learned something as a result.

Coach was actually more puzzled than before. "What exactly is a case book?"

"It's a book for head cases like you." :rolleyes:

Great application of the rules but I don't know if I would have remembered the exact page number the case was located :rolleyes: I would have just made the call, "You are illegally gaining an advantage not intended by the rules, Coach", and moved on

-Josh

Amazing! Give the guy his kudos. I learned something with this play. I'm lucky that I've never seen this play come even close to being attempted.

Not that it is required with respect to the OP, but does a defender have to be in the opponents frontcourt to get a closely guarded call? IOW, in the OP, could a defender stand in the opponents backcourt within 6 ft and be considered guarding the opponent?

Closely guarded only in the frontcourt.

According to the rule the location of the offensive player is the determining factor. The defender can be anywhere inbounds.

Granted, but I would think it unlikely that an offensive player located in frontcourt would be closely guarded by a player located in backcourt.