[QUOTE=Camron Rust]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ronny mulkey
No call in #1. A screener's purpose is to sacrifice their body (if necessary) to force the defender to take a longer path around.
No call in #2 unless the screen was not legal.
No call in #3. Again, the screen served it's purpose.
Foul in #4. The screenee proceeded right through the screen by use of contact that knocked the screener out of the way.
For number 1, 2, and 3, the assumption is that the screenee didn't see the screen in time to stop. If they saw the screen in time to stop or divert but still plowed into the screen, it would be a foul in most cases....not based on the advantage but to keep the game from getting too rough.
|
Ronny, excellent explanation by Camron. I certainly concur completely with him.
The way that the FED explained it in a hand-out many years ago was that you don't want to penalize the player being screened twice. The player is penalized initially through a good, legal screen by being taken out of the play. That is the purpose of the screen, and the purpose was met. If you call the foul on top of that, then it's double jeopardy. If the player
isn't taken out of the play--i.e. by forcing their way
through the screen-- then they gained an illegal advantage through that contact and being called for the foul now will negate that illegal advantage.