I would fall on the side of the group saying he may have simply passed. While the screen looks bad (re: time and space, and movement) I'm not sure how much of that is initiated by the screener or the defender and the camera angle is not great for me to judge. I'm not sure it does but, lets' assume for a minute that the screen does not in fact pass the test for legal screening.

So its not a legal screen is it now a foul.

Is there illegal contact created by/responsible to the defense? If we agree the screen is illegally set yes.

Phase 2: Is the contact created more then incidental? Excessive/leading to rough play - No your going to get much worse than that on legal screens and plays. Gaining a clear and immediate advantage, based on how it was defended - where it was on the floor, the players reactions and result patient whistle says no significant advantage.

Now if I had a partner that saw an illegal screen and felt that was what held up or got a player open and thats enough I'm in his/her corner. From the cheap seats it looks like a play that has a whole lot of if, maybe and marginal going on that has no advantage gained by the fact that the screen might have been illegal. If its my call we are moving on.

Kind of confused by this line. If the contact was created by the defender then in this case in can't be an illegal screen.



If you're going on the premise that it was an illegal screen, the contact had to have been deemed more than incidental. There also isn't anything in the rules requiring illegal contact of any kind to be excessive in order for it to be called a foul.

The term "significant advantage" isn't used in the rules, either. Determining a foul at its basic level comes down to the answer to this question: Did A do something to B to gain an advantage that wasn't intended by rule?

Subject Official's Claim
 

The comments and analyses from you who critiqued the video of this screening situation were really very insightful and enabling. All responses have been duly noted.
What the official at C reported after studying the video of this play was this: he admits to being so focused on the defender ("officiate the defense") that he did not have the "wider view" necessary to take in everything happening on the play. While watching exclusively the defender, a good look at what the offensive player setting the screen from behind completely escaped his notice. This, therefore, has become a local study clip on the topic of "The Consequences of Telescoping - How to Miss Illegal Screens".
Your responses that mentioned other perspectives, opinions, and concerns, however, have been registered and will be included in future discussions when this clip is used for group study. Again, your comments and analyses above were really very good. Much thanx.

I think what he's saying is that while the screen didn't meet the base requirements of screening (i.e, stationary, time and distance, etc.) it fell short of creating an actual advantage/disadvantage in the greater context of the play....thus, it becomes incidental. If, however, it was "excessive" contact, otherwise known as rough play, we'd still call a foul on it.

Intentional Foul ???
 

Are you suggesting charging an intentional foul under such circumstances?

Thanks for the update, Freddy. Upon further review - and given how this game was called up to that point - did the C feel he missed an illegal screen?

No. That is why I used quotes around the word. Sometimes, contact is enough that you just need a foul on it even if it really isn't part of the play. But, it can be short of an intentional foul.

Air Quotes ???
 

Sounds good. Sorry, I missed the quotes the first time around.

Note: Now may be a good time to remind Forum members that this past season, the NFHS changed the definition of an intentional l foul to include both on-the-ball, and off-the-ball fouls.

In the cases of screen it may not be for a few seconds afterwards that the impact of said screen is noticed. So while I get the logic of the screen happened on the other side of the lane, and that it wasn't in the immediate vicinity of the ball I do not subscribe to passing on illegal contact for these reasons. You aren't going to call the foul only IF the team gets an advantage because that may not be obvious until a few seconds after the initial act.

Sometimes illegal activity needs to be called at the point, especially fouls away from the ball. That's the whole point of off ball officiating.

I disagree. You may need to be patient and have a bigger view but you don't have to call everything that happens off-ball that my develop into an advantage. Sometime, players just clumsily collide. Sometimes they do something technically against the rules, but the whole point of all officiating, off-ball or on-ball, is to judge whether the contact matters or not.

But, and I agree with deecee on this, you may not know whether it "matters" at the moment it took place.

Take the play in the OP. Some have said illegal, some have said play on. Off of the screening activity B#21 ends up in an advantageous position: He's in the middle of the lane with inside position on the closest defender. The thrower didn't give him the ball because there was another defender in the way. Now, suppose the defender guarding the thrower was shading towards his - the defender's - left instead of the right? B#21 probably gets the ball and has a good scoring chance. It's going to be tough to put a whistle on an illegal screen at that point.

We can also look at the play the way it took place, but with a twist. B#21 winds up in an advantageous position but the ball goes to B#3 outside the 3-point arc. If B#3 catches the pass cleanly there's a chance he attempts a 3-point shot. If he shoots, B#21 has inside position for rebounding. Again, we can't always immediately know the ramifications of potentially illegal contact especially when it's off-ball contact.

By that line of reasoning, there is no such thing as incidental contact away from the ball (or even perhaps on the ball) since you can't know how the subsequent events will unfold. Any bump, push, hold, etc. would need to be called.

Sometimes, if the advantage takes too long to develop, you just get it wrong. I consider that better than calling fouls on situations that rarely lead to an actual advantage just because there was contact that could be an advantage in a few cases.

The only difference is that this contact wasn't incidental. It was a deliberate action to set a screen to help the offensive player evade his defender. This was accomplished. In plays with the ball handler start-develop-finish is possible as contact with the ball handler can be observed while letting the action play out and seeing the immediate effect of the contact.

In contact away from the ball start-develop-finish should not apply as this methodology does not work here. Plays most often start on ball, they may develop off ball, but by the time the repercussions are realized (finish) for any off ball activity it is to late.

If the offensive player runs off the screen and then fades to the corner, or back out then I can see an argument for passing (and I would probably be in the camp for passing). But the player curls right into the paint. I'm not going to put much more thought into what ifs and what may, I'm blowing the whistle and moving on.

I can buy that, but do we not pass on lots of off ball contact that could, by rule, be judged to be a foul?

We do and it would depend on what the immediate result/advantage was for sure. Off ball contact has a different threshold for advantage/disadvantage and what would be considered "callable".

I try and determine how much was the offended player's freedom of movement impacted, and the severity of the contact. Still makes off ball calls rare IMO and in my experience. Most common ones are illegal screen activity and illegally bumping/checking/holding cutters through the lane.