Video Request: Illegal Screen or Block?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Would like to see more opinions on the actual play in the OP. A1 appears to be dribbling in a set path and there is contact with a defender that does not have LGP.

Did T anticipate the hand-off that ended up not occurring?

Both options are certainly possible. This is as play you just have to referee.

Did the dribbler cut off the defender (screening rules apply) or did the defender run in to the dribbler (guarding rules apply)?

In my opinion, the dribbler intended to knock the defender off of his man and the defender was just trying to stay with his man....thus I see it as a screen. The fact that there was no handoff doesn't change that.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by deecee

The play was called correctly. The offensive player cannot just make a beeline for a defensive player (especially one that is guarding someone else) and just make arbitrary contact.

LGP has nothing to do with an illegal screen call (and in this case the defender had LGP on the player he was guarding). LGP has to do with block/charge situations, which this is not. The contact was an easy foul call on the ball handler and it was not a PC foul but an illegal screen foul.

What I would like to know is what the conversation was between the coach and the new T.

How do you make a beeline towards a moving object, yet at the same time continue in your initial path? Was he not just as likely making a 'beeline' to his teammate as he was the defensive player? There are many offensive sets that involve handing the ball off. If the defensive player decides to 'go over the top' instead of behind the hand-off, it makes the actual hand-off more risky and potentially causing the offensive player with the ball to disengage from attempting to hand the ball off.

I'm not saying this was called correctly or incorrectly, but I'm not seeing too many opinions siding one way, which leads me to believe this is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by deecee

The contact was an easy foul call on the ball handler and it was not a PC foul but an illegal screen foul.

If NFHS rules and defs are different than NCAA in this case, then I apologize.....but I don't believe there is such a thing as an illegal screen foul, per se. An illegal screen is a reason for foul call, but there is no definition for it as a type of foul.

What I'm saying is... somebody prove to me why the foul in this case is not a player control foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

The contact was an easy foul call on the ball handler and it was not a PC foul but an illegal screen foul.

Unless you're saying the ball handler didn't have control of the ball, it is a PC foul.

NCAA Men (from a prior book but this part hasn't changed):
Rule 4, Section 29, Art 2-a-1
Player-control foul. A player-control foul is a common foul committed:
a. (Men) By a player when he is in control of the ball.

Now, it isn't a charge, however. Maybe that is what you meant. Technically, it was a block committed while trying to set a screen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

How do you make a beeline towards a moving object, yet at the same time continue in your initial path? Was he not just as likely making a 'beeline' to his teammate as he was the defensive player? There are many offensive sets that involve handing the ball off. If the defensive player decides to 'go over the top' instead of behind the hand-off, it makes the actual hand-off more risky and potentially causing the offensive player with the ball to disengage from attempting to hand the ball off.

I'm not saying this was called correctly or incorrectly, but I'm not seeing too many opinions siding one way, which leads me to believe this is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

If A1, who has someone guarding him, is making a beeline towards a teammate who has someone guarding him then A1 is settig a screen or receiving a screen. The subsequent contact between A1/B2 or A2/B1 falls under screening rules and principles.

NCAA refs, as has been mentioned a couple times, are supposed to be on the lookout for A1 setting up these illegal screens. A1 is not accidentally ending up in B2's path.


Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I'm not saying this was called correctly or incorrectly, but I'm not seeing too many opinions siding one way, which leads me to believe this is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

I think everyone here who has opined has said that this was a correct call.

[ballgame99]

The fact that the handoff didn't occur on this play makes a big difference IMO. I don't see how that ball handler did anything wrong. The defender looks like he tried to fit into a place where he didn't fit and bumped into an active ball handler in the process. Did that ball handler put him in that position? Yes, but isn't that what basketball is about? Trying to get an advantageous position on the defense? Just because a ball handler gets in between a secondary defender and the guy he's supposed to be guarding doesn't give that defender the right to go through that ball handler.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're saying the ball handler didn't have control of the ball, it is a PC foul.



Now, it isn't a charge, however. Maybe that is what you meant. Technically, it was a block committed while trying to set a screen.

This is what I meant, it wasn't a charge, and I should have been more clear.

Yes illegal screen isn't a type of foul but it is a descriptor of the act that was committed. The foul would most likely be a block IMO.

[deecee]

BNR said it best as to the ball handlers movement why it was a foul. A lot CAN happen but it doesn't change what happened and doesn't excuse legal versus illegal contact. There are many legally executed dribble handoffs and this, even though botched, was definitely not one of them.

Freedom of movement applies to the defense as much as the offense and each player on the court has a right to not be illegally prevented from moving to where they were going.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The fact that the handoff didn't occur on this play makes a big difference IMO. I don't see how that ball handler did anything wrong. The defender looks like he tried to fit into a place where he didn't fit and bumped into an active ball handler in the process. Did that ball handler put him in that position? Yes, but isn't that what basketball is about? Trying to get an advantageous position on the defense? Just because a ball handler gets in between a secondary defender and the guy he's supposed to be guarding doesn't give that defender the right to go through that ball handler.

It is illegal when the player makes contact and dislodges the opponent. I've watched the video a half dozen times and don't see anyway this would NOT be a foul on the ball handler. The success of the handoff, like I said already, is immaterial to what happened.

Take the ball out of the equation and imagine he is just another player. Now how would you judge the contact?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The fact that the handoff didn't occur on this play makes a big difference IMO.

Lack of success in executing the play doesn't make it legal.

[walt]

Originally Posted by camron rust

lack of success in executing the play doesn't make it legal.

+1

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Lack of success in executing the play doesn't make it legal.

Is there an assumption being made that success equates to the hand-off being made? Maybe success of the play was a fake hand-off?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by deecee

It is illegal when the player makes contact and dislodges the opponent. I've watched the video a half dozen times and don't see anyway this would NOT be a foul on the ball handler. The success of the handoff, like I said already, is immaterial to what happened.

Take the ball out of the equation and imagine he is just another player. Now how would you judge the contact?

How is there illegality to a specific player when contact occurs 'in the middle', where two players meet as their paths cross?

Doesn't dislodging an opponent infer that the opponent was maintaining a specific spot on the floor, hence not moving?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

How is there illegality to a specific player when contact occurs 'in the middle', where two players meet as their paths cross?

Doesn't dislodging an opponent infer that the opponent was maintaining a specific spot on the floor, hence not moving?

Try to see the broader picture. The ball-handler improvised at the end which could be confusing. The play they are trying to stop is a dribbler purposely trying to pick for a shooter. It's a sneaky play that hasn't been called correctly in the past.