VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

I see nothing in the screening rules requiring a player to remain inbounds. And this could not be a "Going OOB" violation in college, but maybe in high school.

That said I have a legal screen and a fouled by the defender going through the screen. Pretty clearly does not stop at contact but goes through.

[BigT]

If he was looking to his left how would he have seen this screen which came from behind him? Since it was behind him how was there time and distance given for him to be able to avoid it. The person he is screening for is moving like crazy down the endline so doesnt that movement require more distance when coming from his blind side. Could he have avoided it given where it came from...having a hard time with this one. The referee wasnt watching the defense or he would have had a better look at what to call IMO.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BigT

If he was looking to his left how would he have seen this screen which came from behind him? Since it was behind him how was there time and distance given for him to be able to avoid it. The person he is screening for is moving like crazy down the endline so doesnt that movement require more distance when coming from his blind side. Could he have avoided it given where it came from...having a hard time with this one. The referee wasnt watching the defense or he would have had a better look at what to call IMO.

Screen is set on defender's side. Screener gets set. doesn't matter where he came from. i think the defender shuffles a couple times and then contact. His eyes are glued on the in bounder. He's got to be aware. If he'd have turned his head before moving left he has chance to avoid it.

The speed of the in bounder moving down the end line doesn't matter, its about the screener's position and the player who contacts him.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigT

If he was looking to his left how would he have seen this screen which came from behind him? Since it was behind him how was there time and distance given for him to be able to avoid it. The person he is screening for is moving like crazy down the endline so doesnt that movement require more distance when coming from his blind side. Could he have avoided it given where it came from...having a hard time with this one. The referee wasnt watching the defense or he would have had a better look at what to call IMO.

Even if it's a blind screen, I think he gave the defender a step.

But, it's not a blind screen.

[Dale3]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

“In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact ”

You can make a case for a no call based on that wording in a NFHS game.

This is a great post. I dont see how you can argue a foul on white (using NFHS rules) after seeing this post. Incidental Contact.

Not sure if NCAA book has any similar wording to this.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Dale3

This is a great post. I dont see how you can argue a foul on white (using NFHS rules) after seeing this post. Incidental Contact.

Not sure if NCAA book has any similar wording to this.

Dale, look at 4-40-3. A screen on the "side or in front" is "within the visual field." 4-40-7 says players screened "within visual field" must avoid contact. Not looking is not a defense.

If the screen was SET, not in front or on the side, but behind him somewhere it can be incidental contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I see nothing in the screening rules requiring a player to remain inbounds. And this could not be a "Going OOB" violation in college, but maybe in high school.

That said I have a legal screen and a fouled by the defender going through the screen. Pretty clearly does not stop at contact but goes through.

You are actually right that in neither the NCAA or the NF there is explicit rules about stepping on the line or setting a screen out or bounds and how that is illegal. But I am pretty sure there is an interpretation in NF that does suggest you must set a screen in the field of play, but the actual rules do not seem to back that up.

I am wondering if the NCAA will address this specific play for this very reason. I guess we will have to see.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dale3

This is a great post. I dont see how you can argue a foul on white (using NFHS rules) after seeing this post. Incidental Contact.

Not sure if NCAA book has any similar wording to this.

The rules for the NCAA and NF on screens are practically identical. But contact can be severe if the contact is inadvertent and the screener is moving rapidly and the opponent tries to stop or tries to move around the screen. That was clearly not the case here. BTW, that is only stated that way in the NF Rulebook with that language. That is not the language of the NCAA Rules on this issue.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are actually right that in neither the NCAA or the NF there is explicit rules about stepping on the line or setting a screen out or bounds and how that is illegal. But I am pretty sure there is an interpretation in NF that does suggest you must set a screen in the field of play, but the actual rules do not seem to back that up.

I am wondering if the NCAA will address this specific play for this very reason. I guess we will have to see.

It surprised me too when I looked it up! I too expect a clarification from the NCAA shortly.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Under the screening rule this isn't a screen "outside visual field." Aka blind. "Within the visual field" is front or side as we have here. He's blind here because he doesn't look. Not under the rule.

I think by rule it's an illegal pick because he's got a foot out of bounds. I think it's reasonable to infer if you can't have LGP while OB you also can't screen OB. Having said that, I can see how it be missed. And as Deecee said, kid has to be aware. That's a really, really, really old play....

The rule book does not define outside the visual field as being behind, to the side, or in front. Nor does the rule state that it is the person being screened responsibility to look for screens that are set outside of his visual field. If the player is looking straight ahead and the screen is set on the side, as in this video, it is possible and very likely that the screener is outside of the defender's visual field. You are adding words to the definition of outside the visual field that are not in the rule. Additionally, since the screener in this play was not in control of the ball, the displacement caused by the collision should be considered incidental.

[KCref11]

This is another case of common sense has to prevail. The GW player was not looking and had no idea there was a screen there. Intent to me is out the window and the contact becomes incidental. I realize there may not be a rule to back this up but it just seems right.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by KCref11

This is another case of common sense has to prevail. The GW player was not looking and had no idea there was a screen there. Intent to me is out the window and the contact becomes incidental. I realize there may not be a rule to back this up but it just seems right.

I'm going to use that line tonight.

"Can't tell you why that's a foul, but it 'just seems right.'"

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm going to use that line tonight.

"Can't tell you why that's a foul, but it 'just seems right.'"

HA me too.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnny d

The rule book does not define outside the visual field as being behind, to the side, or in front. Nor does the rule state that it is the person being screened responsibility to look for screens that are set outside of his visual field. If the player is looking straight ahead and the screen is set on the side, as in this video, it is possible and very likely that the screener is outside of the defender's visual field. You are adding words to the definition of outside the visual field that are not in the rule. Additionally, since the screener in this play was not in control of the ball, the displacement caused by the collision should be considered incidental.

The NFHS rule 4-40 does verbatim. Side and front is visual field. Behind is not within visual field. NCAAM doesn't say the words side or front but meaning is same. 4-34-3. Within visual field anywhere short of contact is fine. Outside of it one step.

I did look up "visual field." Merriam Webster says the visual field is determined by person looking straight ahead. Anything in the periphery is within visual field. If I look straight ahead I can still see to side. Now if I concentrate so much on what is directly in front of me I can't see anything to side. I'm Not using my peripheral vision. That does not mean that what is there, the screener in this play, is not within my visual field.

Finally, 4-21-4 of NCAAM rules say player screened within visual field expected to avoid contact. Fact that he doesn't have the ball doesn't matter.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The NFHS rule 4-40 does verbatim. Side and front is visual field. Behind is not within visual field. NCAAM doesn't say the words side or front but meaning is same. 4-34-3. Within visual field anywhere short of contact is fine. Outside of it one step.

I did look up "visual field." Merriam Webster says the visual field is determined by person looking straight ahead. Anything in the periphery is within visual field. If I look straight ahead I can still see to side. Now if I concentrate so much on what is directly in front of me I can't see anything to side. I'm Not using my peripheral vision. That does not mean that what is there, the screener in this play, is not within my visual field.

Finally, 4-21-4 of NCAAM rules say player screened within visual field expected to avoid contact. Fact that he doesn't have the ball doesn't matter.

What about the fact that he is screening a moving opponent and if you slow it down, the contact occurs on his first step after screen is set. I think its illegal.