VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

[Raymond]

Can't get you a clip, but here is an article with video embedded: VCU appeared to lose on a buzzer-beater, again, then somehow won, again (Video)

[HokiePaul]

Interesting play for discussion. I don't think this logic would apply for college rules, but for NFHS, I could see the argument for this being a violation on the screener for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. The contact would then be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Since the ball is live on the throw in, I don't think this is any different than any other screen.

[Dale3]

Very interesting play. This contact is severe enough, it cant be ignored.

In a block/charge situation you cannot have legal guarding position with a foot OOB, therefore automatic block.

I would assume this applies for screens too, but not sure? I dont have my rule book with me.

[hamnegger]

Originally Posted by Dale3

Very interesting play. This contact is severe enough, it cant be ignored.

In a block/charge situation you cannot have legal guarding position with a foot OOB, therefore automatic block.

I would assume this applies for screens too, but not sure? I dont have my rule book with me.

“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.

[johnny d]

Terrible call. Defensive player attempted to stop on contact with a blind screen. He did not run through or push through the screener. This is inadvertent contact and should not be called a foul.

[JRutledge]

Here is the video broken down.



Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Terrible call. Defensive player attempted to stop on contact with a blind screen. He did not run through or push through the screener. This is inadvertent contact and should not be called a foul.

Disagree (with the possible exception of the screener being OOB issue). The defender kept going after the contact.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

disagree (with the possible exception of the screener being oob issue). The defender kept going after the contact.

+1

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Terrible call. Defensive player attempted to stop on contact with a blind screen. He did not run through or push through the screener. This is inadvertent contact and should not be called a foul.

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....

[Nevadaref]

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....

I recall Princeton using it in an NCAA tournament game in the early 90s. They did not get a whistle.

[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.

[tnolan]

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.

you could make a case for a no call here at any level.
let's ignore that his foot is OOB. he is setting a screen to the side, within the visual field, so time and distance don't need to be a factor, and he can set a screen anywhere short of contact...so this isn't a "blind" screen.
you could also say that the GW player was moving prior to the screen...in which case time and distance IS a factor and i would argue that he gave him one real good stride/step, which is all that is needed.

at this point, the official has to decide whether or not the contact warrants a foul or not.
it could be a "quick reaction call" or the official could've seen a slight extension of the arms as a push thru, thus a foul.

[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 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