VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

[MOofficial]

2nd half .4 on the clock - Don't know if anyone can find the video of that one?

Play

VCU has the ball for an inbounds, underneath GW goal, and able to run the end line for the throw-in. VCU teammate sets up for a screen on the guy guarding the inbounds. Defender runs over the screener as he is not paying attention, nor thinking that a screen will be set on him. A pushing foul is called on the defense.

My questions - can an offensive player set a screen with one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds? That is what happened in this play.

A video of the play would help tremendously!

[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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by 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.

The only argument I have against this is that because they had the baseline to run, a player for the offense, say A2, could legally go OOB on the endline to receive a pass and then become the inbounder. Although that is not what the screener was doing, I don't know if you could say "leaving for an unauthorized reason" if he legally could cross the endline.

I've seen this play once before, but have not considered it where the screener had a foot OOB.

[MOofficial]

I'm going to assume that we will see a ruling on this shortly, or it will be clarified before the season begins next year. Like one said, we know that a defender cannot draw a charge while one foot is positioned out of bounds, but the book does not say anything about an offensive player in that same situation.

I would seem to believe that if the NCAA is wanting to create an equal playing field for both offense and defense, than the offensive player should not be allowed to set a screen while partially out of bounds.

[deecee]

In real time I'm probably making the same call. I won't lose much sleep over it either way and white needs to be more aware.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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

[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.