The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 546
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 04:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 05:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale3 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 07:50pm
beware big brother
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: illinois
Posts: 996
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 11:25pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
Here is the video broken down.



Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 11:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
disagree (with the possible exception of the screener being oob issue). The defender kept going after the contact.
+1
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 11:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 12:00pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 04:40pm
beware big brother
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: illinois
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 04:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 8
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 05:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d View Post
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.

Last edited by BigCat; Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:52pm.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 10:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamnegger View Post
“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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamnegger View Post
“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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(Video) Legal or Illegal Screen JRutledge Basketball 57 Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:09pm
Illegal or legal screen (Video) Texref Basketball 59 Fri Jun 06, 2014 06:19am
Legal/Illegal Screen or No Call APG Basketball 23 Thu May 31, 2012 10:17am
Technical Foul Costs George Washington University Dearly grunewar Basketball 13 Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:38pm
Legal Screen Pass Grey Hare Football 14 Mon Nov 14, 2005 02:02pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1