VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

[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.

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.

[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

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.