The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 02:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 162
VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

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!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 03:03pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
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)
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #3 (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
  #4 (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
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokiePaul View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 05:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 162
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 05:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #8 (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
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 07:50pm
beware big brother
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: illinois
Posts: 994
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2017, 11:25pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Here is the video broken down.



Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
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
  #12 (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
  #13 (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
  #14 (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
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2017, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
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
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 01:17pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1