VCU / George Washington - Legal/Illegal Screen?

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm going to use that line tonight.

"Can't tell you why that's a foul, but it 'just seems right.'"

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm going to use that line tonight.

"Can't tell you why that's a foul, but it 'just seems right.'"

HA me too.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

What about the fact that he is screening a moving opponent and if you slow it down, the contact occurs on his first step after screen is set. I think its illegal.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

What about the fact that he is screening a moving opponent and if you slow it down, the contact occurs on his first step after screen is set. I think its illegal.

A few random thoughts at 1133pm when i cant feel my right knee...

1. Im not a fan of the rule which says a player with foot on the line or OB doesn't have legal guarding position. I get the reasoning, but as i always say, its hard to get kids to stay in or move and accept contact. When they do, id prefer to reward that. Even if foot OB. In this play, i see that as the biggest issue. I dont like it, BUT, if you say a player cannot have lgp with foot OB not sure how you can say its ok for screener. True it isnt in screener rule but probably because it doesn't come up. Personally, i dont need an interp to say this is illegal. I would go with illegal cause make no sense to say its ok. If an interp tells me its ok then i would change.


2. My comments to johhny were over fact this wasnt a blind screen. The next issue after foot OB is a screen on a moving opponent so Bill, you are on track. I didnt look at it slowed down frame by frame because i dont referee that way. First glance i thought screener was there and defender shuffled once or twice. What i saw leads me to think he had time and distance to avoid contact.

3. Im fine with whatever the call was. Replay officials have it made. Its another world as we know on the court. If you create a situation where i have to make a choice, as here, you might not like my choice. I cant predict when i will screw up. I will do the best i can but if you winning or losing comes down to me and this last call you simply didnt play well enough. That's how i coached and what i believe.

This post was over the length limit so im throwing 10 bucks into the kitty...