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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Here is the video broken down.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VUIVTDGUX0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Disagree (with the possible exception of the screener being OOB issue). The defender kept going after the contact.

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.

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....

+1

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.

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.

Even if it's a blind screen, I think he gave the defender a step.

But, it's not a blind screen.

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.

Dale, look at 4-40-3. A screen on the "side or in front" is "within the visual field." 4-40-7 says players screened "within visual field" must avoid contact. Not looking is not a defense.

If the screen was SET, not in front or on the side, but behind him somewhere it can be incidental contact.

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

The rules for the NCAA and NF on screens are practically identical. But contact can be severe if the contact is inadvertent and the screener is moving rapidly and the opponent tries to stop or tries to move around the screen. That was clearly not the case here. BTW, that is only stated that way in the NF Rulebook with that language. That is not the language of the NCAA Rules on this issue.

Peace

It surprised me too when I looked it up! I too expect a clarification from the NCAA shortly.

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.

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.'"

HA me too.

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.

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...

Use it for ice -- for his knee and his drink ... on the house

I don't care what the NFHS rule says, I very rarely use that rule set and the play in question was an NCAA-M game. Also don't care what the dictionary says about vision field and you can say the screener was or should have been in defenders periphery vision, but that may or may not be true. Even if the defender is not concentrating on the inbounder, people have different levels of peripherial vision what one person sees many other people may not. For me it is simple, he is looking forward, the screener is completely on his side, outside his field of vision.

Whether the screener has the ball or not does in fact matter because I see this play as incidental contact. Read section 21, article 5. For you, it doesn't matter since you don't believe it to be incidental contact.

I dont think its incidental because i dont believe it to be a screen set outside the visual field. I think 21-4 applies. I think what is and isnt within the visual field is a standard for all. Front or side is within. Anywhere behind or out of that field is not. We dont consider who sees better than others.

We Should All Have One Of These In Our Bags ...
 

Maybe we should:

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=263&h=176

(I remember using one of these when I took a summer school drivers education class back in 1970.)

A ruling from Art Hyland (NCAA) was recently announced:

Screening Recently, there have been several questions regarding players setting screens with one foot out of bounds. Since this situation is not covered by the present rules, please see the Play Situation below. Play Situation: Team A is inbounding the ball after a made basket by Team B. A1 is attempting to inbound the ball along the end line and B1 is attempting to pressure the throw-in by standing near the end line in front of A1. A2 sets a screen 10 feet to the side of B1 with one foot on the end line and one foot inbounds. A1, while out of bounds, runs with the ball parallel to the end line while still out of bounds. B1 continues to pressure A1’s attempt to inbound the ball and moves with A1 without breaking the plane of the end line. B1 does not see the screen set by A2 and crashes into A2. Ruling: Even though A2 may have complied with all other screening rules, A2 should be charged with a personal foul because A2 had a foot on the end line and may not establish or maintain a legal screen while out of bounds. Rule 4-34 and 10-1.17. Note- Rule 4-17.1 also requires the defense to establish and maintain position inbounds on the playing court to be in legal guarding position.