Illegal Screen?
I "no-called" a play which had everyone in an uproar.
A1 has an uncontested lay-up, going down the tableside sideline, then heads towards the basket on a 45-degree angle with the end line. A2 and B2 in motion, meet up at the tableside lane space closest to the FT line. A2 is between B2 and the basket. A2 and B2 both move at the same speed and same direction, from where they started, towards the basket. There is no contact, but they are only an inch apart. It appears to all that A2 impeded B2's attempt to defend the play, as they moved together, step by step. But with no contact, no foul, correct? |
Stand your ground ChuckS.
I've had the same type of play in games where I did not see contact but rather just syncrhonous motion between Ax and Bx who happened to be in very close proximity as Ay is engaged in a try for goal. It's expected that the peanut gallery will rail against you; they don't have the well-positioned good "look/angle" on the play that you did. |
Quote:
You had Obstruction and you should have awarded Team B an Indirect Free Kick. Oops! Wrong sport, :p! MTD, Sr. |
Are there any fouls you can call that don't involve contact? What are those fouls and do they apply here?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
To call this, I assume I would have to deem that A2 deliberately impeded B2, rather than just being in the wrong place at the wrong time? |
In this instance, even if there was contact, I believe this is a case where a "moving screen" is legal. In fact, if B2 completely runs over A2, you might have a foul on B2.
4-40-6 When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent. |
Personal fouls involve contact. Period.
(And no, technical fouls are not personal fouls.) |
Quote:
|
Even if there is contact it doesn't mean the offense did anything wrong. They are entitled to their space on the floor and screening principles don't necessarily apply here.
|
Quote:
If the defender is trying to get to the ball handler, why would they not apply? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is contrary to the principle that all players have a right to place on the floor on a first come first serve basis and screening principles apply only during the act of screening. |
Quote:
You are right about what I'm advocating. That is the fundamental concept of screening. This is not contrary at all to the concept that players have a right to a space on the floor. The offensive player is moving to a new space on the floor and only gets there legally if they meet the rules that define getting there legally. When a screen occurs, it has to be stationary, by rule, unless the screener is moving directly away. You seem to think a screen is something more specific than it is. Quote:
If it were any other way, you'd have screeners pretending not to set a screen to avoid the requirements of screening. |
Yes I meant offense in that spot.
So say you have 3 players running parallel A1 A2 B1 B1 then wants to guard A1 and turns to go guard A1 but makes contact with A2 who is still moving in the same path he/she is. You would call this a foul whereas I say it's not a foul on A2. He didn't do anything wrong at all. |
Quote:
First, A2 is not moving in the same path as anyone. They're parallel paths, not the same one. If they're in the same path, then A2 need not stop if B1 is following in that path. A2's movement is continuing to cut off B1's path to A1. A2 must follow the rules for screening. What ever path B1 attempts to take to A1, A2 must be in it 1-2 steps before B1 reaches the spot, not just before. What you have just described is a textbook illegal screen. It usually happens across the top but it isn't any different just because they're running down the court. |
I respectfully disagree. No where does it say that an offensive player must stop movement simply because a defender is about to cross paths with them. The 1-2 steps caveat is in relations to the setting of a screen, not a decree that an offensive player must give a defender 1-2 steps leeway of any contact.
|
Camron is right.
Offensive players cannot be running around the court and causing collisions with defensive players who are attempting to reach the ballhandler. That is an illegal screen. Picture the NFL “pick play” in which two wide receivers cross. During this movement one WR runs into the defensive back who is attempting to guard another WR. This leaves the second WR open to receive a pass. This is illegal in football (offensive pass interference) and is also an illegal screen on a basketball court. In order to be legal in a basketball game A2 must come to a stop before contact occurs. Also, as Camron has stated, A2 must come to a stop and give B1 1 or 2 strides because B1 is a moving opponent. If B1 were stationary, A2 can stop anywhere short of contact with the opponent, except when behind him and then he must give 1 step. The onus is on the offensive player to stop in a basketball game. The reason is that defenders need to be allowed to move in order to guard. This is the very reason why we have screening rules. If we didn’t, then non-ballhandlers on offense would simply run into the defenders and knock them down or away from the ballhandler. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Playing Devil's Advocate, based on the recent posts by DeeCee and Camron and NevadaRef:
A1, standing still at the top of the FT semi-circle, unguarded, dribbling. Cutter A2 runs parallel to the end line, through the FT lane. B1, standing near the basket, sees A2 begin his cut, and tries to draw an illegal screen call by timing his approach to "guard" A1, so that he collides with A2....illegal screen? |
Quote:
You have to determine where B1 is trying to get to. Is B1 chucking a cutter preventing A1 from getting somewhere and committing a block in doing so or is B1 trying to defend A1 and A2 is illegally cutting of B1's path to A1. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I can buy the reasons given. It just seems off.
Take a defensive rebound and players transitioning. A defender is out of position and moving towards guarding his opponent. An offensive player (say a post player) is simply moving from defense to offense to get to his position. The fact that he has to stop because "he is simply in the way" is a difficult sell to me. The logic makes sense, but this also negates the fact that the offensive player has a right to his spot on the floor and is clearly not a screener. |
Sometimes Fans Feel Like Nuts, Sometimes They Don't ...
Officials see this situation a few times each year, two offensive players and one defensive player on a breakaway, all heading toward the basket, with one offensive player between the ball handler and the defensive player.
And, or course, the fans, and maybe even the misinformed coach, are yelling for a "Moving screen". Most of the time we just smile and think to ourselves, "Yeah, it's certainly a moving screen, but it's not illegal because there's no contact, a moving screen is, in itself, not illegal". And then occasionally there is contact, the offensive player without the ball, while moving, contacts the defender, preventing him from defending the ball handler. That's an illegal moving screen, more accurately known as a team control blocking foul. |
Quote:
Why do you say the offensive player is clearly not a screener. Being a screener isn't something B1 has to designate. If A2 blocks the path of another player, deliberately or not, A2 is, by defintion, a screening. Screening is the effect of the position, not the intent of the action. Additionally, a defender has the right to the path to play defense and such path has to be blocked (screened) at least 1-2 steps before the defender gets to a spot (moving defender). |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51am. |