What is the call?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

*Not sure how this reference applies to the original post on this thread? Your rules reference here is talking about Ax "dribbling between defenders" and then causing contact. The original post is describing an altogether different type of action by said dribbler Ax; this was the case that our discussion leader was talking about and it was instructive.

The comment part of the citation is what is relevant. It precisely matches the OP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The clear implication is that the defender was right there with the ball handler and the ball handler cut off the defender at the last moment.

Agree. But isn't it possible that for a split second before contact the ball handler and the defender could have been going in the same path and direction, thus bringing into play the screening exception?

4-40: Screen
ART. 2 To establish a legal screening position:
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both the screener and opponent are moving in the same path and the same direction.
ART. 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.

10.7.7 SITUATION: During congested play in the free-throw semi-circle, B1 and B2 are less than 3 feet apart when dribbler A1 fakes to one side and then causes contact in attempting to dribble between them. RULING: Unless one of the defensive players is faked out of position to permit adequate space for the dribbler to go between without making contact, it is a player-control foul on A1. COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact. When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops. (4-7-2)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't be silly. The clear implication is that the defender was right there with the ball handler and the ball handler cut off the defender at the last moment. You're just trying to rationalize a way to not call it as prescribed.

Agreed. And it's why I included the "assuming the screening requirements were not met" caveat to my answer -- in an attempt to forezstall this kind of discussion.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. But isn't it possible that for a split second before contact the ball handler and the defender could have been going in the same path and direction, thus bringing into play the screening exception?

A "split second" doesn't cut it. I'll agree there's no specific guidance or case play on this, but I'd use something like the "one or two steps for a moving opponent" rule as a guideline here. If A1 move over and then move in the same direction for one or two steps (or such that B1 now has one or two steps), then the contact will be a foul on B1 (if the contact rises to the level of a foul).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'll agree there's no specific guidance or case play on this ...

The NFHS does make a distinction between "same path" and "different path".

They must have made that distinction in rule language and/or a caseplay for a reason.

Absent that distinction, I could agree with you.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The NFHS does make a distinction between "same path" and "different path".

They must have made that distinction in rule language and/or a caseplay for a reason.

Absent that distinction, I could agree with you.

Ignore the ball handler / dribbler in the OP. B1 running down the court. A1 suddenly steps in front of B1 and does not give B1 time to stop / change direction. You can't honestly tell me that you're raising the "same path" argument in 99.99% of the plays where that happens. It's no different just because the OP has the BHD involved.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

clear implication

Oxymoron

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Ignore the ball handler / dribbler in the OP. B1 running down the court. A1 suddenly steps in front of B1 and does not give B1 time to stop / change direction. You can't honestly tell me that you're raising the "same path" argument in 99.99% of the plays where that happens. It's no different just because the OP has the BHD involved.

The comment makes it different.

COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact. When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

Absent the comment in 10.7.7 SITUATION (specifically regarding a "dribbler", and differentiating between "different path", and "same path"), I would agree with you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Oxymoron

Yet, it was still clear as day....sort of like saying it is a blue sky day implying the sun is shining.

[Kansas Ref]

Anyone got a video of this type of action ?
From the reactive commentary of esteemed Forum members it is evident that there is a clear difference in how this play would be called if any of you would be adjudicating this action. Maybe this difference is the result of different ways folks are reading it [and thereby visualizing the play] or maybe it's due to way the Rule is being applied. Or maybe the NF verbiage of "different path" "same path" is problematic.

[LRZ]

If a "dribbler on purpose swerves in path,"* he/she is not simply "slowing down or stopping."** Instead, he/she is no longer "in exactly the same path and same direction."***

*Per the OP.
**Per the comment.
***Per the comment again.

[Raymond]

If the dribbler moves into the path of the defender, then screening rules apply as far as time and distance. If the dribbler and defender are on the same path, then the defender is responsible for contact if the dribbler stops.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

If a "dribbler on purpose swerves in path," he/she is not simply "slowing down or stopping." Instead, he/she is no longer "in exactly the same path and same direction."

This is quite possible. However, after the swerve, it is also possible for the dribbler to establish a new path to the basket, where both the dribbler and the defender are now going in the same path and direction, thus bringing the screening exception into play before slowing down and before contact occurs from behind.

To be honest, I can't see myself calling a player control blocking (illegal screen) foul on a dribbler who changes direction and slows down to get his footwork established before a shot attempt and is plowed into by a defender from "behind" even if the defender is coming in at an angle (a different path and direction).

"Sorry coach, by changing direction and slowing down he set an illegal screen, it's a player control foul on your dribbler because he didn't allow time and distance for the defender to avoid contact".

That's not going to go over very well.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

This wasn't a "same path and direction" play.

From the OP: "dribbler on purpose swerves in path and "slams" on the brakes "

You don't know that the dribbler moved into the line of the defense and stopped on purpose to get a foul. They might have had other ideas.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't be silly. The clear implication is that the defender was right there with the ball handler and the ball handler cut off the defender at the last moment. You're just trying to rationalize a way to not call it as prescribed.

I disagree.

Without seeing the video, we have no idea what really happened.

Perhaps the dribbler, had no clue if anybody was behind and was simply changing their direction. That's an offensive foul? No way!

I agree that based on what little we know, this is a foul on the defense. I've seen players in transition suddenly stop and pull the ball out in an attempt to run the offense. They have been run over by a defensive player hustling up court to get back on defense. That's not an offensive foul and what I envision from the OP. No way you can call that an offensive foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Sorry coach, by changing direction and slowing down he set an illegal screen, it's a player control foul on your dribbler because he didn't allow time and distance for the defender to avoid contact".

"And by the way coach, that's your dribbler's fifth foul".