The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 02:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
*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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 09:18am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Same Path And Direction ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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)
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Feb 17, 2019 at 09:21am.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 09:51am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Different Path ..,.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Feb 17, 2019 at 10:35am.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 12:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 12:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
clear implication
Oxymoron
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 12:32pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Comment ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Feb 17, 2019 at 12:37pm.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 17, 2019, 01:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Oxymoron
Yet, it was still clear as day....sort of like saying it is a blue sky day implying the sun is shining.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 09:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 633
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 09:55am
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 10:08am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 11:30am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Establish A New Path To The Basket ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Feb 18, 2019 at 12:45pm.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 12:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 12:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 18, 2019, 12:47pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
And Don't You Dare Throw That Chair At Me ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
"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".
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
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
World Series call/no call discussion SWFLguy Softball 24 Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:15pm
State Playoffs - Call or No Call Blindolbat Basketball 33 Sun Mar 10, 2013 08:19am
ASA OBS call then no call leads to ejection DaveASA/FED Softball 28 Mon Jul 12, 2004 03:52pm
To call or not to call foul ball DaveASA/FED Softball 11 Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:47am
More Pacers/Pistons call/no call OverAndBack Basketball 36 Thu Jun 03, 2004 07:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1