What is the call?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

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.

More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

The "action" being the movement to screen or the resulting contact?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

The "action" being the movement to screen or the resulting contact?

Moving in a way that cuts off the defenders path with contact and with not offensive purpose. It is sort of like a shooter jumping sideways just to draw contact on a defender that would have otherwise completely missed.

If the dribbler had done the same thing and been in a motion of passing the ball to a teammate in that direction, I would then consider it a defensive foul.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

That's not what I meant and you know it. So if a dribbler, suddenly changes direction, for whatever reason, and a defensive player runs them over from behing you are going to go with an offensive foul by applying the screening principle?

Good luck with that. Some of you guys like to show how smart you supposedly are and apply principles that are not correct to the situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

That's not what I meant and you know it. So if a dribbler, suddenly changes direction, for whatever reason, and a defensive player runs them over from behing you are going to go with an offensive foul by applying the screening principle?

Good luck with that. Some of you guys like to show how smart you supposedly are and apply principles that are not correct to the situation.

Better than showing how dumb you are by insisting on ignoring a clear case play.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Better than showing how dumb you are by insisting on ignoring a clear case play.

So based on what little the OP said, you are just going to assume that the play falls under the case you are citing? You're just going to go offensive foul in the situation described?

Go ahead, but I don't think you will find a lot of officials that will make that call. In an actual game, most officials will not call the play an offensive foul. Especially the situation in the OP. There's not enough information to assume that the case fits the situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

So based on what little the OP said, you are just going to assume that the play falls under the case you are citing? You're just going to go offensive foul in the situation described?

Go ahead, but I don't think you will find a lot of officials that will make that call. In an actual game, most officials will not call the play an offensive foul. Especially the situation in the OP. There's not enough information to assume that the case fits the situation.

^ That is called rationalization.

FWIW, that OP was precisely this case play....that was the entire point of the OP.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by onetime1

Dribbler is in transition with defensive player running / trailing near half court. Offensive player can sense the defensive player is closing fast so dribbler on purpose swerves in path and "slams" on the brakes and gets knocked to the ground and trampled. Whatcha got?

How many steps did the defensive player take after the dribbler got in his path?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

How many steps did the defensive player take after the dribbler got in his path?

After changing direction, and subsequently establishing a new path and direction, were the dribbler and the defender now both traveling in the same path and direction?

If so, I don't think that the number of steps matters:

COMMENT: 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.

If not, I think that the number of steps does matter because screening principles apply:

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

After changing direction, and subsequently establishing a new path and direction, were the dribbler and the defender now both traveling in the same path and direction?



If so, I don't think that the number of steps matters:



COMMENT: 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.



If not, I think that the number of steps does matter because screening principles apply:



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.

It makes a difference as far as how soon the collision occurred afterwards. If he got in his path and stopped without giving the defender two steps to adjust between the time he got in his path and the time they collided, it's a foul on the screener. If he moved into the path and the defender got two or more steps before the collision, then if it's on the defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It makes a difference as far as how soon the collision occurred afterwards. If he got in his path and stopped without giving the defender two steps to adjust between the time he got in his path and the time they collided, it's a foul on the screener. If he moved into the path and the defender got two or more steps before the collision, then if it's on the defense.

Ay, there’s the rub! (Hamlet, William Shakespeare)

Agree, both reasonable, and correct, but there aren't too many of us who are going to count steps and call 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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ay, there’s the rub! (Hamlet, William Shakespeare)

Agree, both reasonable, and correct, but there aren't too many of us who are going to count steps and call 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.

That collision is going to be almost immediately after the change in path for it too be on the offense. Maybe we should be checking ourselves on this type of play to make sure we aren't unfairly penalizing the defense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ay, there’s the rub! (Hamlet, William Shakespeare)

Agree, both reasonable, and correct, but there aren't too many of us who are going to count steps and call 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.

That doesn't read like the OP -- which was near half court (a shot is unlikely here, and if there is one, it's a straight ahead launch), an "on-purpose" swerve and "slamming on the brakes".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... near half court, an "on-purpose" swerve and "slamming on the brakes".

That's fair. Now lets look a very similar situation but take away the "on purpose" part:

Originally Posted by SD Referee

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.

I don't believe that there aren't too many of us who are going to count steps and call a player control blocking (illegal screen) foul on a dribbler who changes direction and slows down in an attempt to run the offense and is plowed into by a defender from behind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's fair. Now lets look a very similar situation but take away the "on purpose" part:



I don't believe that there aren't too many of us who are going to count steps and call a player control blocking (illegal screen) foul on a dribbler who changes direction and slows down in an attempt to run the offense and is plowed into by a defender from behind.

Laziness on officials' part?