What is the call?

[bucky]

Based on OP description, this is a defensive foul..every...single..time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bucky

Based on OP description, this is a defensive foul..every...single..time.

Apparently you can’t read the first sentence of the comment in the above play ruling from the NFHS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Based on OP description, this is a defensive foul..every...single..time.

You misspelled offensive.

[bucky]

Nope, based on my interpretation of the OP, this is a defensive foul..every..single...time.

OP excludes any details such as number of steps, etc. between ball handler and defender. Based on your interpretation, ball handler could do the same thing, 20 feet in front of the defender and you would have an offensive foul. Based on OP, it would be nearly impossible for defender to not have a chance to stop or avoid contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Nope, based on my interpretation of the OP, this is a defensive foul..every..single...time.

OP excludes any details such as number of steps, etc. between ball handler and defender. Based on your interpretation, ball handler could do the same thing, 20 feet in front of the defender and you would have an offensive foul. Based on OP, it would be nearly impossible for defender to not have a chance to stop or avoid contact.

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.

[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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

clear implication

Oxymoron

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.