What is the call?

[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.

[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.