What is the call?

[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?

[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.