What is the call?
 

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?

As the official, I have no idea what a player can and cannot "sense". I have a foul on the defense. Seems pretty easy to me. I'm not trying to figure out what the players are thinking. I'm going off what I can see in that situation.

The offense is trying to screen, and the player with the ball is given no more protection than a player without the ball. Foul on the offense, or play on (assuming the screening requirements were not met).

Player Behind Overruns His Opponent ...
 

It does sound like a screen, but the player behind is responsible for the contact.

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.

This wasn't a "same path and direction" play.

From the OP: "dribbler on purpose swerves in path and "slams" on the brakes "

Ticketed For Following Too Closely ...
 

If it wasn't same path and direction there wouldn't have been a collision when he slammed on the brakes (the "accident" would have been avoided).

Wait, I guess it could have been T-Bone accident?

I would like to see the play.

This is exact type of play that we have discussed at association meeting recently. The discussion leader agreed that the act by the ball handler was "pre-meditated"; however, he told us that we have to call this on the defensive player because we should never "think" for the ball handler--instead to simply judge if the contact was illegal. Believe me, I feel your pain on this one my fellow official; however, that ball handler is also risking a back injury by engaging in such a [dare I say 'unsporting'] ploy---and perhaps that could become his karma.

Unfortunate that your discussion leader put forth his personal opinion as an instruction to your group instead of the proper NFHS ruling.
The contact is illegal and the ballhandler caused it by doing something not permitted under the rules.

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)

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.

You misspelled offensive.

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.

*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.

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.

The comment part of the citation is what is relevant. It precisely matches the OP.

Same Path And Direction ...
 

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)

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.

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).

Different Path ..,.
 

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.

Oxymoron

Comment ...
 

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.

Yet, it was still clear as day....sort of like saying it is a blue sky day implying the sun is shining.

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.

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.

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

Establish A New Path To The Basket ...
 

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.

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.

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.

And Don't You Dare Throw That Chair At Me ...
 

"And by the way coach, that's your dribbler's fifth 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Screening Exception ...
 

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

Hamlet's Soliloquy ...
 

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.

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".

On Purpose ...
 

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?

Now now. Let's be real. In realtime bang-bang plays like this many times you don't have time or remember to "count" the steps. We do go with an approximation or feel. You get to count the steps if you see the whole action happening in your head in advance. We don't get that luxury many times.

Decades ...
 

Fair point, but it's more the way many of us (as well as coaches, players, and fans) have seen it called for decades in games we've worked, and in games we've observed.

Right or wrong, ball handling screeners seem to be customarily treated differently than screeners without the ball.

Many of us seem to pay more attention to the third sentence of the comment rather than the first two sentences.

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.

That's because customarily, the primary function of a screener is to get in somebody's way, which often leads to contact. Customarily, the ballhandler is occupied doing other things, but on the rare occasion that it happens, make the call and move on.


"Sometimes, you have to just referee."

Overly Officious Official ...
 

While, by rule, a ball handler may have to be treated as a screener, I have never seen a ball handler called for a player control (illegal screen) blocking foul in over thirty-eight years of officiating (added to years of playing, coaching, and observing).

Player control fouls are usually called for a ball handler plowing into a defender, not for a defender plowing into a ball handler from the rear.

If I ever call this, I'm not looking forward to explaining it to the coach, even if I whip out my rulebook and prove that I'm correct.

One fairly common illegal screen by dribbler is when the dribbler is handing off a pass and screens illegally by sticking out his butt etc....

That's why, at some levels, it's been a POE (at least informally, if not formally).

From Behind ...
 

Agree. But after the handoff he's no longer a ball handler, and any exception or "comment" to the screening rule would no longer apply.

My posts have all referred to one ball handler and one defender, and the defender is always approaching from behind.

Like a dribbler who changes direction and slows down in an attempt to run the offense and is plowed into by a defender from behind, or 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.

I've never seen these called a player control foul.

True, but this screen often happens before the ball is transferred.

Some assumptions to be made here.

1. If the dribbler can "sense" the defender, I am going to assume that the defender is following so close that their paths do overlap somewhat. With that, if the dribbler moves "more" into the path and stops, I have a foul on the defense.

2. If it is 100% clear that the offense made the intentional act to "screen" the defense and their paths are clearly different, I will call a foul on the offense. This threshold is pretty high though and very unlikely to play out.

3. If both the defense and offense are unaware of each others movements, this can be incidental.

Exactly my point and what i was trying to say/use as an example. Perhaps I did it poorly.

I've never EVER seen this called by an official at any game that I have watched or worked. Not one time.

I had almost the exact play as the OP in the playoffs, HS, last year with one exception. The dribbler immediately moved into the path, less than two steps, but the kicker was he even tried to backup a step so there was no possible way for the defender to avoid contact.

Foul on the dribbler, we went the other way.

Beep, Beep, Beep ...
 

Good call. I'm not sure that I would have made the same call, not because I disagree with the interpretation, but because it's such an odd call to properly react to in a bang bang situation.

The "backup a step" may have helped.

Indeed, backing up is waaaaaay different. In that case, it is a PC foul...every...single...time.;)

I agree 100%!

A sudden stop for no other reason isn't any different...both are designed to do the same thing.