The Official Forum - Fun With Blowing Through Screens ...

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Fun With Blowing Through Screens ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105302-fun-blowing-through-screens.html)

Fun With Blowing Through Screens ...

Is this an illegal screen or a foul on the defense? Observe the action on this play and make a determination if the screen in the middle of the lane is legal (Blue 11) or if the defender pushes through the screen (White 3). Could this be ruled a double foul with both actions being illegal?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...dHmiktW7jS.mp4

Five choices: This is an illegal screen (Blue 11). This is a defensive foul on White 3 (pushing through the screen). This is a double foul. This is incidental contact (play on). This is an illegal screen followed by a dead ball contact technical foul.

My comment: This is a double foul. Blue #11 illegally moves to his left while setting a screen against a moving opponent and illegal blocking contact occurs. At approximately the same time White #3 pushes and "blows" through the screen.

Thoughts?

The screener has stopped moving by the time there was contact. The defender did not blow through the screen. The defender stopped upon contact, but did have his arms extended, so I guess I would call a push for that, but it was rather weak.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Embellished Contact ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1041672)

The screener has stopped moving by the time there was contact.

4-40-5: When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. The position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1041672)

The defender did not blow through the screen. The defender stopped upon contact, but did have his arms extended, so I guess I would call a push for that, but it was rather weak.

Agree. Yes, it was weak, but there was still illegal pushing contact, contact that may have been "embellished" by the screener.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041671)

Double foul?

C'mon. Some of us referee in the real world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1041683)

Double foul?

C'mon. Some of us referee in the real world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree. I'd have an illegal screen.

Theory Versus Practice ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1041683)

Double foul? C'mon. Some of us referee in the real world.

Double foul sounds good in theory, sitting here in front of my computer monitor watching replays. Over forty years, I can count the number of double fouls I've actually called on the fingers of two hands (some in preseason scrimmages involving knuckleheads trying to impress the coach to be named a starter, or to move up and become full time varsity player).

IAABO Survey Says …

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...dHmiktW7jS.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a defensive foul on White 3 (pushing through the screen)

Blue #11 attempts to set a screen in the high post area on White #3 when contact ensues between them. Does Blue #11 violate screening principles? Blue #11 is moving to his left when attempting to obtain a screening position. Because the screener was moving to a new position, the legality of the screen is based on whether or not he gave the opponent (White #3) the appropriate time and distance to avoid the contact. (4-40-2b,2c) Does White #3 violate the contact rules? It is not legal to use hands and arms to force his/her way through a screen to maintain a guarding position relative to his/her opponent. (4-24-4)

25% of respondents ruled each player violated the contact rules at approximately at the same time and therefore would charge a double personal foul on this play.

If the initial contact on the screener results from the defender’s momentum pushing through the screen, there is rules support to only rule a blocking foul on the screener. When screeners fail to give proper time and distance to moving opponents, they often are displaced as a result of the contact. (27% of respondents viewed this to be a blocking foul on the screener Blue #15)

If Blue #15 gave enough time and distance to the opponent to avoid the contact and the defender decided to push through the screen, the correct ruling would be a foul on the player being screened. (This was the leading response, with 40% of respondents ruling the screen to be legal and only charging a foul to the defender White #3.)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a defensive foul on White 3 (pushing through the screen) 41%; This is an illegal screen (Blue 11) 26%; This is a double foul 25% (including me); This is incidental contact (play on) 4%; This is an illegal screen followed by a dead ball contact technical foul 4%.

The only foul I would have is on the defender, but I think the screener embellishes a little too. So I might pass if I think this was a flopper.

Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041790)

This is an illegal screen followed by a dead ball contact technical foul 4%.

How many people respond to these? Is this one dude in 25 or 40 in 1000? I could see one or two people trolling the poll ... but is this a sizable minority?

No Batteries Needed ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041790)

This is an illegal screen followed by a dead ball contact technical foul 4%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 1041822)

How many people respond to these? Is this one dude in 25 or 40 in 1000? I could see one or two people trolling the poll ... but is this a sizable minority?

35 of 969.

Give me a second to get my trusty Pickett Model N-500-ES Trig All Metal Slide Rule (don't ever have to worry about low batteries, it's always ready to go) out of its leather belt holster ... 3.6%.

Want me to "push" for third significant digit? It's a good slide rule.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...925d5034_m.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041823)

I think the best thing you could do with your slide rule at this point would be to find those 35 officials and use it to slap their wrists.:D

Somewhere Where The Sun Don't Shine ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 1041832)

I think the best thing you could do with your slide rule at this point would be to ...

Whew. I thought for sure that you were going to tell me to do something else with it. Something unspeakable. Somewhere where slide rules don't belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041671)

I have a Blocking Foul by B11 for an Illegal Screen and also award him 5 Razzies for over acting afer the contact between him and W3.

MTD, Sr.

As Well As An Abacus ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1041834)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Now here's a guy that I guarantee knows his way around a slide rule.

It's how he met his lovely better half.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.i...=0&w=192&h=176