Screen....on all fours

[Adam]

I agree that this could have been prevented prior to the game. I quiet yet firm warning that such a play would result in a Technical foul would likely have stopped him from trying it. Any complaint from the coach if it still happened could have been followed with another T.

Mark, my understanding is that players only have the right to the spot on the floor above their feet (verticality). If a screener leans into a defender, it doesn't matter if he was there first, the foul is still on the screener. I see getting down on all fours as (at least) an extreme example of a screener leaning into the defender. At the very least, I've got an illegal screen.

[Luv4Asian8]

I would have to say that this would be a Technical. I have had or heard of too many players "flopping" trying to draw false fouls when they just end up being on the floor as a safety hazard to the rest of the players. Safety is tantamount!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Not only is this behavior "unbasketball-like" in it's nature, but from the description sounds like it is possible to cut a players legs out from under him and injure him. I would be inclinded to issue an immediate T for this behavior based on the potential danger. Call it unsportsmanlike behavior. Would I be over-reacting?

You might not be over-reacting, but you might be making the wrong call. Contact during a live ball is a personal foul of some type. Iow, you can call this foul a common foul, an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul. The only way that you can call it a T is to call the T before any contact is made, and then call it an unsporting act. Then you can also call it a regular T, or a flagrant T.

[Brad]

Getting down on all fours is not a legal guarding position. This one is just too obvious -- it's a foul on the guy on hands and knees on the floor.

The only argument here should be whether it is a common, intentional, or flagrant foul. I would lean towards the intentional myself because it was premeditated. Depending on the severity of contact it could be a flagrant.

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

Mark -- I think this might be the first time that I have ever disagreed with you

Call the obvious -- it makes all of our lives easier!

[BoomerSooner]

Not to sound like I'm supporting the "on all 4's play", but what if this player wasn't on all fours but laying on the floor in pain due to an injury and a defensive player trips over him (offensive player uses injured player for a screen - injured player is on offense), and yes I know the ref should have already stopped play but that kills my example. We still have a player in an atypical screening position, but now not intentionally. Do we still have a call?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
Not to sound like I'm supporting the "on all 4's play", but what if this player wasn't on all fours but laying on the floor in pain due to an injury and a defensive player trips over him (offensive player uses injured player for a screen - injured player is on offense), and yes I know the ref should have already stopped play but that kills my example. We still have a player in an atypical screening position, but now not intentionally. Do we still have a call?

FED: Legal play

NCAA: Blocking foul on the player on the floor

[RefRx]

Casebook 10.6.1 Sit E might address this issue. I would either call and intentional or an unsporting foul. Pulling a 3-Stooges routine is not basketball.

[footlocker]

I agree. Not basketball. Hurt player, common sense. Stop play, or no call. The hurt player example is doubly bad because 1. you did not stop play for him. 2. another player is now at risk of injury because of injured player #1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Brad
Getting down on all fours is not a legal guarding position. This one is just too obvious -- it's a foul on the guy on hands and knees on the floor.

The only argument here should be whether it is a common, intentional, or flagrant foul. I would lean towards the intentional myself because it was premeditated. Depending on the severity of contact it could be a flagrant.

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

Mark -- I think this might be the first time that I have ever disagreed with you

Call the obvious -- it makes all of our lives easier!

LGP doesn't apply since LGP is only defined for guarding an offensive opponent. This fall under the rules of screening....still I have the same conclusion.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Brad
Getting down on all fours is not a legal guarding position. This one is just too obvious -- it's a foul on the guy on hands and knees on the floor.

The only argument here should be whether it is a common, intentional, or flagrant foul. I would lean towards the intentional myself because it was premeditated. Depending on the severity of contact it could be a flagrant.

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

Mark -- I think this might be the first time that I have ever disagreed with you

Call the obvious -- it makes all of our lives easier!

Brad:

The definition of guarding does not apply to this play. The screening definition of this play is the rule that we as officials have to apply first. Yes, I agree, that if there is a contact foul called in this situation, it is a personal foul. In reference to the NFHS and NCAA Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings, I do not have my books in front of me to make a comment. As far as the original play is concerned, I really am going to have to say that it is probably one that you have to be there to see it to really make an accurate assessment of the situation.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

"A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics."

It seems to me the player on all fours is bending his body into "other than a normal position." If this impedes the progress of the defender, then I've got a personal foul. Any contact whatsoever is going to get called by me on this. If there's no contact, I'll wait til he starts barking to call the T.

[RefRx]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad
[ .

Definitely NOT a technical foul since the ball is live and this is not "unsporting" -- it is a contact foul.

I do think that it could be an unsporting foul, which is "a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct". While that action led to contact (which could also be a foul) Down on all fours to trip an unsespecting opponent certainly can be judged under the unsporting definition, which is not limited to just those actions in 10-3-7. Whatever your decision, contact foul or technical, something needs to be called. the poster who indicated that in NF this is a legal play is wrong.

[Stan]

When they get down on all fours, could we whistle the play stopped and have everyone help look for the "lost contact". That's the only reason you would be on the floor like that, isn't it?

Just a thought,
Stan

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Stan
When they get down on all fours, could we whistle the play stopped and have everyone help look for the "lost contact". That's the only reason you would be on the floor like that, isn't it?

Just a thought,
Stan

lol, i like this. and if they do it more than once, you blow the whistle and initiate a lost contact search every time. eventually it'll annoy them and they'll knock it off!

[Brad]

Mark,

If a player falls down and is laying on the floor and another player trips over him, is that not a foul? I don't think that you can lay on the floor simply because you "got there first"

- Brad