Rule Question (on screens) and $5 reward

[CYO Butch]

Originally posted by N_Stripes
Okay, you got me with the screener has to have the ball.

In essence, what you are trying to prove is that a player (B1 in this case) could run all over the court backwards and not ever be responsible for contact he/she makes with other players with legal positions.
That's just not a good situation IMHO.

It might not be a good situation, but it would be totally hilarious to watch.

[tharbert]

During the second half of the SIU v SMS game on Sunday, Brad Korn was out cold on the floor from a sitch exactly like described here. Brad never look up while defnding the ball handler and colided with a very solid SMS screen. The screener was standing still at least 30 feet before Brad initiated contact. Brad went down like a ton of bricks and was out for about 20 seconds. The ref was there and had a no-call all the way.

Good officiating!

[Hawks Coach]

B1 can play defense and run into a screener that he doesn't see, provided he stops or attempts to change direction on making contact. It is a blind screen, intended to catch the opponent by surprise, and the contact is by rule incidental.

On the hard crash, the question is whether or not an assignor wants it called, as well as whtether you judge B1 to have attempted to stop. Another consideration is advantage/disadvantage - if the contact works to B's favor, you may feel it needs to be called. But by the book, B1 can make hard contact if he doesn't see the screen, then stop, and it is all incidental, regardless of whether or not A2 crashes.

As the coach of the screening team, my screen achieved its purpose. I don't want a foul called in most cases. I know that you will hear it from some coaches and most fans, but I want my players to be allowed to finish the play if I get an advantage from the blind screen. And I teach them to protect themselves, particularly in these cases where they can easily expect contact.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by wolfe44
My reason for this thread was to try to find the actual case (from a previous year) where this was described and presented as "incidental contact--no foul." The case is out there, and I would like to find it so that I can show the intent of the rule.

Thanks to all!

Honest question...if a case has been removed from the case book, is it still considered to be official? As long as the rule on which it was based has not changed?

[Bart Tyson]

No, you are wrong. Time and distant are irrelevant in this case because the screen was a LEGAL screen. Time and distance are relevant for ILLEGAL screens. The answer is that it is NOT a foul on B1 as long as he tries to avoid/minimize contact once he knows it is there. In this case, the contact was severe and knocked the screener over, but it is still not a foul. To be ruled "incidental." Look it up. [/B]

I think you need to contact NF and tell them rule 4-39-5 is wrong. It sure says MUST allow T & D. And as Mark Dexter pointed out, T & D is what makes a legal screen. But, hey, there has been mistakes in the book before.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Honest question...if a case has been removed from the case book, is it still considered to be official? As long as the rule on which it was based has not changed?

Oy!

Someone want to close this thread down before we go another half-dozen pages on this one???

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

I think you need to contact NF and tell them rule 4-39-5 is wrong. It sure says MUST allow T & D. And as Mark Dexter pointed out, T & D is what makes a legal screen. But, hey, there has been mistakes in the book before. [/B]

I think that the point he is making is that time and distance establish that it was a legal screen, and this clearly was. Time and distance do not apply to what a player hit by a blind screen may or may not do - that is a mis-application of the time and distance rule. If the screen is legal (i.e., T&D met), the applicable rule is not 4-39-5 as we have already met that requirement. Now the pertinent citation is:

10-6-3d
A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball.

Note that ouside the visual field, there is no reference to T&D - it does not apply to what the legally screened player may or may not do.

[Bart Tyson]

Coach Hawks, I think you can't ignore the definition of a legal screen. It appears to me you are setting aside the definition to make your point. In the play we are discussing B1 ran over the opponent. I think you have a foul on B1, IF rule 4-39-5 was met.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
10-6-3d
A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball.

So there's your rule citation, Wolfe: 10-6-3d Almost word for word what you were looking for. Although the way it's worded in the book, I'm not sure that's the way I'd reference it. Also, note that it's in the rule book, not the case book. Too bad there is that little provision about the opponent stopping or attempting to stop on contact. It waters down your case a little. Let us know whether your friends buy your arguement. And if they do, you owe Hawks Coach $5.

[Hawks Coach]

The only cases deal with a situation where T&D isn't met (foul on A) and where T&D are met and B can see A (foul on B).

As for winning any bets, the rule does not really help unles you all agree as to the facts. Given that there was a crash, it is all in the eye of the beholder. And the incidental contact rule with respect to severe contact is not specifically applied to the screening situation, laving at least a little bit of doubt:

4-27 Incidental Contact
ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or such contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.


The only reference to contact being potentially severe is in the section that deals with two players with equally favorable positions - this does not apply to the screening case. The screening case, unfortunately, is silent with regard to causing A to crash based on severe, unintentional contact. And your friends may or may not agree that B attempted to stop after making contact.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Coach Hawks, I think you can't ignore the definition of a legal screen. It appears to me you are setting aside the definition to make your point. In the play we are discussing B1 ran over the opponent. I think you have a foul on B1, IF rule 4-39-5 was met.

Define run over. Hard contact by B with A that causes A to fall, with B stopping after making contact, seems to fit the incidental contact rule. It is pretty clear to me, and I am not choosing to ignore a rule. T&D set the conditions for having a legal screen. Once that screen is legally set, B may contact A and the contact is not necessarily illegal. Two different sections of the rules clearly state this fact.

If you choose to interpret that causing a player to fall is the same as failing to stop, that is your perogative. I would say that if you have A1 at top speed and B1 keeping pace, A2 sets legal blind screen (i.e., meeting T&D but outside B1's visual field), B1 may contact A2 pretty hard, and stop after contact, but A2 may go down. Sounds incidental to me by rule.

[Bart Tyson]

I guess we agree to disagree. I think you will see a foul called more often than not when A2 hits the floor after a violent collision.

[Hawks Coach]

Bart
I am not sure why we disagree, or why you cite 4-39-5. we all agree that the conditions for 4-39-5 are met. But nothing in 4-39 deals with contact with the legal screener. However, contact with the screener is clearly addressed in two sections of the rules, with precisely the same language. Both sections allow for incidental contact on a screen outside the visual field. what part of that rule is causing an issue.

I am not trying to be hard headed, I am actually confused by your position on this point. I will concede that you can call what you see, but you seem not to want to allow incidental contact with the blind screen. And I am not clear why.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Bart
I am not sure why we disagree, or why you cite 4-39-5. we all agree that the conditions for 4-39-5 are met. But nothing in 4-39 deals with contact with the legal screener. However, contact with the screener is clearly addressed in two sections of the rules, with precisely the same language. Both sections allow for incidental contact on a screen outside the visual field. what part of that rule is causing an issue.

I am not trying to be hard headed, I am actually confused by your position on this point. I will concede that you can call what you see, but you seem not to want to allow incidental contact with the blind screen. And I am not clear why.

If I understand you correctly, you want a violent collision
by B1 to be incidental contact and I disagree. If I have displacement and bodies on the floor, I will have a foul. It seems to work for me and my supervisors in the conferences I work.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

If I understand you correctly, you want a violent collision
by B1 to be incidental contact and I disagree. If I have displacement and bodies on the floor, I will have a foul. It seems to work for me and my supervisors in the conferences I work.

Perhaps so, but it's still contrary to the rules. They quite clearly state that it is to be ruled incidental contact.

Now, why is that so? Well, what's the purpose of a screen? To stop the defender and allow the dribbler (or cutter) to get free. A screeener should expect contact with the only reward being the actual purpose of screening: freeing your teammate from the defender. If it's a blind screen, the defender has the right to knock the screener into the third row as long as they couldn't see the screen...all as long as the defender stops upon making contact and doesn't continue through.

You set a blind screen...expect to get hit. What do you get out of it? Hopefully, your teammate will be so free they get an open shot. That's what it's for.