Okay, here's the situation: Offensive player A1 is dribbling the ball up the court while defended by B1. Offensive player A2 sets a blind screen and B1 runs him over due to the fact that a violent collision occured since B1 NEVER saw the screen. NEVER. What is the correct call?

Are you sure?

I was reffing in a league the other day and called "No call." I was whipped by several varsity officials, and the president of my reffing association. I then pointed to the rule in the rule book that states, "In the case of a blind screen, contact is to be ruled INCIDENTAL.... etc, etc, even if contact is severe." (I'm paraphrasing, but if you want the exact rule you can look it up)

After showing them the rule they still didn't believe me. I distincltly remember there being a case in the case book several years back with that EXACT situation. Th first person that can email me a link or proof from that case book will get $5. My credibility as a ref is at stake. Why are some refs so dumb at understanding plain english?

Thanks in advance!!

You're part right. Your parahrase should be continued with..."provided the the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen,"

I call it a push on B1 if they run through the screen.

Mregor

Your credibility as a ref is only worth $5?!?!?!?

I've been on both sides of these conversations and from experience I can say that your credibility does not depend on whether you can convince those 3 guys THEY are wrong and YOU are right. I'll admit you might prove SOMETHING by pursuing this with them. But it won't be what you want it to be.

I'm glad someone said it.

4-39 Art.5; When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance need not be more than two strides.

Does not say anything about blind screen.

LOL!! well, my credibility is worth a LOT more than $5, but my cred as a ref is certainly not worth much. I do a good job, and players/coaches/partners like my style (or so I hope).

Need more info. i.e. time and distance. IF more than two strides, than I will have a foul on B1. If B1 had less than two strides and no time to stop or go around, than I have Off. foul.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Quote:

Originally posted by wolfe44 Need more info. i.e. time and distance. IF more than two strides, than I will have a foul on B1. If B1 had less than two strides and no time to stop or go around, than I have Off. foul.

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.

Foul on B1
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wolfe44

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson Quote: Originally posted by wolfe44 Need more info. i.e. time and distance. IF more than two strides, than I will have a foul on B1. If B1 had less than two strides and no time to stop or go around, than I have Off. foul. 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.

If A2 has a legal screen and is "displaced" then it is a foul on B1.
NFHS - 4-27-4
NCAA - 4-38-Art.5

Re: Foul on B1
 

No, it is only a foul when they are displaced "IF the SCREENER has the ball." Gotta keep reading...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wolfe44

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson Quote: Originally posted by wolfe44 Need more info. i.e. time and distance. IF more than two strides, than I will have a foul on B1. If B1 had less than two strides and no time to stop or go around, than I have Off. foul. 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.

Time and distance are what make the screen legal or illegal.

Also, go with the flow on this one. While it may technically be incidental contact, your association/assignors may want a foul called if there's a big collision or two people fall to the ground.

I know that time and distance are relevant, but I also believe there was a statement in one of our books (can't remember which one, and don't have them handy here in my office at work) that there has to be some reasonable judgement on a blindside screen. I just can't put on finger on the wording.

Hmmmmm.
 

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.

Okay, as I think everybody can see, this is certainly a judgement call. The rule makes it clear that if a person runs into a blind-side screen, violent contact (including displacement) can occur and STILL be ruled incidental. The determining factor is whether or not the player tried to minimize it on realization what was happening. I am not saying it is NEVER a foul. I AM saying that there are occurences when it is NOT a foul (as occured in a game I was doing). The refs in my association were unwilling to even accept the fact that this is a judgement call.

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!