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!

Re: Hmmmmm.
 

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

Oy!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can someone explain to me how the defender - running at full speed - is able to stop at first contact with the screener who they never saw??? Yes contact on a screen can be severe and not be called, but I think Bart's point (sorry if I'm misreading Bart) is that in the play he is describing, there is no way the defender stopped after initial contact, and that's what causes the screener to get creamed...and I'm sorry, but sending a screener into the third row is not incidental contact...

It doesn't have to be an instantaneous stop, just that the defender must then try to stop and can not try to push through.

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit on the "third row" part. ;) If they hit them that hard, it's probably not a blind screen but more of a football play.

rocky
Even if the screener takes the brunt of it, the person initiating the contact will get some slowing down due st4rictly to making contact, assisting them in coming to a stop. The defender sends somebody into the third row, you may have a call. They go to the floor, I am not convinced. You have to see it to call it. But as I read the rule, if a player comes in at full speed, makes hard contact, then comes to a stop in response to the contact, then continues on, no foul. If they slow down due to the contact but keep right on going, you have to call a foul.

I know that some evaluators want contact that results in a crash called, but that is not consistent in my experience watching games. There are lots of no-call crashes. This is one that appears to be allowed for in the rules, more than some of the other crashes that I see passed on!

I would agree with all of this - just seemed like the thread was getting a little off-base and taking the tone of "the defender can kill the screener and it's incidental contact"...the screener does have the right to that spot on the floor, and sending them flying is probably not the best example of "coming to a stop"...