Blind Pick (T'wolves)

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mr. Colbrese's statements were directly related to a semi-final game a few years ago in which a blind screen led to one of the "best" player's in the State getting knocked out (literally and knocked out of the semi and final with a concussion)...things got really ugly after that...the kid who got hurt was the screener, and no foul was called - hence the "mandate from on high"...and no, I was not working that game!! just spectating...

[/B]

Yabut, WAS it a foul? Or just strong incidental contact on a legal screen? [/B][/QUOTE]

From where I was sitting - yep...defender blasted the screener practically out of his shoes...made no effort to stop/go around/lessen impact/etc...those need to be called - he flat-*** plowed the screener, and then (like I said) the game got real ugly...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Yabut, WAS it a foul? Or just strong incidental contact on a legal screen? [/B]

From where I was sitting - yep...defender blasted the screener practically out of his shoes...made no effort to stop/go around/lessen impact/etc...those need to be called - he flat-*** plowed the screener, and then (like I said) the game got real ugly...
[/B][/QUOTE]That sounds like the official on the spot just plain and simply missed the call then. From your description, that one should be called a foul anywhere- and at any level too, imo. But issuing a mandate that a foul MUST be called just because the screener falls on contact is just wrong, imo also. It's overkill because one official(singular) happened to miss a call. What he's telling you to do is wrong by rule, and it's also contrary to the spirit and intent of that particular rule. Experienced officials know when they have to make that call for excessive contact, and they also know when they should let it go because the offense has already gained an advantage with the successful screen- and calling the foul WITHOUT the excessive contact would hand them a double advantage on the play. But, then again, if you are ordered to do it, then it becomes a case of "Yassuh, Boss", doesn't it?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 25th, 2004 at 06:39 PM]

[RookieDude]

Z and rockyroad...we will have to discuss this topic at our clinic next year. (East side of Washington State)
I guess I missed the boat on this one...I thought the "player on the ground" scenario was a block/charge situation or a defender "plowing" through a screen and displacing a screener.
I would have a hard time calling a foul on the defender if he hit a legal screener and then the defender fell on the ground. whew! (Maybe we could ask Cindy Adsit for some clarification)
Also, our clinician stated that if you are not sure what to call on a block/charge...then it is a charge.
Concerning the later, is that what you guys on the West side are being told?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude
I thought the "player on the ground" scenario was a block/charge situation or a defender "plowing" through a screen and displacing a screener.
I would have a hard time calling a foul on the defender if he hit a legal screener and then the defender fell on the ground. whew! (Maybe we could ask Cindy Adsit for some clarification)

You read it wrong, Dude-y. Rocky is talking about a defender plowing through a screen and knocking the screener down. They have been told that if the SCREENER goes down, a foul MUST automatically be called on the defender. At least, that's the way that I understand it from Rock's posts.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Z and rockyroad...we will have to discuss this topic at our clinic next year. (East side of Washington State)
I guess I missed the boat on this one...I thought the "player on the ground" scenario was a block/charge situation or a defender "plowing" through a screen and displacing a screener.
I would have a hard time calling a foul on the defender if he hit a legal screener and then the defender fell on the ground. whew! (Maybe we could ask Cindy Adsit for some clarification)
Also, our clinician stated that if you are not sure what to call on a block/charge...then it is a charge.
Concerning the later, is that what you guys on the West side are being told?

Yeah, we were told that "when in doubt, it's a charge."

Z

[RookieDude]

"if there is a collision and a body hits the floor, there had better be a whistle."

Sooooo, if a defender runs into the legal screener and the defender "hits the floor" do we use common sense (and the Rule Book) as our guide or do we go with the above directive?
Or...did I indeed take the above quote out of context and read it wrong as JR stated? (Which hopefully is the case)


[Edited by RookieDude on May 25th, 2004 at 08:55 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude

Sooooo, if a defender runs into the legal screener and the defender "hits the floor" do we use common sense (and the Rule Book) as our guide or do we go with the above directive?
Or...did I indeed take the above quote out of context and read it wrong as JR stated? (Which hopefully is the case)

Dude, they've been talking about the screener being knocked down. And "hopefully" doesn't help because the head guy is still wrong. He wants the foul to be automatically called on the defender if the screener gets knocked down. Unfortunately, the rule book does not support that stance. Rule 4-27-4--INCIDENTAL CONTACT- "In cases of screens OUTSIDE the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertant 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". Note that it doesn't mention displacing a player WITHOUT the ball as being an automatic foul. The call is supposed to be an official's judgement as to whether a foul is actually warranted.

[zebraman]

Just to be clear, the head guy never said it had to be called on the defense. He wants a whistle on contact that causes a body to hit the floor. Use your referee judgement to decide if it's on the defense or the offense. The context that I heard it in was regarding a block/charge and I heard it consistenly at our state-run officials camp last summer. The screening stuff is new to me today....

And Jurassic, you're right in a perfect world. However, we live in an officiating world where rough play is a POI almost every year and our state is no exception. Our "head guy" saw that way too many high school officials were "no calling" a block/charge instead of making a tough decision and calling it a block or a charge. The result is that the games were getting too rough. For the high school game, I'm sure the director finds it much easier to live with a few wrong calls now and then rather than what he was seeing... which was the "let em' play" philosophy which is much too rough for high school games.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on May 25th, 2004 at 11:18 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman
Just to be clear, the head guy never said it had to be called on the defense. He wants a whistle on contact that causes a body to hit the floor. Use your referee judgement to decide if it's on the defense or the offense. The context that I heard it in was regarding a block/charge and I heard it consistenly at our state-run officials camp last summer. The screening stuff is new to me today....

And Jurassic, you're right in a perfect world. However, we live in an officiating world where rough play is a POI almost every year and our state is no exception. Our "head guy" saw that way too many high school officials were "no calling" a block/charge instead of making a tough decision and calling it a block or a charge. The result is that the games were getting too rough. For the high school game, I'm sure the director finds it much easier to live with a few wrong calls now and then rather than what he was seeing... which was the "let em' play" philosophy which is much too rough for high school games.

Z, I don't have a problem at all with someone wanting a call on the block/charge if someone hits the deck. As long as there's not a flop involved naturally. I can agree with your director wanting that. The same philosophy should NOT apply on screens though, imo. Apples and oranges. From Rocky's post, I got the impression that this all stemmed out of an incident where a player got hurt while setting a screen, and no foul was called. On those plays, it's not necessarily a foul on the defender. Could be on either opponent, or you could have a no-call- depending on the official's judgement.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Dude, they've been talking about the screener being knocked down. And "hopefully" doesn't help because the head guy is still wrong. He wants the foul to be automatically called on the defender if the screener gets knocked down. Unfortunately, the rule book does not support that stance. Rule 4-27-4--INCIDENTAL CONTACT- "In cases of screens OUTSIDE the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertant 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". Note that it doesn't mention displacing a player WITHOUT the ball as being an automatic foul. The call is supposed to be an official's judgement as to whether a foul is actually warranted.

JR...I have read that rule many times...I was simply taking the following quote one step further..."if there is a collision and a body hits the floor, there had better be a whistle"...I was being cute actually, in my scenario I was asking about the defender being called for the foul since he was the only one on the floor and he in fact caused the contact with the sationary screener.

I think zebraman is trying to show that our director wants a cleaner game...I don't think he wants "severe" contact...even though it is allowed by rule in certain cases. R4-27-2
Of course this does not apply to screening, but it does apply to incidental contact...I believe Director Mike Colbrese was trying to make a point. CLEAN IT UP!

[Nevadaref]

I have only heard the philosophy that Colbrese is espousing from women's college officials and assignors. In my opinion and the that of the rules book, he is flat-out wrong.
For example, what if two players are running down the court side-by-side well away from the ball and the other eight players when their feet become tangled and both fall to the floor? Do you have a foul or perhaps a double foul?
I have even been told by a women's college official that if a dribbler steps on the foot of a stationary defender and falls to the floor his conference assignor wants a foul called on the defense.
I think that is garbage. This is basketball and it can at times be quite fierce and players will sometimes get hurt from legal contact. Calling the game in such a way that you turn it into something other than it is, is a farce.
No wonder all the Washington teams that come down here complain about how physical the game is.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I have only heard the philosophy that Colbrese is espousing from women's college officials and assignors. In my opinion and the that of the rules book, he is flat-out wrong.
For example, what if two players are running down the court side-by-side well away from the ball and the other eight players when their feet become tangled and both fall to the floor? Do you have a foul or perhaps a double foul?
I have even been told by a women's college official that if a dribbler steps on the foot of a stationary defender and falls to the floor his conference assignor wants a foul called on the defense.
I think that is garbage. This is basketball and it can at times be quite fierce and players will sometimes get hurt from legal contact. Calling the game in such a way that you turn it into something other than it is, is a farce.
No wonder all the Washington teams that come down here complain about how physical the game is.

Like I said, I only heard about it in reference to block/charge. I don't think it was meant for all scenarios, especially not the one you brought up.

As far as a physical game.... the NFHS thinks the high school game is too physical also. Once again, if officials were calling the game the way the NFHS intended it to be, physical play would not be a POI so often and state directors would not feel that they needed to make statements like that. This was a reaction to the way we (in general) officials are calling the game. Mr. Colabrese used to be a darn good official himself. He would not make statements like these unless he saw things being called incorrectly again and again.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on May 26th, 2004 at 11:35 AM]