Blind Pick (T'wolves)

[tjchamp]

Did anyone see the blind pick set by Srewell on Fischer on Sunday night? Fischer hit the ground immediately on contact, Spree was still, then left the area.

HS rules (10-6-3), lead me to believe no foul should have been called here, incidental contact, opponent stopped immediately and screener was not displaced. How would you call that in HS? Are NBA rules different on this? Commentators are incredulous that this could be a foul on Fischer.

[zebraman]

First of all, I don't know if the NBA rules are different than NFHS rules on screening.

Second of all, commentators are often incredulous on correct calls because most commentators have never opened a rule book and have no training in officiating.

I have seen that play "no called" in the NBA before. However, it did not appear as if the defender made any attempt avoid contact (he can thank his teammates lack of communication for that) and that may have been the official's basis for calling that foul on the defense.

Z

[Robmoz]

Do you normally call a foul on the Defense when a "true" blind screen collision occurs? I love that type of play when executed properly by the offense but do not penalize the defender for being blind-sided.

[ChuckElias]

I think we had a similar discussion during this year's or last year's NCAA tournament. Screener was completely stationary, gave plenty of time and distance. Screened player had no idea screener was there and a fairly violent collision resulted. Screened player went down in a heap, screener continued on his merry way. There was no whistle on the play.

My opinion on the NCAA play was that there was no foul on the play. I saw the Spreewell play only once and can't really remember it well enough to comment.

I'm sure JR can dredge up the link to that old thread.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Robmoz
Do you normally call a foul on the Defense when a "true" blind screen collision occurs? I love that type of play when executed properly by the offense but do not penalize the defender for being blind-sided.

Good question. Here in the state of Washington, the director of the WIAA has often been quoted as saying, "if there is a collision and a body hits the floor, there had better be a whistle." This has been repeated several times by clinicians at the WOA camps as well. If I'm at the state tournament and that happens, I guess I have no choice but to call a foul on the defense.

Z

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by zebraman
[QUOTE...director of the WIAA has often been quoted as saying, "if there is a collision and a body hits the floor, there had better be a whistle." This has been repeated several times by clinicians at the WOA camps as well.
Z

Wow, to paint with such a broad brush your leadership seems to have put a damper on the whole concept of a good screen. Screening is an integral part of the game and if set properly I do not see why the whistle has to blow to stop the play regardless of a body hitting the floor. Afterall, basketball IS a contact sport - to some extent. Perhaps the mandate was designed given with protection of the defender in mind, but with a blind screen collision foul called on the defense it seems to penalize the player the mandate intended to protect...how ironic.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Wow, to paint with such a broad brush your leadership seems to have put a damper on the whole concept of a good screen. Screening is an integral part of the game and if set properly I do not see why the whistle has to blow to stop the play regardless of a body hitting the floor. Afterall, basketball IS a contact sport - to some extent. Perhaps the mandate was designed given with protection of the defender in mind, but with a blind screen collision foul called on the defense it seems to penalize the player the mandate intended to protect...how ironic.

Actually, I think the mandate was given to help with rough play which was a POI for so many years. The college philosophy had drifted down to HS and way too many block/charge situations were being "no-called." At the high school game, I have no problem with that philosophy.

Z

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by zebraman

Actually, I think the mandate was given to help with rough play which was a POI for so many years. The college philosophy had drifted down to HS and way too many block/charge situations were being "no-called." At the high school game, I have no problem with that philosophy.

Z

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...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

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

[zebraman]

Originally posted by rockyroad

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...

Thanks for the info. I had heard it was a block/charge so good to hear the real scoop from someone who was there.

When I first heard the philosophy of "if there is contact that results in a body on the floor, there had better be a whistle," I wasn't sure I agreed... but I have become convinced that it is correct, for the high school game. Every once in a great while, it may cause a tough foul to be assessed against a player that might normally have got away with some hard (but formerly legal) contact. However, it leads to a less physical game which is exactly what you want at the HS level. The players adjust and the game becomes more finesse and clean. IMHO, that is why some "college officials" often don't have great success at the high school tournaments in Washington State. The observers want a tight game called and the college officials often don't adjust down to the high school level and they let it get too rough.

Z

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
]

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

The point made by our director is that at the HS level, contact that causes bodies to hit the ground is not incidental.... and certainly not to the parents and A.D.'s.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on May 25th, 2004 at 02:48 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by rockyroad

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...

I think there's a big difference between the screener getting knocked out (that obviously put the offense at a disadvantage -- should be a foul on the defense) and the defensive player getting knocked down from a legal screen(the defense is put at a disadvantage by a legal play -- should be a no-call)

[zebraman]

Originally posted by bob jenkins


I think there's a big difference between the screener getting knocked out (that obviously put the offense at a disadvantage -- should be a foul on the defense) and the defensive player getting knocked down from a legal screen(the defense is put at a disadvantage by a legal play -- should be a no-call)

You are entitled to your opinion. But at the HS level in the state of Washington, the WIAA director's opinion has more weight. :-)

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I think there's a big difference between the screener getting knocked out (that obviously put the offense at a disadvantage -- should be a foul on the defense) and the defensive player getting knocked down from a legal screen(the defense is put at a disadvantage by a legal play -- should be a no-call)

Any coach that has an IQ higher that a kumquat should then be telling their players to fall down as soon as they feel the contact when they set a screen. All you gotta do is set picks all over the floor on the other team's best player until you foul them out. And, of course you remind the officials everytime one of your players goes down that Mr. Colbrese said that you gotta call a foul on that play. Can't blame the coach, either, if they use that stategy. Helluva way to run a railroad though, Z. I say that even though I know that you gotta call it whether or not you like it, or agree with it, because of the politics involved.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 25th, 2004 at 03:33 PM]

[Robmoz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman
[B]

Originally posted by bob jenkins


...You are entitled to your opinion. But at the HS level in the state of Washington, the WIAA director's opinion has more weight. :-)
Z

Then my reply to the director would be..."Yes, dear." Something I would just abide by for my best interest.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Any coach that has an IQ higher that a kumquat should then be telling their players to fall down as soon as they feel the contact when they set a screen. All you gotta do is set picks all over the floor on the other team's best player until you foul them out. And, of course you remind the officials everytime one of your players goes down that Mr. Colbrese said that you gotta call a foul on that play. Can't blame the coach, either, if they use that stategy. Helluva way to run a railroad though, Z. I say that even though I know that you gotta call it whether or not you like it, or agree with it, because of the politics involved.

In reality what happens is that the players adjust. The communication becomes real good, real quick ("pick on the right!") and they stop before contact. Similar to a good PC call at the beginning of a game... you don't see out-of-control drives after that.

Z