Illegal screen scenario

[zebraman]

A1 being guarded by B1. A2 comes to set a screen on B1. Screen is illegal as A2 doesn't stop before contact. At the point of contact, B1 either pushes A2 to the side or blasts through the illegal screen by A2.

Call illegal screen on A2 and ignore B1's actions?

Call pushing foul on B1 and ignore A2's illegal screen?

Call a double foul?

Other options?

Z

[ChuckElias]

I don't think you can ignore the illegal screen. Personal foul on A2. If B1's subsequent action is intentional (it doesn't sound flagrant), then you have a T on B1. If it's not intentional, ignore it. Have to see it to know whether or not it was worth a call.

[SamIAm]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I don't think you can ignore the illegal screen. Personal foul on A2. If B1's subsequent action is intentional (it doesn't sound flagrant), then you have a T on B1. If it's not intentional, ignore it. Have to see it to know whether or not it was worth a call.

How about if you judge it as intentional, but it happens before you can stop play? Sort of Bam-Bam. It seems a double foul would fit.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I don't think you can ignore the illegal screen. Personal foul on A2. If B1's subsequent action is intentional (it doesn't sound flagrant), then you have a T on B1. If it's not intentional, ignore it. Have to see it to know whether or not it was worth a call.

The action by B1 isn't subsequent; it's simultaneous. B1 initiated the contact on the illegal screen, either by pushing off or blasting through. How can you have a "T" for a contact foul during a live ball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BushRef

The foul by A2 caused the ball to become dead, so the contact by B1 becomes dead ball contact.

How can the comtact by B1 possibly be dead ball contact? B1 initiated or made the first contact, as posted by Z in his original post-QUOTE- "B1 either pushes A2 to the side or blasts through the illegal screen by A2"-UNQUOTE. Yes, the screen was illegal, but there's no call to be made until B1 makes contact, and B1 made contact while the ball was live- as per the original post.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The action by B1 isn't subsequent; it's simultaneous.

Yeah, I can see that. Pushing through the illegal screen would be simultaneous. I was thinking that the screen happened and then the defender got mad and threw the screener.

But I can definitely see it as a double. I answered too quickly.

[rainmaker]

I got double.

[zebraman]

Thanks for the responses. This scenario happened in a game last year (B1 pushed A2 to the side as A2 arrived with the illegal screen) and I went with the illegal screen at the time. I played it over in my head about 100 times on the way home from the game that night (not a close game, but the call just didn't feel right). I was thinking I'd probably go with a double foul next time... it just seems weird because the only double fouls I've ever had prior have always been post play.

Z

[denref]

Zman says:

A2 sets "illegal screen" (can be no "illegal screen"w/o contact-no contact no call) so first contact must have been caused by A2. The whistle was for the illegal screen (the cause of the contact). Subsequent action by B needs to be judged on it's merits (intentional, flagrant, incidental, etc.)

If there was no contact prior to both players causing contact then it "sounds" like a double foul. It might have "looked" like something else.

[zebraman]

The contact by A2 occurred at the same time that B1 pushed through. I'm going with double foul if I ever see that one again.

Z

[williebfree]

Would prior "tensions" between A2 and B1 influence how you call this?

Ponder this...

B1 has demonstrated marginal sportsmanship up to this point during previous plays; some with A2. Would anyone "up the ante" on his consequence, i.e. intentional foul (4-19-3... excessive contact with an opponent)?

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by zebraman
The contact by A2 occurred at the same time that B1 pushed through. I'm going with double foul if I ever see that one again.

Z

Probably the best choice based on your description.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by williebfree
Would prior "tensions" between A2 and B1 influence how you call this?

Ponder this...

B1 has demonstrated marginal sportsmanship up to this point during previous plays; some with A2. Would anyone "up the ante" on his consequence, i.e. intentional foul (4-19-3... excessive contact with an opponent)?

And to further up the ante, if you do call an intentional personal foul on B1 along with a block on A2, what's the administration if both teams are in the bonus? If neither team is in the bonus? Same questions but with a flagrant personal foul on B1 instead?


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 19th, 2004 at 06:17 AM]

[tomegun]

If contact is made and B2 pushes then the contact was the foul.
If contact isn't made and B2 pushes then the foul is on B2.
If....nevermind
I would NOT call a double foul. Any contact after a call deemed above and beyond incidental will get called.

[jritchie]

[/B][/QUOTE]And to further up the ante, if you do call an intentional personal foul on B1 along with a block on A2, what's the administration if both teams are in the bonus?

B1 will shoot bonus for the illegal screen,lanes cleared, A2 will shoot intentional foul, lanes cleared, Team A out of bounds at nearest spot of foul


If neither team is in the bonus?
B1 no shots, A2 shoots 2 for intentional foul out of bounds as spot nearest foul

Same questions but with a flagrant personal foul on B1 instead?

B1 sub, gets bonus free throws if in bonus if not, they get nothing, A2 still shoots but flagrant technical is brought in at mid court opposite the table


If you called a double foul, alternate possesion at spot!