A myriad of sitchs

[JugglingReferee]

Hello,

I officiated some games on the weekend in a large tournament. I did ages 12 and 13. Here are some situations.

1. Blow It Dead Now or Later?
This particular game both teams were fast breaking quite a bit and the pace was amazing! I love these games because I feel it tests my VO2(max).

So I'm L, table side, P is T opposite. We're in a half-court set, and the T is just getting into position. A1 shoots from beyond the arc. 3-point attempt from my P. It goes in. He signals good. Now, the way I do it is that on almost every 3-point shot, if I can and the game dictates, I take a quick look if the attempt is not from my AOR. (If it's in my AOR, naturally I always have an opinion.) So I see A1 with his toes on the arc. I decided to not blow it dead and deal with it at the next stoppage in play. Why? B quickly grabs the ball and starts up floor again - inline with the pace of the game. Fortunately, that was 30 seconds later at the other end of the court where a shooting foul was called.

Is your contention that it should be corrected right away? Would you wait at all, like I did? What if 2 minutes of game time goes by without a whistle?

I confered with my P and he said that he did not get a good look at it, and that it very much could have been a two. I said that I had the shooter on the line. He was fine with me changing the call. Naturally, I took some slack from the coach that just lost a point. Some fans were upset as well. The coach said things like, "You can't do that." "That was his call - you can't overrule him." My replies were that I "...confered with my partner and with all information, we got the call right," and "Coach, we are allowed to change this type of call."

2. Very Successful Screen
I was telling an officiating friend, who's opinion I respect alot, about a this stich. He says he could have had a foul. I guess it'd be a charge he would call.

A1 is dribbling up the court with a defender keep up step for step. Both are keeping a decent pace. I'm L, and in transition. I see A2 setting would could become a screen if A1 uses it. A1 does. A2 is set up like 5-6 steps before the impending contact with B1. I see it coming and watch carefully for any illegal activity. I see none. My P and I confer and exchange view because A2 ends up going down because of the contact, and we whistled the play dead as A2 was down. Fans are yelling. ***'t coach comes out to attend to his player. (He is also a quality official.) Neither of us had a foul.

I know this is a had to be there play, but I'm not sure that I've had to ever call a foul for contact that wasn't just a part of the game where a screen was involved. No arms, elbows or shoulders were extended or otherwise. The level of contact was more than usual because B1 was moving quickly to keep up with A1.

Should a foul be called? Is there line that exists where we call a foul? Do we call a foul to protect the player, even though the screened player did nothing wrong per se? What are your thoughts? Incidentally, the ***'t coach, who I actually officiated with in the provincial finals 6 years ago, addressed the parents of his team and said the contact was legal. I appreciated that very much. Perhaps because we didn't have a foul.

I might think of more that are of.com worthy at a later time.

[Dan_ref]

1. Stop the game & fix it immediately.

2. Sometimes screening action can result in legal hard contact. If there's no foul play on.

[bigzilla]

Was the screen set within the field of vision of the screened player? If so, then I have a foul as he has a responsibility to avoid the contact and give up the chase of the ball (the purpose of screens in the first place, I guess). If he doesn't have the screen in his field of vision, it can be incidental contact. 4-27-4 Happened to have read this earlier while considering another thread I was reading.

[blindzebra]

Fix it when it happens on #1.

#2 as described I have a foul on B1. The screen was not blind and even if B1 was not fully aware of A2, no attempt to avoid contact occurred.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by blindzebra
#2 as described I have a foul on B1. The screen was not blind and even if B1 was not fully aware of A2, no attempt to avoid contact occurred.

How do you figure? What part of the situation tells you that the screen was not blind? Sounds like it was blind to me. No foul.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Smitty

How do you figure? What part of the situation tells you that the screen was not blind? Sounds like it was blind to me. No foul.

I read it as A1 and B1 side by side and not B1 backpeddling. I don't know what you consider blind but a screen coming from the front or side IS within the visual field.

From 10-6-3. 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 incidental contact PROVIDED THE OPPONENT STOPS OR ATTEMPTS TO STOP ON CONTACT AND MOVES AROUND THE SCREEN.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I read it as A1 and B1 side by side and not B1 backpeddling. I don't know what you consider blind but a screen coming from the front or side IS within the visual field.

From 10-6-3. 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 incidental contact PROVIDED THE OPPONENT STOPS OR ATTEMPTS TO STOP ON CONTACT AND MOVES AROUND THE SCREEN.

Does someone have to be running backwards to have a screen be blind? If the defender is running along with the dribbler and is looking and focusing directly on the dribbler, I can imagine he doesn't see the screen at all and "blindly" slams into it. That's how I imagined it. Are you saying this wouldn't be a correct interpretation of the rule? I'm thinking the visual field encompasses where the defender can see based upon where he's looking, not based on his body position.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Smitty

Does someone have to be running backwards to have a screen be blind? If the defender is running along with the dribbler and is looking and focusing directly on the dribbler, I can imagine he doesn't see the screen at all and "blindly" slams into it. That's how I imagined it. Are you saying this wouldn't be a correct interpretation of the rule? I'm thinking the visual field encompasses where the defender can see based upon where he's looking, not based on his body position.

10-6-3-a and b, give you the answer.

[JugglingReferee]

I do not believe that A2's screen was set within the field of vision of B1. If it was, B1 would most surely have had some sort of movement, or raised his arms or something. It's a natural motion to do something when contact is known to be imminent.

B1 certainly was not backpeddling. I rarely see anyone backpeddling while playing defence. It's just not good defence at all. You can't move nearly as quickly as you need to. B1 will likely shuffle-step or run with his head turned to A1. Smitty's comment "Does someone have to be running backwards to..." is what I had as well.

A2's screen accomplished it's task. Screens at some point have to be blind, otherwise why ever set a screen at all if B always knows where it is? If B1 happens to see it, or another B player communicates to him it is there, those are times where he will try to avoid the contact. Otherwise, he will keep playing as though he's playing good defence. We can't expect anything less from B.

Is B supposed to look up every now and again and determine if he's going to run into anybody? Maybe. But the purpose of the screen was met. B1 was taken out of the play. Unfortunately, so was A2, likely because of the conservatin of momentum. mass[b1] * velocity[b1] = mass[a2] * velocity[a2]. I guess B1's velocity made up for, and them some, A2's mass advantage. (Pun intended.)

[eventnyc]

I incorrectly thought that if the player was displaced there was a foul. However, the correct ruling (as evidenced by the above posts) regarding the screen is a "no call." Incidental contact may be severe. If the screener was in the visual field and contact results, foul.

The displacement language I was recalling, had to do with a player with the ball:

"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/she has the ball."

[Smitty]

Originally posted by blindzebra

10-6-3-a and b, give you the answer.

I actually brought in my books today. 10-6-3-a and b only define screening for a stationary opponent. I don't see anything that really clarifies the "visual field" for a screen set on a moving player. I am still saying no foul, since by the description of the original play, the defender likely didn't see the screen at all.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Smitty

Does someone have to be running backwards to have a screen be blind? If the defender is running along with the dribbler and is looking and focusing directly on the dribbler, I can imagine he doesn't see the screen at all and "blindly" slams into it. That's how I imagined it. Are you saying this wouldn't be a correct interpretation of the rule? I'm thinking the visual field encompasses where the defender can see based upon where he's looking, not based on his body position.

Exactly.

You can almost always tell if a defender sees the screener before making contact. Very very few people tend to run full speed into others without putting their arms up or somehow bracing themselves for the contact. And those few tend to be on the wrestling team, not the basketball team.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by eventnyc
I incorrectly thought that if the player was displaced there was a foul. However, the correct ruling (as evidenced by the above posts) regarding the screen is a "no call." Incidental contact may be severe. If the screener was in the visual field and contact results, foul.

The displacement language I was recalling, had to do with a player with the ball:

"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/she has the ball."

No, it's not automatically a no-call. Read the line after may be severe again.

[Edited by blindzebra on Feb 1st, 2005 at 12:10 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Smitty

I actually brought in my books today. 10-6-3-a and b only define screening for a stationary opponent. I don't see anything that really clarifies the "visual field" for a screen set on a moving player. I am still saying no foul, since by the description of the original play, the defender likely didn't see the screen at all.

Come on. The rules for a stationary opponent tell you what visual field means, BEHIND.

Even if it's not within the visual field it is NOT automatically incidental contact either.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Come on. The rules for a stationary opponent tell you what visual field means, BEHIND.

Even if it's not within the visual field it is NOT automatically incidental contact either.

If you read 10-5-3b carefully, you'll see that it never defines what visual field means. It implies that a screen set from behind is definitely outside of the visual field, but a screen in front or to the side may be within the visual field. It specifically says:

A player who screens may not, when he/she assumes a position at the side or in front of a stationary opponent, make contact with that opponent. If the screen is set within the visual field of a stationary opponent, ...

Nowhere does it say standing to someones side is within the visual field of the person being screened. It leaves it to the reader to decide what visual field encompasses, and I would argue that it depends on the situation. In this situation the defender never saw the screen because it was outside his visual field.