|
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 07:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ball is heading out of bounds last touched by A. B1 is facing the ball and A1 is trying to get around him to save the ball. Lots of physical contact but not enough to warrant a push by A1. B1 takes a few steps to the side to keep A1 away from the ball and A1 never gets partially in front/to the side of B1.
Good boxing out by B1 or moving screen? 
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 09:22am
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Never really thought about it, although I've certainly seen it/done it many times. Seems legal to me. 4-39-2 - "To establish legal screening position: (c)The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and the same direction" (ie, toward the loose ball). mick
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 09:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If B1 displaces A1 or vice versa, it's a foul.
Usually, it's nothing.
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 09:28am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usually it's nothing, but if it's near the end of the game and B needs the ball because they're losing, and A did block B's attempt to make a play on the ball, I have a foul.
And hopefully not the accompanying T from the A coach. 
__________________
Pope Francis
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 09:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
'Tis a twisted web you weave.... mick
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 10:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Illegal screen
Tell him Mick.... [/QUOTE]
__________________
Nature bats last!
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 10:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Similar situation
Quote:
__________________
"Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should have accomplished with your ability." - John Wooden
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 10:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 10:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
--I see this thread deteriating in a hurry.
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 10:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by oc
[B] Quote:
--This thread is going to continue to deteriate in a hurry.
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 12:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's funny that this thread comes up.
This is a topic that I've thought about before and frankly, I think we drop the ball as officials. Let me first state that this type of sitch I have obviously seen many times. I have rarely seen a foul called, and this intrigues me. Let me second state that my above post was not well thought out. I will leave it as is to remind myself to do better next time. Ok. What is it about this sitch that intrigues me? It's that I think more fouls should be called, but I don't see them being called. As my career marched on, I didn't call fouls because I was told not to. Now that I'm a much more experienced referee, I think we have to call more fouls that occur in this situation. Reasonable: if A initiates contact, you could have a foul by A, on B. Reasonable: if we're applying A/D, and the ball is sailing OB, only if B has a reasonable chance to secure control of the ball, should a foul be called. Reasonable: that B will make a greater effort for the ball than A, if it's going to be A's ball. Reasonable: that a point exists that B is considered to be "past A" in terms of going for the ball. Possible criteria are: B's body is passed A's body, although B's shoulders may not be square to the ball. B's path to the ball will likely be around A, but close to A. B could give A a shimmy, a dipsy-do, or what have you, to get by A. (AKA a deek.) If all these reasonable activities are satisfied, then it's reasonable you have a foul if you believe that they're all reasonable activities. The only one I can see a reasonable discussion on is the fourth point. (Could you have a foul if you don't believe they're all reasonable? I don't think so.) So now it becomes a judgement about point four. If B gets his body around A, and A initiates contact with B, removing B's opportunity to obtain an obtaining ball, then that is a foul. A removed B's path to the ball and benefits from the situation by claiming possession by throw-in. My post above should have read, "Usually it's nothing, but if it's near the end of the game and B needs the ball because they're losing, and A did block B's attempt to make a play on the ball, I don't want to miss anything." I know that is good advice at any time, though. That is what I meant. Like I said, I will try to better next time. Thanks for kicking my butt into place.
__________________
Pope Francis
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 12:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Imo, it's just like any other call. Either call it consistently or no-call it consistently, but don't try and pick-and-choose when you're gonna call it.
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 03:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Saying that "...I don't want to miss anything" doesn't mean that a foul will be called. It means that an official sees the play as he should - that he's in proper position, and makes the call that is correct. Whether it be a foul or not. In my mind, not calling a foul is a call just as calling a foul is a call. You know me better than that. If you think that I'm the type of referee that only comes up with a call like that in the last minute of the game, then please come watch me referee a game. It has been about 5 years, hasn't it? But you're right - it is just like any other call. To me, it simply exists or doesn't exist. I feel that it's a foul that should exist more, in all 32 minutes. That's all I'm saying. PS: 1 minute of the game is 3.125%, not 5%. :P
__________________
Pope Francis
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 05:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]What I'm saying is that this type of call does exist over the whole game and also should be called uniformly and consisently over the whole game. It shouldn't be called differently in the last minute of a close game than it would be called at any time in the rest of the game. It simply consistency of calling- no more and no less. That was my point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here or misreading what you were trying to say, but I can't see why when it's happening in the game should make any difference at all as to whether you would call it or not. Agree with that?
|
|
Sat Feb 05, 2005, 05:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Depends on the amount of contact IMO. I had one yesterday like that on a box-out. The 'boxer' moved the opponent half-way across the lane, then fell down because he was off balance from the overextension of his screen. I called a foul on the screener because he moved the other guy so far. He wasn't just holding his ground, he really moved the guy who was trying to get to the ball. The coach complained because his guy ended up on the floor. Obviously, the coach never saw HOW he got on the floor. I said coach, "He moved him 5-feet." I guess if you end up on the floor, you were fouled, huh.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
