What people see as an illegal screen is not always the same interpretation.

I do agree with the second one if there is no flop.

The problem with this discussion is this is all about interpretation. I have said many times over the years where you live might affect how you interpret what you read here and what you call. When I was in camp this past year I was criticized about not being more selective on a few calls. This particular camp was a HS camp, but I did the same at another camp and I was criticized for not passing on a shooting foul. The bottom line is there is a delicate balance to what should be called and what should not be called. And the philosophies I read here are not said that different from the HS level to the college level. Many of our HS players are some of the most recruited basketball players in the country. It is not expected that we call marginal contact especially at the Class AA level. That might be expected at the Class A level, but those kids are not D1 prospects. I read this board and many of the suggestions I read about I could never do and still work a certain caliber of game. I just have to agree with Tommy on this and his opinion on this.

We must remember we are talking about concepts, not absolutes.

Peace

In my post, I mentioned the one criteria: is the shooter unfairly disadvantaged? That's the criterion, as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. How is your position the most significant criterion in making a call? What difference does it make if I'm in the C or L? If the guy gets hammered on the way to the hole, I've got a whistle. I understand that we need to have a good look at the play, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

If I see what to me is an obvious illegal screen then there's little room for interpretation. I'll call it always if it caused a clear advantage to the offense.

I'm just as sure that when YOU see what to YOU is an obvious illegal screen you recognize it. Whether you call it or not is your issue.

That all sounds wonderful, but what you might think is "obvious" others might pass on. I know I call more illegal screens than most officials I work with. So it is clear that everyone does not think all screens are so "obvious." I know some call screens with very slight contact. I on the other hand I require more severe contact than I will not just call a foul when the player being screen just gives up his position. I have even had kids that wanted me to call an illegal screen, but never kept going to their spot. Not all officials seem to think all contact on screens cause an advantage the same way.

Peace

You would disagree that every violation interrupts the game? I'm not sure how you could argue against that. . .

I agree. And I also understand that you are using "game interrupters" to mean "calls that don't need to be made".


We are doing our job by interrupting the game at an appropriate time. This is just semantics, ok? I completely understand your point. But my point is the term is misleading on the face of it. The problem is that officials with less experience might hear it and say, "Jeez, I better not call handchecks, b/c I'm just interrupting the game".


I completely understand that. I hope you will keep in mind that my comments are not directed at you personally in any way. I'm not saying you (or anybody) is a bad ref for using the terminology. I didn't mean it to come across that way at all. I'm just pointing out what I see as a problem with the terminology itself.


Nah, I got your point, I was just being persnickety. I actually agree with both your points. I think people call the foul "before the shot" too often. On the other side, sometimes it's hard to hold off on the foul call b/c you don't know if it's really going to affect the shot or not and if you wait, the play's over. So sometimes the "and one" whistle comes a little too early; but I can understand that to a certain degree. It's a hard thing to balance patience with a "too-late" whistle.

I can't think of any other ones right off the top of my head. Even the ones that Dan has listed, I can see passing on if the contact was slight. We see the pass/crash get no-called a lot (especially if the passer almost gets around the crash, so that the contact is on the defender's shoulder instead of chest), even at higher levels; and soft screens above the 3-point arc don't always give a big advantage. I can see why somebody might not call them.

Too bad this isn't what we were talking about. Describing specific contact and the result from that contact is different from saying that someone is in a fight. This was brought about because I said I can't picture contact from behind after a block always being a foul that should be called. You just mentioned two specific plays and the results. Not the same thing.

I have to edit because I feel another "comment" coming. If you said any screen with any amount of contact anywhere on the court should be called then I would say the same thing I said about the blocked shot.

[Edited by tomegun on Jul 20th, 2005 at 12:24 PM]

Tom, I'm not sure I understand what you're disagreeing about here. You simply asked if there are situations where contact is always a foul. I simply responded. I'm not sure whatintheheck fighting has to do with any of this. Any fighting, with or without contact, is always a foul.
I said what I said. I didn't say what you just wrote here.

Chuck,

Let's say you are rolling a ball back and forth on a table and it is my job to tell you when the ball rolls off the table and hits the floor.

If the ball rolls off the table and hits the floor I say "the ball fell off the table and hit the floor." Duh, that is what I'm there for.

So, the ball rolls off the table and right before it hits the floor you catch it and begin rolling it on the table again. If I say the same thing it would be interrupting you because although the ball rolled off the table you were able to recover and continue rolling the ball on the table.

Maybe a bad example, maybe not.


:D:D:D:D:D

Dan, you gave very specific plays and the impact they have on the game. The comments that were made about the blocked shot were general as far as contact is contact after a block and should be called a foul. I said I can't picture this always being a foul. That means sometimes it could/would be but there are situations where it wouldn't be. Chuck followed that by pointing out a thrown punch that is seen is always a foul. I agreed with him and asked him if he had any other situations like this. You answered with two specific situations that aren't like this. Everyone could be specific like you did and it would be correct. Do you understand now? I think you took the question I asked Chuck out of context.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun Quote: Do you have any other situations where contact would always be a foul? This is pretty good. I can't think of any other ones right off the top of my head. Even the ones that Dan has listed, I can see passing on if the contact was slight. We see the pass/crash get no-called a lot (especially if the passer almost gets around the crash, so that the contact is on the defender's shoulder instead of chest), even at higher levels; and soft screens above the 3-point arc don't always give a big advantage. I can see why somebody might not call them.

Hmmmm....I need to go back & reread what I wrote but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "soft screens above the 3-point arc [that] don't always give a big advantage" or a pass/crash where the contact is slight and the passer barely brushes the defender's shoulder as he almost gets around him.

What is it those old f@rts like to say? Oh yeah....lah me.

Dan, allow me to translate for you. Chuck is saying he can't think of any absolutes without being specific like you were. It's like if someone said all illegal actions on screens should be called. That would be similar to saying all punches thrown should be called.

OK Tom, just put me down for a C- on your midterm, I'll try & make it up on your final. :rolleyes:

I was just going to ignore you when you raise your hand! :D

Well, I should've read it more carefully the first time. I read your post and it translated in my head as "screen to free the dribbler and pass/crash where the defender goes down".

After going back, that's obviously not what you meant.

Now, poor alfreedog has been trying to get you guys' attention about the original question - from what position, L, C or T, do make this call? And I will be the one to finally address it.

Here it is: it depends.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But it is like any other foul call - whose primary is it? Was it a drive that originated from someone's primary? Who was in the best position to see the contact (or lack of contact)? If it was in transition, was the new L in position to see the area between the players, whether ahead of the play or coming in from behind, or could the C have a better look? So, I'm not sure there's a set answer, other than it depends on the actual play. Sorry I've been so helpful.