Pushing through screens

[deecee]

Sam I Am -- how can you say that a screene that gets caught blind sided by a screen and lays out a screener be incendental -- that is a foul no matter what. Its different if the screene is a tiny guard and the screener a big center and the guard gets blind sided and hits the floor -- that screen is legal and the only thing wrong with that is that guard would have an earful for his teammates for not communicating.

In the instance of the bigger guard lighting up a similar sized screener because he was blindsided is a foul because a) the screen was legal and b) the screene displaced the screener to where now he has an advantage to recover back on defense. IMO i dont think we can rule "heavy contact" on a legal screen as incedental.

Different if 2 players are going after a loose ball and they both run into each other -- but even there if contact is heavy usually there is something -- maybe a double foul.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by deecee

Sam I Am -- how can you say that a screene that gets caught blind sided by a screen and lays out a screener be incendental -- that is a foul no matter what. Its different if the screene is a tiny guard and the screener a big center and the guard gets blind sided and hits the floor -- that screen is legal and the only thing wrong with that is that guard would have an earful for his teammates for not communicating.

In the instance of the bigger guard lighting up a similar sized screener because he was blindsided is a foul because a) the screen was legal and b) the screene displaced the screener to where now he has an advantage to recover back on defense. IMO i dont think we can rule "heavy contact" on a legal screen as incedental.

Different if 2 players are going after a loose ball and they both run into each other -- but even there if contact is heavy usually there is something -- maybe a double foul.

It is very easy to say (type) as it is in the rule book.
I am fairly sure the NFHS rules parallel NCAA on this issue, but I paraphrased the NCAA rule book. It can be found in Appendix III Section 2 E.. This is from the online 2004 NCAA rules. I am sure I have also read this in the paper copy. I think you should read this section.

The classic example I've heard of is when inbounding the ball after a made basket, the inbounding team (in need of a score) has the inbounder run the baseline, thereby running the defender who is defending the inbound pass into a screen hoping for a foul. Usually a blind screen, the defender plows into the screener. And the inbounding team goes nuts when it is properly no called.

[deecee]

plows into the screener -- how do you explain the injuries from that no call contact?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by deecee

plows into the screener -- how do you explain the injuries from that no call contact?

You explain by using the rules!!!!!!

Rule 4-27-1- "The mere fact that contact occurs does NOT constitute a foul."

Rule 10-6-3- "In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertant 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 if 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."

NFHS rules 4-27 and 10-6-3 lay out exactly how screens should be called.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

plows into the screener -- how do you explain the injuries from that no call contact?

You don't. A player setting a blind screen must expect to be run into with potentially extreme force. If he doesn't want to get hit, he shouldn't set the screen. As long as the screenee, upon contact, stops or diverts the screenee has not fouled...even if ambulances are called. The screen has served it's purpose if the defender is forced to stop or change directions, even if they are subsequently able to get back into the play.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by deecee

Sam I Am -- how can you say that a screene that gets caught blind sided by a screen and lays out a screener be incendental -- that is a foul no matter what. Its different if the screene is a tiny guard and the screener a big center and the guard gets blind sided and hits the floor

Not to be a noodge or anything, but is it a foul "no matter what" or is it different for a tiny guard?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by deecee

In the instance of the bigger guard lighting up a similar sized screener because he was blindsided is a foul because a) the screen was legal and b) the screene displaced the screener to where now he has an advantage to recover back on defense. IMO i dont think we can rule "heavy contact" on a legal screen as incedental.

Wrong, the amount of contact isn't a criteria used to determine if the contact was illegal. See the NFHS rules cited above. NCAA rulings are exactly the same.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by deecee

In the instance of the bigger guard lighting up a similar sized screener because he was blindsided is a foul because a) the screen was legal and b) the screene displaced the screener to where now he has an advantage to recover back on defense. IMO i dont think we can rule "heavy contact" on a legal screen as incedental.

Different if 2 players are going after a loose ball and they both run into each other -- but even there if contact is heavy usually there is something -- maybe a double foul.

deecee, we're glad you're here. You 'll learn a lot.