Pushing through screens

[Back In The Saddle]

Had a game Saturday where one team repeatedly ran a pick up high to free up their shooting guard. Surprisingly the guard's defender never managed to see it coming and move around it. But for a while he tried fighting his way through the pick. Because of the disparity in size between the pick-er and pick-ee, he wasn't able to do it.

However, that brings up an interesting question: How much leeway do you give the pickee to "fight through" the pick?

By rule "A player may not use the arms, hands, hips or shoulders to force his/her way through a screen or to hold the screener and then push the screener aside in order to maintain a guarding position on an opponent." But at what point has he actually committed a foul? Displacement?

[Raymond]

Thinking back on the times I've called fouls on B1 for fouling screener A2 I think they have all fallen into one of these 3 scenarios:

• B1 grabs A2 and moves them out the way

• B1 lowers shoulder and runs through A2

• B1 shoves A2

[Junker]

This is certainly one of the "have to see it" plays to me. I think about displacement and rough play when officiating this. This is an important game mangagement call to get right in my opinion. I worked a girls V game last season with a great official. We called a player from one team for pushing through a sceen 4 times, 3 times before the coach could actually see the play and understand what we were calling. I got her twice, my partner got her twice. No one on her team was calling out a screen for her and she just literally ran through the screener. The coach was nice and polite asking us why it was getting called, but just didn't understand what we were calling until the last one. After the 4th call, I heard her from the bench, "now I see it."

[IREFU2]

I would say if the screenie (B1) runs over the screener (A1) then you would have a foul. I agree that you would have to see the play to make a determination.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Junker

This is certainly one of the "have to see it" plays to me. I think about displacement and rough play when officiating this. This is an important game mangagement call to get right in my opinion. I worked a girls V game last season with a great official. We called a player from one team for pushing through a sceen 4 times, 3 times before the coach could actually see the play and understand what we were calling. I got her twice, my partner got her twice. No one on her team was calling out a screen for her and she just literally ran through the screener. The coach was nice and polite asking us why it was getting called, but just didn't understand what we were calling until the last one. After the 4th call, I heard her from the bench, "now I see it."

Maybe HTBT, but I envision blind screens in your post. With blind screens the screenee receives quite a bit more leeway when contact occurs.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Maybe HTBT, but I envision blind screens in your post. With blind screens the screenee receives quite a bit more leeway when contact occurs.

I agree, I have seen many Blind screens that have a lot of contact and no call has been made.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

I agree, I have seen many Blind screens that have a lot of contact and no call has been made.

What do you mean by a blind screen? As long as it is set legally, the defender has to legally get around it. I think what you might be getting at is when a defender runs right into a well set screen. Of course there is going to be contact, but to me you no call this unless they totally run through the screener or use their hands to get around. Is this the type of play you envisioning?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Junker

What do you mean by a blind screen? As long as it is set legally, the defender has to legally get around it. I think what you might be getting at is when a defender runs right into a well set screen. Of course there is going to be contact, but to me you no call this unless they totally run through the screener or use their hands to get around. Is this the type of play you envisioning?

A blind screen would be one that the screenee doesn't see coming...the amount of contact allowed on those is usually greater than if the screenee sees it and just decides to plow thru anyway.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Junker

What do you mean by a blind screen? As long as it is set legally, the defender has to legally get around it. I think what you might be getting at is when a defender runs right into a well set screen. Of course there is going to be contact, but to me you no call this unless they totally run through the screener or use their hands to get around. Is this the type of play you envisioning?

Screenee to Screener contact in a blind screen situation should be ruled as incidental contact (no foul). The screenee, not seeing the screener, might make heavy contact, even knocking the screener down with it being ruled as
incidental.

Myself I would look for the screenee to not be malicious (malicious requires knowledge and intent - IMO) and attempt to avoid as much as the screenee can with consideration to the amount of fore-knowledge of the screener.

edited for spelling (foul vs foull)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

at what point has he actually committed a foul? Displacement?

He committed the foul when he used the arms, hands, hips or shoulders to force his way through a screen or to hold the screener and then push the screener aside in order to maintain a guarding position on an opponent.