[QUOTE=ronny mulkey]Contact caused by the screenee who doesn't stop or go around once the contact is made.

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]Over the years I remain confused on how to judge this play. Verbage on pages 65 and 66 of the rulebook indicate that contact can be ruled incidental even if it is severe and even if the screener is displaced.

At one of our State Clinics an example was given where the screener was smallish and the screenee was large and moving rapidly. The resulting collision was to be ruled incidental if the screenee stopped or ATTEMPTED to stop. However, I see it primarily called using your criteria.

I remain confused.:confused:

[QUOTE=ronny mulkey]The criteria is whether the player being screened stops or attempts to stop <b>upon</b> feeling the contact. The initial contact may be quite severe because the player being screened didn't see the screener and thus was unable to stop or slow down before the contact occured.

Iow, it's what the player being screened does <b>after</b> the contact that determines whether it's a foul or incidental contact. If they continue trying to go <b>through</b> the screen <b>after</b> the contact, then it's a foul. If they stop and have to go <b>around</b> the screener, then the screener has done their job and it's incidental contact. That's always a judgment call.

Make any more sense now, Ron?

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]JR,

You always make sense to me BUT I am hung up on the verbage that allows severe contact and displacement which makes these following plays hard to judge. Assume the screenee did not lower shoulder or push through:

1. Screener is knocked down and screenee is standing and stopped. They go around the screener.

2. Screener is knocked down and screenee falls down beside screener, gets up and goes around screener.

3. screener is knocked down, screenee goes down on top of screener, rolls clear, gets up and goes around screener.

4. screener is knocked down, screenee STUMBLES over screener and keeps going.

Mulk

[quote=ronny mulkey]No call in #1. A screener's purpose is to sacrifice their body (if necessary) to force the defender to take a longer path around.

No call in #2 unless the screen was not legal.

No call in #3. Again, the screen served it's purpose.

Foul in #4. The screenee proceeded right through the screen by use of contact that knocked the screener out of the way.

For number 1, 2, and 3, the assumption is that the screenee didn't see the screen in time to stop. If they saw the screen in time to stop or divert but still plowed into the screen, it would be a foul in most cases....not based on the advantage but to keep the game from getting too rough.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust]Ronny, excellent explanation by Camron. I certainly concur completely with him.

The way that the FED explained it in a hand-out many years ago was that you don't want to penalize the player being screened twice. The player is penalized initially through a good, legal screen by being taken out of the play. That is the purpose of the screen, and the purpose was met. If you call the foul on top of that, then it's double jeopardy. If the player <b>isn't</b> taken out of the play--i.e. by forcing their way <b>through</b> the screen-- then they gained an illegal advantage through that contact and being called for the foul now will negate that illegal advantage.

At last, the voice of reason. Perhaps the sentence could have read: If a foul is committed against a player who is not involved in the play in some way, such as setting a screen or moving to try to receive a pass, it must be ruled intentional. In other words, don't grab and hold a player who is just standing there on the opposite end of the court without expecting the intentional foul to be called.
Would that not have been clearer?

Disagree completely. The intentional foul is meant to be called when someone is :
1) trying to get open for an in-bounds pass but a defender just wraps him up.
2) fouled while setting a screen without the ball being anywhere in the vicinity of the screen.

Why else would any defender foul a screener <b>except</b> to stop the clock?

Camron, you interpret the POE one way. I interpret it a completely different. We simply disagree.

One point game, team B that's behind tries to deny the inbound to the only good ballhandler A has. A sets screens to get their ball-handler open, and B, intent on not letting A's ball handler get open, pushes through one of the screens.

Taking the POE literally, that's an automatic intentional foul, which is ludicrous.

Agreed.
Why does a player foul the screener with 10 minutes left in a 10 point game? To get to the player they're supposed to be guarding. It is no more intentional in the last minute than in than 10 minutes earlier.

If that screen is being set to free up a player to possibly receive the ball, it is part of the play.

The problem is not that we're interpreting it differently but in diametrically opposite meanings based on a poorly constructed sentence.

The POE is the counter to the Shaq-Attack....fouling the worst FT shooter on the floor no matter where they are....even when the throwin team is clearly trying to isolate them away from the play.

I agree that it could be read the way you suggest but that interpretation is simply illogical and inconsistent with all other publications on endgame intentional foul calling.

What he said.

Just for the record...

I contacted Howard Mayo, who is our assignor here in Portland, OR, but more importantly, is the official NFHS rules interpreter for the state of Oregon, and has also been on the rules committee several years in the past.

He said that the examples in the parentheses were of players who were involved in the play.

Really?

Fwiw, I disagree completely with Howard too then.

But.... who does Howard think that the throw-in intentional foul verbiage applies to then in that statement of the POE? What is his complete interpretation of what the NFHS rulesmakers are instructing us to do? What offensive players on a throw-in, other than screeners or players attempting to receive a throw-in,are the players that are being fouled that the FED says we <b>must</b> call those intentional fouls on?

What is Howard's interpretation of that statement in the POE, Juulie? How are intentional fouls on throw-ins supposed to be called, and who is the FED telling us to to call them on?

Iow, give us <b>his</b> full interpretation.

The contact in this case can be severe and yet still be incidental and not a foul. The key to judging this is that the screened player must make an effort to stop upon the contact.


Part of 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 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."

Just for the record, I said that about 40 posts ago! :D

Of course, I'm not the NFHS interpreter for the state of Oregon. :eek: