help out the writer

[Adam]

Originally Posted by dmotes

I'm curious about this bit on the pick, though. Is there any level of violence that, even if accidental or unintentional, is still a foul on the defender when defender meets pick? Or is the picking player "accepting" whatever befalls him? That's what I got from the post

If you want to have a realistic foul on this play in your fiction, then have the defender hit the screen and try to push on through it. A good screen is going to result in some legal contact, sometimes severe. However, if the defense doesn't stop on contact, it's a foul.

Originally Posted by dmotes

To restate q1 #1--now that I have the official go-ahead--maybe I'll be clearer. I know the officials have thought these things out. If ball is thrown the length of the court, how long does it take to pass from the top of the key to the basket? That's why q1 isn't irrelevant, I think; I need my time left to be enough so that the clock would have expired if the top-of-the-key player touched it, but also not so short that the guy at the hoop would have long enough to catch and shoot. Are there standard timings for some of these? (and of course I know that the officials call what they see, and anything is possible, and so on.) I'm a writer, and this is fiction, so I won't tell anyone that you speculated. If you understand the question.

We've thought it out, but not the way you suggest. We think about how to handle it, and we think about how many times to flog the timer when all is said and done. However, there isn't anything set in writing on this, not from on-high anyway. There's nothing official that states x number of seconds are required for a ball to travel that far. There's no way to know, because every player is going to throw the ball at a different velocity and trajectory. Without replay and a stopwatch, it's impossible to know.

Another issue with your scenario. If the defense hears the horn and stops defending, how do you allow the shot? You're really talking about an official's worst nightmare with this play.

[SamIAm]

I am not comfortable with the terminology of "if the defender doesn't stop on contact". That doesn't allow for the defenders momentum. How about "if the defender continues beyond their momentum, through the screen, then a foul may occur".
(I might be being picky, but their might be an announcer reading this forum for the first time.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

I am not comfortable with the terminology of "if the defender doesn't stop on contact". That doesn't allow for the defenders momentum. How about "if the defender continues beyond their momentum, through the screen, then a foul may occur".
(I might be being picky, but their might be an announcer reading this forum for the first time.)

Actually, "stopping on contact" is the criteria that the FED wants us to use to judge whether a foul should be called vs. incidental contact on blind screens. The person being screened is expected to stop on contact with the screener. If they don't stop and try to push through the screen, a foul should be called on the player being screened.

The relevant rules language used is NFHS rule 10-6-3--"A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In case 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."

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Actually, "stopping on contact" is the criteria that the FED wants us to use to judge whether a foul should be called vs. incidental contact on blind screens. The person being screened is expected to stop on contact with the screener. If they don't stop and try to push through the screen, a foul should be called on the player being screened.

The relevant rules language used is NFHS rule 10-6-3--"A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In case 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."

"stop on contact" without the "or attempt to stop on contact" changes the meaning. My effort was to convey the allowance of not being able to stop on contact. I do think "...stop or attempt to stop..." is an improvement on both my definition and simply "stop on contact".