contact on a blind screen

[devdog69]

Originally posted by zebraman
From the Points of Emphasis on Page 69 of the NFHS rule book:

C. Screens:
The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. Excessive contact or "pushing through" the screen is illegal. Sounds to me like you had excessive contact.

Z

The last paragraph on page 63 of the NFHS rulebook says:
...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....

As long as they don't push through with the arms or do anything else, I would most likely have a "no call". This exact situation happened in a game I was watching this year and RevRef's partner called a foul on B. I tried to bring it up at halftime and suggest a no-call, she thought I was out of my mind because it was a big collision.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as B1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on B1.

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

[PP]

Rule 10.6.3...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.
What do they mean the screener is not deplaced if she/he has the ball.
Usually you do not set a screen if you a have the ball ?

[bigwhistle]

Even if both bodies go to the floor on a blind screen with hard contact, there may not be a foul. This needs to be determined by the defensive player's actions AFTER he makes contact. If his legs keep driving through the position where the screener was, YES he has now not tried to avoid the screen. If he tries to change direction or quits pumping his legs, the contact is a legal part of the game.

Remember, the screener did his job and got his teammate open as the play was designed. Therefore, if the defender does nothing out of the ordinary, it is a "play on".

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

Actually, I'm reversing my correction - it was called a foul on A1.

I'm really out of it this morning - must be because I have to wait until Friday to find the rest of my schedule.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by PP
What do they mean the screener is not deplaced if she/he has the ball.
Usually you do not set a screen if you a have the ball ?

PP,

Remember the old "split the post" play where the ball is passed into the post at the free throw line and then the guard tries to brush his defender off on the post as he runs by in order to get a return pass for a lay up? This is an occasion where the screener can be the person with the ball.

But then again, there are a lot of officials here who have never seen that play, since it is not a play run as much as when Jurassic Ref started blowing his air horn, ur, tooting his whistle.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
If it is a blind screen then it is also unlikely B1 stopped. My guess is this will be a foul on B1. You have player on the floor which also involves the ball. This is the kind of rough play we need to clean up. For me not to call a foul on this one, it will have to be obvious to everyone, it was a flop.

Rough play in my book is play that intends to be rough. Fast play with blind screens is by nature going to be rough, and the screening team should expect contact when they set the blind screen. When you have A1 and B1 as the two fastest players on the court and you blind screen on B1, there may be contact but I do not consider B1 guilty of rough play. B1 is working his/her butt off to stay on the ball and not get beat. If anything, in these situations the only reason the play is rough is the offense's decision to set a blind screnn, not the defender's decision to guard their player. By setting a blind screen, the offense decided they were willing to exchange hard contact for getting B1 off A1.

Now, having said that, is it a foul? As A's coach, I expect to have hard contact on the screen - it's blind and I am running my quick player off the screen to get B1 off of her. I want to gain an advantage from the screen, and I fully expect to catch B1 off guard and that B1 will hit A2 pretty hard. My players must brace for hard contact in these situations. The advantage I seek is not an on-the-floor foul on B1 - it is an open lane to the basket and a good scoring opportunity. This is an advantage you deny me if you blow the whistle when B1 contacts A2.

If B1 runs through A2's screen and pretty much stays with A1, then A did not get the advantage they deserved for setting a good screen, and therefore B committed a foul. If B1 stops on contact, regardless of how or why, and A1 is now unimpeded going to the hole, you got no call. Frequently in these situations, both players are crashing hard and there is no way to see if B intended to stop, but you sure can see that B did stop and A got what they wanted from the screen. Why would you whistle a foul for this?

Had this twice in one game this weekend, my parents screamed for a foul and I told the ref good no-call. There is a reason the case book interpretation is written the way that Mark DeNucci cites!

[devdog69]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

Actually situation (a) does not say it is a foul on A1 it only says A1 is responsible for the contact. I take that to mean, if there is a foul it would be on A1.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by bigwhistle

PP,

Remember the old "split the post" play where the ball is passed into the post at the free throw line and then the guard tries to brush his defender off on the post as he runs by in order to get a return pass for a lay up? This is an occasion where the screener can be the person with the ball.

But then again, there are a lot of officials here who have never seen that play, since it is not a play run as much as when Jurassic Ref started blowing his air horn, ur, tooting his whistle.

RIght -- and then we need to call the displacement a foul because otherwise the post "traveled."

Too often now, I see this play and the post player sets an illegal screen. I think coaches (okay, SOME coaches) are teaching that it's the sceener's responsibility to initiate contact -- not the player being defended.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I think coaches (okay, SOME coaches) are teaching that it's the sceener's responsibility to initiate contact -- not the player being defended.

You are right that many screeners end up trying to initiate contact, but I am not sure they are really being taght to do so. I teach players that the screener is responsible to a point in that they must position themselves in such a way that the player being defended can run off the screen. But the screener must stop and it becomes the teammate that must get skin-to-skin on the screen. Most illegal screens are the fault of poor cuts and screeners trying to make sure the screen happens anyway.

And even though I teach it, my cutters still make bad cuts and my screeners still try to help them. And because they get away with it about 2/3s of the time, they always look at me like "Whaaat!" when they actually get called for one!

[Bart Tyson]

Well Coach, we will have to agree to disagree. B1 has an obligation to stop or go around a screen. If the screen is legal then it does not matter how fast he is moving.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Well Coach, we will have to agree to disagree. B1 has an obligation to stop or go around a screen. If the screen is legal then it does not matter how fast he is moving.

You do not disagree with me, you disagree with the rule book Here is the book, word for word, 10-6-3-d.

"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 or she has the ball."

Because the screening contact rule allows for severe contact, it clearly recognizes that B1 cannot possibly come to an immediate stop as soon as B1 hits A2 when they never saw A2 (and A2 probably wanted it that way!). The rule anticipates and allows that a rapidly moving B1 will have a severe collision with a screener who positions themselves outside B1's visual field.

Physics will tell you that to have severe contact (contact that causes bodies to go flying) requires that a player move through someone. Now what matters by rule is what happens next. B1 stops (even by falling over A2), no foul. B1 bulls over A2 and continues defending A1, foul.

As the coach of the team that is supposedly punished by not giving B1 a foul, I am saying that I not only believe that this is the intent of a pretty straighforward rule, but that I agree that the rule should read and be enforced precisely in this way. As team A, we look for that contact because it removes that pesky, speedy B1 from the play and allows A1 to take a layup or drive and dish for A3, A4, or A5 to score. You blow the whistle and take that from A and you just gave an advantage to B. And you also give a good defender who is playing solid defense a foul that the player does not deserve.

[zebraman]

Is it just me, or do I see about a 50/50 split here? NFHS has screening contact as a point of emphasis, so I hope next year they are a little more clear on the rule and case book study on this. Sorry to be a "fence sitter," but I think people made pretty good arguments both ways on this one using the rule book/case book as their fodder.

Z

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by zebraman
Is it just me, or do I see about a 50/50 split here? NFHS has screening contact as a point of emphasis, so I hope next year they are a little more clear on the rule and case book study on this. Sorry to be a "fence sitter," but I think people made pretty good arguments both ways on this one using the rule book/case book as their fodder.

Z

The case book Mark Dexter cited was not a screening situation. It refers to A1, who is always an offensive player in cases (as Tony pointed out later). It is an entirely different case when an offensive player takes a defender out, because you now have an unfair offensive advantage. B1 is trying to prevent A1 from gaining this advantage.

In the case of the blind screen, as long as B1 stops (by rule and logic) the advantage stays with the team that successfully set the blind screen. I have yet to see rule or case which indicates otherwise. If there is one, someone should cite it here.

With regard to the POE, it does not clearly distinguish between the blind screen and the visible screen. Excessive contact should be called whenever it is made to get through a visible screen. The difference is that the defender was given the opportunity to stop and chose not to do so, and therefore made a conscious attempt to go through the screener to gain an advantage. The blind screen is intended to surprise a defender and is set with the anticipation that hard contact may occur. After the contact, if the defender stops, they did not attempt to nor did they gain an unfair advantage through their actions.

I do not believe that the POE is trying to stop collisions on blind screens from occurring. You could set blind screens all day, run your fastest ball handler off them, and set quick defender B1 up for some cheap fouls.

[zebraman]

The original post gives no indication that B tried to stop. Are we really going to expect a ref to say, "well, after the severe contact, I thought B tried to stop?" How do I judge that? "No foul coach, as A was falling to the floor, I thought I saw a hint of regret on B's face."

Z