contact on a blind screen

[physicsref]

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.
[/B]

Coach. I agree with your rules interpretation here. I gotta question your physics, though. It's pretty easy to send a body flying without going through someone. For example, one billiard ball hits another and the 2nd ball continues on, while the first stops. Similarly, consider the case where the 130 lbs. guard sets a screen against a 230 lb. forward. B1 (230 lbs) hits the blind screen, stops on contact, and watches A2 (130 lbs.) fly into the mats against the wall. Just like the desk toys with the ball-bearings rocking back and forth.

In any case, as long as B doesn't go through the screen, don't blow the whistle. The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.

[Hawks Coach]

Physicsteacherref I get your point

I am thinking in terms of the amount of force required to move any player, and that force cannot be applied without moving at least in part into the space previously occupied by that player. (much as a kicker kicks through the ball to apply the force to a much smaller object) More to the point, you cannot apply that much force, have that much momentum (230 pounds at top speed, whatever that is!), and react quickly enough to stop yourself at the instant you make contact. But you may stop within a foot of where you initially hit the player, and that's ok. You stopped, and the 130 pound point guard is bouncing off a wall at the opposite end of the court (call the bank shot please )

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by 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

I agree, the orignal post doesn't say. That's why I gave two scenarios. I gave an example of B1 staying with A1 (probably didn't try to stop there, boss) and B1 getting left in the dust as A1 goes in for layup. Either of these may have happened in the scenario as stated. If it is the former, you got a foul by rule. If it is the latter, sounds like A got what they wanted and B1's intent is relatively irrelevant. Something in between, the call is in your hands, my friend.

I am sorry you have trouble determining intent. But the rules clearly say "attempts to stop" (NF's words, not mine), so I guess you get paid to make that determination. I for one will be very upset if you take away every one of my blind screen layups because of severe contact that is permissible by rule. On the other hand, all my players' parents will love you, because they think all contact is a foul on the other team.

It appears that you believe being knocked to the floor is excessive contact. I believe that severe contact is exactly that, severe. It will often result in bodies bouncing in many directions, sometimes to the floor. But more than one rule in the book says that contact can be severe and remain incidental to the play.

[Ang]

Thanks for your input. The defender B1 did stop on contact and A2 went flying so next time I will not call a foul on B1 , Play on !

Ang

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by physicsref

Coach. I agree with your rules interpretation here. I gotta question your physics, though. It's pretty easy to send a body flying without going through someone. For example, one billiard ball hits another and the 2nd ball continues on, while the first stops. Similarly, consider the case where the 130 lbs. guard sets a screen against a 230 lb. forward. B1 (230 lbs) hits the blind screen, stops on contact, and watches A2 (130 lbs.) fly into the mats against the wall. Just like the desk toys with the ball-bearings rocking back and forth.

In any case, as long as B doesn't go through the screen, don't blow the whistle. The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.

[/B]

Yes,I love your explaination. As a structural engineer, everytime I use the same explaination people do not believe me. I believe that where ever Newton is he is smiling.

[zebraman]

The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.

When I was coaching, the purpose of it was to free up a player for an open shot. But contact did occur at times.

I am sorry you have trouble determining intent.

Anyone who says that's an easy call is lying. When a player runs into a blind screen at full speed, it's tough to figure out if they tried to stop or not. It'd be real nice if the teammate communicated and let them know that a screen was coming. My only point was that this is a tough one and I'd like to see NFHS do a specific case study since I've seen this one posted several times on a variety of boards. If your team set the screen and got barreled over, you are in the very small minority if you aren't screaming for a foul with your parents. 99% of the coaches I work for not only scream for a foul, but that's when the comments like, "somebody is going to get hurt out there if you don't call that" start.

I for one will be very upset if you take away every one of my blind screen layups because of severe contact that is permissible by rule.

I haven't had any games where I've had severe contact more than once or twice this year so I won't take away too many. Hopefully I'll get it right. But when I say, "I didn't think the screened player tried to stop," and you don't agree, you'll have no choice but to accept my call.



Z