contact on a blind screen

[Ang]

Here's the situation. NF rules. B1 is guarding dribbler A1. A2 sets a legal blind screen on B1, allowing for time and distance. B1 makes SEVERE contact with the screener A2 displacing the screener A2. A2 ends up on the floor. B1 did not see A2 in his peripheral vision. What's the call ? Is it a no call, Incidental contact? Or a pushing foul on B1 for displacing A2 even though he did not see B1.

Thanks

Ang

Ontario, Canada

[rgaudreau]

Hmmm. Good scenario Ang.

We can discuss it this weekend during the Gold Cup!

Ren

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

To determine whether B1 has committed a foul the following question has to be answered: Did B1 stop immediately upon making contact with A2 (he could even then go around A2) or did he continue on through A2? If B1 stopped (and go around A2) then B1 did not commit a foul. If B1 continued through A2 then B1 committed a foul. See the last paragraph of NFHS R10-S6-A3 (bottom of page 63 of this year's rules book). NCAA Rules agree.

[PP]

Ummm...how fast was B1 going ? ...because if B1 was running rapidly, the contact may be severe...911...then what ? is this a good rule ?

[crew]

assuming a2 set a legal screen it is the responsibility of b1 to avoid contact of a2. it does not matter how fast or how big b1 is he is not allowed to plow over a2.

[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 A1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on A1.

NCAA, I agree with crew. There is no provision (that I can see) for the trying to stop contact.

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:00 AM]

[Brian Watson]

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 A2 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on A2.

NCAA, I agree with crew. There is no provision (that I can see) for the trying to stop contact.

Mark - Do you maen B1?

[Larks]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
To determine whether B1 has committed a foul the following question has to be answered: Did B1 stop immediately upon making contact with A2 (he could even then go around A2) or did he continue on through A2? If B1 stopped (and go around A2) then B1 did not commit a foul. If B1 continued through A2 then B1 committed a foul. See the last paragraph of NFHS R10-S6-A3 (bottom of page 63 of this year's rules book). NCAA Rules agree.

MTD,

I can see a scenario where B1 is running while guarding A1. A2 blind screens. B1 doesnt see the pick and worse, his teammates dont warn him. Boom.....bodies on the floor. My comment is that B1 should have to stop if he sees the pick. He does not have the right to plow A2. The flip side is that this is a fast game. I can see cases where this is a no-call. A2 chose to jump in front of the moving train. Why call a foul on B1 for trying to guard his man?

Take my case...I am 6'4", 285 football player build. Many times in Rec ball these 5'1" soccer player type guards try to set a pick while I am guarding someone, sometimes blind...sometimes not. Based on my size, gravity, inertia or sometimes after a flop, Mr. Soccer ends up on the deck. Foul? (FYI, if it happened 15 times in 5 years, the Refs called a foul on me maybe twice...not that they are right, just how they called it)

My point is that there is going to be contact almost every time there is a pick. If A2 sets a blind screen and gets plowed, I have a hard time calling a foul on B1 unless I know he saw him, made zero effort to miss him or attempted to increase the effect of the collision.

At least IMRHO.

Larks

[Bart Tyson]

Larks, I have to disagree with you on this one. The rules don't say B1 has to see A2. Blind screens are part of the game. that is the object of the screen, as long as it is legal.

[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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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

NFHS R10-S6-A3 states that even though the screener was knocked down, as long as the player being screened stops on contact the contact between the two players is legal. Only when the screened player continues on through the screen does his contact become a foul by him.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Brian Watson
Mark - Do you maen B1?

No. I meant A1. Changed it for some reason, though . . .

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:01 AM]

[Larks]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R10-S6-A3 states that even though the screener was knocked down, as long as the player being screened stops on contact the contact between the two players is legal. Only when the screened player continues on through the screen does his contact become a foul by him.

Ok, so if B1 makes contact with the blind screener (A2)while running...A2 falls and B1 falls on top of or next to him do I have a foul? In this case, B2 just didnt see him and the resulting collision sends both to the deck.

I know what the rules are saying but why punish good defense?

Thanks Mark

Larks - I love these split second decisions!

[zebraman]

Points of Emphasis, NFHS.

Screens:
The screen 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.

The situation described soundslike excessive contact to me.

Z

[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.