Screening

[Chess Ref]

I had this happen last night. I need some feedback to check if I've lost my mind.

Player A sets a screen. Nice screen I might add. Defender has plenty of time to see the screen, a good 3 to 4 steps. The defender then blasts into the screener. Not your garden variety incidential contact but a major lay into the screener. Think linebacker nailing a running back sitch. So I call a pushing foul on defender. The coach says " Never seen that called before." It got me to thinking that I don't think I have ever called that one before.

I know 4-40-7 says to rule incidential provided screenee stops or attempts to stop. This seemed to me to a kid taking a shot. A definite non-basketball play.

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

[Nevadaref]

I would have called an intentional personal foul.

A screen from the front or side is within the visual field.

PS Yes, you have lost your mind, but it was a long time ago.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I had this happen last night. I need some feedback to check if I've lost my mind.

Player A sets a screen. Nice screen I might add. Defender has plenty of time to see the screen, a good 3 to 4 steps. The defender then blasts into the screener. Not your garden variety incidential contact but a major lay into the screener. Think linebacker nailing a running back sitch. So I call a pushing foul on defender. The coach says " Never seen that called before." It got me to thinking that I don't think I have ever called that one before.

I know 4-40-7 says to rule incidential provided screenee stops or attempts to stop. This seemed to me to a kid taking a shot. A definite non-basketball play.

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

Doesn't happen that often but I have called it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

Player A sets a screen. Defender has plenty of time to see the screen, a good 3 to 4 steps. The defender then blasts into the screener. Not your garden variety incidential contact but a major lay into the screener. Think linebacker nailing a running back sitch. So I call a pushing foul on defender. The coach says " Never seen that called before." It got me to thinking that I don't think I have ever called that one before.

I know 4-40-7 says to rule incidential provided screenee stops or attempts to stop. This seemed to me to a kid taking a shot. A definite non-basketball play.

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

Good call. See case book play 10.6.11SitB(b). That's exactly the way that the FED wants it called.

If he saw the screener and still laid into him like that, I'd tend to agree with Nevada. Sounds like the play warrants the additional penalty of an intentional foul. If the screener was injured, I'd even contemplate flagrant.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I had this happen last night. I need some feedback to check if I've lost my mind.

Player A sets a screen. Nice screen I might add. Defender has plenty of time to see the screen, a good 3 to 4 steps. The defender then blasts into the screener. Not your garden variety incidential contact but a major lay into the screener. Think linebacker nailing a running back sitch. So I call a pushing foul on defender. The coach says " Never seen that called before." It got me to thinking that I don't think I have ever called that one before.

I know 4-40-7 says to rule incidential provided screenee stops or attempts to stop. This seemed to me to a kid taking a shot. A definite non-basketball play.

At minimum, common foul; possibly an intentional foul.

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

Of course. It's rare, but yes, I have called this.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I had this happen last night. I need some feedback to check if I've lost my mind.

Player A sets a screen. Nice screen I might add. Defender has plenty of time to see the screen, a good 3 to 4 steps. The defender then blasts into the screener. Not your garden variety incidential contact but a major lay into the screener. Think linebacker nailing a running back sitch. So I call a pushing foul on defender. The coach says " Never seen that called before." It got me to thinking that I don't think I have ever called that one before.

I know 4-40-7 says to rule incidential provided screenee stops or attempts to stop. This seemed to me to a kid taking a shot. A definite non-basketball play.

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

Did the defender see the screen or not? Your post only indicates he had time to see the screen.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Did the defender see the screen or not? Your post only indicates he had time to see the screen.

Unless he is as blind as me he had to see it.

[Coltdoggs]

Sounds like the right call to me given what you wrote.

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

So has anyone else ever called a foul on the screenee for running into the screener ?

Absolutely. If the defender sees the screen, and runs completely through the screener, I will call the push.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Did the defender see the screen or not? Your post only indicates he had time to see the screen.

Only relevant as it relates to intentional or common. It's foul either way....not looking where you're going is not adequate to avoid a foul.

I've got a defensive foul on this...every time.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Only relevant as it relates to intentional or common. It's foul either way....not looking where you're going is not adequate to avoid a foul.

I've got a defensive foul on this...every time.

Is not looking where you are going different than being screened outside your visual field? If not, then I always get confused by the different way that people interpret contact when a screen is set outside the visual field. there can be a lot of contact without there necessarily being a foul. Right?

[JRutledge]

I do not think it matters if the defender sees the screen or not, I would still have a foul if there was enough contact by the defender. Now calling an intentional foul is really hard to judge sitting on a computer. But for the record I have called fouls on defenders in this situation many times over the years. Of course it is just not very common. I think I have called this twice this year. No one called out the screen.

Peace

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it matters if the defender sees the screen or not, I would still have a foul if there was enough contact by the defender. Now calling an intentional foul is really hard to judge sitting on a computer. But for the record I have called fouls on defenders in this situation many times over the years. Of course it is just not very common. I think I have called this twice this year. No one called out the screen.

Peace

I think not,

From the NCAA rules which mirror the Fed rules in this instance (I think)

In cases of blind screens, 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
that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves
around the screen, and provided that the screener is not displaced if he
or she has the ball.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it matters if the defender sees the screen or not, I would still have a foul if there was enough contact by the defender. Now calling an intentional foul is really hard to judge sitting on a computer. But for the record I have called fouls on defenders in this situation many times over the years. Of course it is just not very common. I think I have called this twice this year. No one called out the screen.

Peace

Rut,

I do think that it matters if the screen is set, outside or inside, the visual field. I have had more than 1 clinician say that sometimes it will the screener that goes to the floor and sometimes it will be the screenee that goes to the floor, but in both cases the screen did its job and no foul is warranted. Assuming, of course, that the screen was properly set and outside the visual field.

I ses it called differently from night to night and even from play to play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

I think not,

From the NCAA rules which mirror the Fed rules in this instance (I think)

In cases of blind screens, 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
that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves
around the screen, and provided that the screener is not displaced if he
or she has the ball.

Under NF Rule 4-40-7 says: A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of outside of 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 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.

I think you are reading a little too much into what I said. I clearly am saying that just because you do not see the screen, if there is contact the responsibility of the contact is on the defender (or screened player) and just because they did not see the screen. If the defender has several steps, then they can be called for a foul. The only way you would consider the contact incidental if the defender tries to stop or get around the defender. And just because they do not see the screen does not make them exempt from being called for a foul.

Also looking at the NCAA rules under 4-59, I do not see this reference. Maybe your reference is in one of the guideline sections, but I am not seeing that at this time.

Peace