Screening
 

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 ?

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. :)

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

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.

At minimum, common foul; possibly an intentional foul.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Reminder - we are not discusing the OP as that screen was seen.

My reference is from page 146 (Appendix III, Section 2. Screening, e.

I think the phrase Such a case is to be ruled incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact does exempt a player from being called for a foul.

I was only discussing the OP and the issues with the OP. I was not just grabbing a situation out of the air. And I agree that your reference makes some sense, but it must be noted that this is under a title called "Officiating Guidelines." So this is not the way the rule reads exactly and even though I would take into account if a screened players sees or does not see the screen, but I do not think there is support under the actual rule to just not call a foul just because they are blind. Remember, we are talking about a play where a defender had several steps before contact. We are not talking about a step or two before contact. And I will also say that this issue has been addressed by Hank Nichols (I do not work Women's basketball so I cannot speak for their guidelines) in the NCAA Men's tape that this can be called a foul as well as nothing. I will have to look it up, but I would not be completely surprised if there is a play in the current year's tape.

Peace

I'm not sure if "exempt" is a good word to use in this case. I had 2 different screen plays last night in the same game that might illustrate the difference.

First one, post player sets a screen up high and waits as the ballhandler runs the defender right into it. Defender hits the screen, didn't try to stop, and crumples into a heap right at the feet of the post player. Post player was knocked back a step, and contact was pretty severe, perhaps even resulted in a slight injury, but definitely incidental - no foul.

Second play, defender sees the screen, slows down a little on contact, but then decides they're going to keep going to get to the ball handler behind the screener. Both players go down, and even though the contact was less than the first play, I called the foul on the defender for displacing the opponent. Yes, they initially slowed down before contact, but the contact caused the screener to go down and put them in a disadvantageous position. I'm not going to exempt the defender from a foul in this case just because they "attempted to stop" first before running over the screener.

There's your problem right there. The play that we are discussing is <b>NOT</b> a blind screen. Blind screens are screens set outside the opponent's visual field. We're discussing screens that are set <b>within</b> an opponent's visual field.

Apples and oranges. For blind screens, you have to give time/distance-one step for NCAA. For screens within an opponent's visual field, that opponent is expected to stop and go around the screen with no time/distance allowed.

NCAA 4-59-3(a) describes a blind screen(outside the opponent's visual field...i.e. from behind); 4-59-3(b) refers to screens within the visual field of a an opponent...i.e. from the front or side.

You cited (e) from NCAA Appendix 3 above. You should have cited Appendix 3(f), That's what is being discussed.

My post concerned JRut's post #12 indicating he did not think it mattered if the screen was seen or not. I then posted again but only pulled a piece of post #13, still concerning whether the screen was seen or not.

I agree with both your plays.

The OP is a no-brainer for experienced officials knowing the screen was seen.

My post included a quote for JRut, #12, where JRut indicated he didn't think it mattered if the screen was seen or not. I questioned that point, not the OP. I think that is indicated by having quoted JRut in my post.

With all due respect Sam, I think both M&M and JR took my comments in the context of thread and the OP. You seemed to take my comments in a general way outside of what we were talking about. That is why I believe both responded to your assertion of what should or should not be called. I stand by what I said in the context of what was asked in the OP. Whether they "technically" see a screen coming with multiple steps before contact does not eliminate their responsibility for being called with a foul.

Peace