The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,226
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 915
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:44am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:47am
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,557
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 675
Quote:
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.
__________________
- SamIAm (Senior Registered User) - (Concerning all judgement calls - they depend on age, ability, and severity)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 10:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 486
Sounds like the right call to me given what you wrote.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 169
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 11:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,369
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 01:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: White, GA
Posts: 482
Quote:
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?
__________________
Mulk
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 01:38pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,138
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 02:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 675
Quote:
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.
__________________
- SamIAm (Senior Registered User) - (Concerning all judgement calls - they depend on age, ability, and severity)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: White, GA
Posts: 482
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mulk
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 02:53pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,138
Quote:
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)

Last edited by JRutledge; Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Screening L W Holmes Basketball 12 Wed Dec 12, 2007 08:23pm
Screening jdoldn07 Volleyball 4 Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:53pm
Screening the defender Chess Ref Basketball 20 Tue Mar 07, 2006 02:00pm
screening kalr Basketball 7 Wed Nov 19, 2003 08:02am
Overlapping and Screening BktBallRef Volleyball 3 Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1