Never thought I'd see it...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

I understand it 100%. Incidental contact is whatever I decide to pass on. The play on the video is not even close to a foul, in my opinion.

This is where you're wrong. While you have the right conclusion, the reason is wrong.

By definition, knocking over a blind screen is not a foul...no matter how hard the contact. You implied that the amount of contact determined whether there would be a foul. The fact that it is blind is all you need to know....if the screened player then stops upon making contact.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is where you're wrong. While you have the right conclusion, the reason is wrong.

By definition, knocking over a blind screen is not a foul...no matter how hard the contact. You implied that the amount of contact determined whether there would be a foul. The fact that it is blind is all you need to know....if the screened player then stops upon making contact.

If the player stops upon contact, there will never be a collision hard enough that requires a foul to be called, in my opinion. Application of the rule book is important.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Whether he sees him or not, if a defender hammers a screener you can call it or let it go.

Incorrect. It does matter whether he sees him.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

You have to manage the situation based on your judgment. You cannot allow defenders to intimidate screeners by blindly slamming through them.

Irrelevant to the play in question.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

That video is great.

This was correct.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Whether or not he sees him or not, that was not nearly enough to call the foul on the defender. No lowered shoulder, no brutal contact. The screener also went down awfully easily.

Irrelevant to the play in question.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Typically, a strong screen there decks the defender. Looks to me like a semi-flop, because screen setters generally don't slide when they get popped--folks taking charges do, though. Screen setters getting hammered usually go down really hard. This kid didn't. He slid and looked right up for the call, like he took a charge.

This is all irrelevant.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Absolute no call on that.

This is correct.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Incorrect. It does matter whether he sees him. Irrelevant to the play in question.
This was correct.Irrelevant to the play in question.This is all irrelevant.


This is correct.

which is why the "visual field" part is ambiguous and why coaches run this play in this situation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

which is why the "visual field" part is ambiguous and why coaches run this play in this situation

I agree it's a bit ambiguous, and they may run it with the hope that they may draw a foul. However, the primary purpose of this play is to free the inbounder from pressure.
And "why" they run the play has nothing to do with the way it needs to be called. Hell, one coach recently had his player goal tend a free throw to ensure he had an inbounds pass following the free throw. It didn't work because, well, he didn't know the rule.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree it's a bit ambiguous, and they may run it with the hope that they may draw a foul. However, the primary purpose of this play is to free the inbounder from pressure.
And "why" they run the play has nothing to do with the way it needs to be called. Hell, one coach recently had his player goal tend a free throw to ensure he had an inbounds pass following the free throw. It didn't work because, well, he didn't know the rule.

good point

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

If the player stops upon contact, there will never be a collision hard enough that requires a foul to be called, in my opinion. Application of the rule book is important.

What??? That makes no sense. The contact happens first....then the player must stop. The amount of contact is, again, irrelevant. You can't stop for something you dont' see until you either see it or hit it....too late to slow down and lessen the contact.

I agree with what you think is important...that's why I suggest you acutally not only read it but understand it.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What??? That makes no sense. The contact happens first....then the player must stop. The amount of contact is, again, irrelevant. You can't stop for something you dont' see until you either see it or hit it....too late to slow down and lessen the contact.

I agree with what you think is important...that's why I suggest you acutally not only read it but understand it.

I believe that if a defender hits a legal screener hard enough to negate the offensive advantage created by the screen, OR the contact is severe enough that it will lead to increased unnecessary physical play between teams in a game, it is a foul. It is up to the official to make that decision. Those who disagree, that is fine with me. No big deal.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

OR the contact is severe enough that it will lead to increased unnecessary physical play between teams in a game, it is a foul.

Although you post under TheOracle, just out of curiousity how can you predict the future?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

I believe that if a defender hits a legal screener hard enough to negate the offensive advantage created by the screen, OR the contact is severe enough that it will lead to increased unnecessary physical play between teams in a game, it is a foul. It is up to the official to make that decision. Those who disagree, that is fine with me. No big deal.

Ah, I see now. Just choose to ignore an explicit rule telling you otherwise.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Ah, I see now. Just choose to ignore an explicit rule telling you otherwise.

There is no explicit rule. You can explain these calls on both sides. I'm more than happy to blow the whistle on a bonecrushing collision on a screen where the screener gets jacked up to prevent a fight or cheap shots later on. All I have to say according to the rule is that the defender did not stop on contact. Easy. But you can take the other side. I even understand it. In the grand scheme, it makes little difference.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

There is no explicit rule.

You're right. Except for the explicit rule that you are choosing to ignore.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

There is no explicit rule.

You mean the one that says that contact by a defender running into a blind screen is incidental.

....guess I better go rip that page out of my book.

Just because it is popular or an easy call to make doesn't make it right.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The only judgment on this play imo is whether this is actually a blind screen or not. After seeing it dozens of time, I'd say it is. At the worse, it might be seen as doubtful either way, also imo. In that case, in any situation when there's any doubt, I don't think a call should be made.

Isn't there a second judgment on this play, whether or not the player attempts to stop.

In my opinion:
Judgment #1: Blind screen
Judgment #2: Player attempted to stop
Thus: No foul

However, this is a tough play to call, in real time, and on the replay, and I'm willing to accept other interpretations.