Never thought I'd see it...

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I watched that play a dozen times today, while discussing it. There is nowayinhell the defender ever looked at the screener before contact was made. He was watching the thrower.

The play I saw is from an endline camera looking directly at the defender.

I disagree completely with you.

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul. Like I said this rule is EXTREMELY ambiguous and the "visual field" part of it is a joke.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul.

In the corner of his eye? The "corner"? Are you serious?

I've watched that play in slo-mo a couple of dozen times. As I said, imo there is nowayinhell the defender saw the screener before the contact. He's watching the thrower.

[Larks]

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Larks

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

That's the one. Appreciated, Andy.

Look at the the defender's head, Cajun. He never sees the screener until contact is made.

The pertinent NCAA cite is found in APPENDIX III at the back of the rulebook. See #2 labeled "SCREENING." #2(e) states "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 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."

Same language basically as FED 4-40-7.

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.

Jmo.

[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.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Larks

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

Whether he sees him or not, if a defender hammers a screener you can call it or let it go. You have to manage the situation based on your judgment. You cannot allow defenders to intimidate screeners by blindly slamming through them.

That video is great. 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. 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.

Absolute no call on that.

[eyezen]

Also, to supplement what JR posted here is Ap III Section 2(c):

When a screener takes a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction, it is a personal foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Whether he sees him or not, if a defender hammers a screener you can call it or let it go. You have to manage the situation based on your judgment. You cannot allow defenders to intimidate screeners by blindly slamming through them.

That video is great. 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. 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.

Absolute no call on that.

What the hell ever. Go back and re-read JR's post repeatedly until you understand the correlation between a blind screen and incidental contact.

Uh uh, no. Go back and read it. Read it until you believe it.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

What the hell ever. Go back and re-read JR's post repeatedly until you understand the correlation between a blind screen and incidental contact.

Uh uh, no. Go back and read it. Read it until you believe it.

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.

[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.

[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.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul. Like I said this rule is EXTREMELY ambiguous and the "visual field" part of it is a joke.

I do not see any indication that Jackson (the defender) saw the screen coming. I've watched the video over and over and I don't see it.