Never thought I'd see it...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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