I should have used the word "illegal" instead of "hard". I thought I had stated my position multiple times that it was illegal.

Some of you guys love to change around the scenario.

I've never said or thought what your implying.

Have you ever watched the game? Seriously, if that is your position then I have to wonder what you know about the game. I have seen more coaches get upset with their own team than ever get mad at the other team on a screen like this. I have even heard a coach or two blame their team for a player getting hurt on completely legal screens. And considering that I have seen a lot of basketball and never had a fight of any kind (knock on wood), I cannot think a single situation that every got out of hand in a game because of violent contact. I have seen games get close because of talk and usually holding and contact that is not very violent, then I have seen from violent contact. And if you know how to deal with players, you can stop a lot of things without blowing your whistle.

And considering that the screener only leaned slightly and did not throw and elbow or punch the player, the contact and the violence of that contact was not greatly enhanced by the last minute action. And the Purdue players came over to make sure the player was OK. That is not a sign of a dirty play.

So if the screen was legal, you are just calling a foul because someone got hurt? That is the very reason why I had a problem with your other position, because you are only concerned about whether someone got hurt and not what was illegal about the action. The game of basketball is a rough game. It is a game where contact can be violent and severe and not illegal. And if you are only calling fouls because of what the result was, then you and I will never agree on this or other plays.

Peace

Show me where a hard screen must be illegal? Show me where it says hard contact must be a foul?

Keep looking because you will not find such reference. Actually you will find references to severe contact as legal.

Peace

Yes, you have stated your position. And that's fine if you're making the call based <b>ONLY</b> on whether the screen was illegal or not. I really don't have that much of a problem if your opinion was that the screen was legal either. That's just a difference of opinion.

What I completely disagree with is that the severity of contact or whether the coaches/fans agree or disagree should have any bearing at all on the final call being made. I know that I'm simply repeating the same thing over and over...but game management does not enter into calls of this nature in any way imo. You're getting into over-thinking and over-analyzing things if you try to enter that into the equation.

JMO.

I would not call a foul simply on whether a player was injured. In my opinion, the screen is illegal. The no-call is compounded by the fact that the player goes down. We can debate semantics all day. If these officials feel good about their no-call, and can explain why there was a no-call to the coach, then I can live with that......

We can disagree on plays!!! that is fine....

What did I "change around"? All I did was ask a question based on your wording of "hard screen" in your post, which you did clear up with the response to JR.

My only comment all along has been in response to you saying you should call the foul because it's good game management. I think JR and I agree in that the call should be made because it's an illegal screen. Subtle difference, but a difference nontheless.

Of course making the proper calls helps in managing a game. However, you could make all the correct and proper calls in a game, and the game can result in a fight. I have also seen poorly-officiated games go relatively smoothly. All I'm saying is make the call based on the rules, not whether or not a coach will be on your case if they don't like your call/no call.

Stop generalizing. I’m talking about this particular play. This play had an illegal, hard screen, injured player, tie ball game in the second half. A whistle needs to be blown and the correct call is an illegal screen. Slice and dice it all you want, but that’s the correct call and replays show it.

Debate all you want with me about “Game Management”, but I know this is a bad example of “it” with a no call.

So let me ask you this. What if we have a blocked shot where a much smaller player is shooting and a much bigger player is defending? And the result of the block puts the smaller player hard on the floor and possibly hurt. Now are we as officials supposed to now call a foul because the team on offense felt there was a foul?

I am also not sure we can disagree, because you started your comments in this thread trying to suggest what I would think on this play. At the very least my opinions have been supported by rule, not just what I think. You have not supported many of your comments with any rule, just clearly what you "think" game management means or does not mean.

Peace

[B]"In this case, the screener did not provide the required time/distance before stepping in the path of the opponent. My guess is it caught the new T by surprise, since it was secondary defender. This would've been a good call by the C." [/QUOTE][/B]

Since it might have indeed "caught the new T by surprise", and since I was taught to "referee the defense", I understand the T should be watching the on-ball defender in his/her area. But would this serve as a teaching point to glance up quickly to see if there is a screener in the area? This may have gotten rid of the "surprise" factor for the T. Thoughts???

Similar play happened to me in 2-man last year. Call was blatantly obvious in my situation b/c the screener extended his arms during contact as if he were a linebacker tattooing a quarterback after an interception!

In my opinion (only entering my 2nd year, so I don't have the experience as others here), I feel it was an illegal screen not b/c of the severity, but b/c the screener wasn't stationary in her vertical plane and leaned out of her plane to set the screen. Foul? yes. Dirty/flagrant? No.

I have every right to bring up other plays when people use logic that is beyond what actually happen on this play. And if this screen was legal, then I wonder if you would not call a foul just because someone got hurt. Remember, I never suggested anything in this entire thread about if a player was hurt, but in response to the commentator (who is one of the worst) or comments from you and Tio about.

If you are worried about a game that gets out of hand on something that is not called, then you can compare any other no-call. If you do not like that comparison, then you should not be worried about what the crowd, coaches and players think. I have seen games get much more intense over plays that were actually called then plays that were not. I am trying to figure out what your standard is of making calls when you are so worried about what people think then whether the rules were actually violated. And the play in question was not so obvious without a shadow of a doubt. The only way I could clearly see this play was by the replay, not the live action.

Peace

Yep.

Following the rules is a good reason for making or not making a call.

How can it be a foul, if you don't call it? Iow, you are not seeing a foul, then passing on it, but rather you are seeing a situation and judging it not to be a foul. Semantics, but important semantics. Do we call things "by the book"? I would hope every time. Are there some situations that the rules allow us to use judgement? Of course, and it's using that judgement while following the rules "by the book" that is a form of game management.

Again, my response was to mu4scott's post that calling the foul was good game management; after all, we wouldn't want the coach to be on our backs asking for other close plays for the remainder of the game, right? I feel calling the foul is the result of the play being a foul. For me, good game management would then be not allowing the coach to continue being on our backs for the remainder of the game, whether it is by warning, T, ejection, or combination. We shouldn't make or not make calls based on what a coach might do, but make the calls based on what the players <B>did</B>. Do you see the difference?

relevant

not relevantnot relevantnot relevantnot relevant

This quote should be engraved on a plaque up on a wall in every official's house. I am not kidding.

Amen.

Peace