Short of time? Draw a foul!

[Adam]

Not a violation, Billy, when it's an endline throwin.

I saw one of these happen in a game, where the collision was really violent, knocking the screener A2 out of the game. The officials called a flagrant foul and ejected the defender B1. Sub A6 came in and shot both free throws to take the lead, and eventually the win. The B team decided to throw a long pass but the boy ended up throwing OOB at the other end. A gets the ball back, and ends up shooting another set of free throws because of an intentional foul by B. Freaking bizarre ending to a game.

[VolDoug]

I may be wrong, but from a discussion last year about a similar situation, I thought it was determined that if, in the judgment of the official, the screener was outside of the defender's field of view that there was no violation, regardless of the force of the impact.

Is that not correct?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by VolDoug

I may be wrong, but from a discussion last year about a similar situation, I thought it was determined that if, in the judgment of the official, the screener was outside of the defender's field of view that there was no violation, regardless of the force of the impact.

Is that not correct?

Read the definition of screening -- it requires the player being screend to stop (or attempt to stop) on contact.

And, that usually wouldn't apply on the type of screen being discussed.

Frankly, I'm surprised the play still works. I'd think that coaches would tell the player guarding the inbounder to be ready for it.

[hbioteach]

The play as described is not a foul. Contact on a blind screen is not a foul. If the defender did not see the screener, it is not a foul!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by hbioteach

The play as described is not a foul. Contact on a blind screen is not a foul. If the defender did not see the screener, it is not a foul!

Oh, really?

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by hbioteach

The play as described is not a foul. Contact on a blind screen is not a foul. If the defender did not see the screener, it is not a foul!

Rule reference please.

[hbioteach]

Incidental Contact NCAA
4-40-5 A player who screened outside his or her visual field may make inadvertent contact with the screener.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by VolDoug

I may be wrong, but from a discussion last year about a similar situation, I thought it was determined that if, in the judgment of the official, the screener was outside of the defender's field of view that there was no violation, regardless of the force of the impact.

Is that not correct?

A foul is not based on the severity of the contact.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not a violation, Billy, when it's an endline throwin.

That's one opinion and I don't agree with it.

The rule does not say a teamamte of the thrower can be OOB on a throw-in. The rule says the teammate can be BEYOND THE BOUNDARY LINE. A player who has one foot inbounds and one foot OOB is NOT beyond the boundary line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did the screener have a foot on the boundary line?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not a violation, Billy, when it's an endline throwin.

I'm not saying that it is a violation, or a foul, but, I'm also not saying that it is a violation, or a foul. Didn't we just have a very long thread discussing this a few weeks ago? Did we come up with a definitive answer to this. Snaqwells seems very confident in his answer. Do we all agree with him? I'd like to know the right answer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not saying that it is a violation, or a foul, but, I'm also not saying that it is a violation, or a foul. Didn't we just have a very long thread discussing this a few weeks ago? Did we come up with a definitive answer to this. Snaqwells seems very confident in his answer. Do we all agree with him? I'd like to know the right answer.

Confidence is part of my nature and not indicative of my accuracy. That said, in order for a player to get from inbounds to OOB, they have to be allowed to be, at one point, standing with one foot in and one foot out. Unless you're going to call a violation on the following play:

Following a made basket, A1 grabs the ball and heads OOB for the proper endline throwin. A2 then steps OOB as well and receives a pass from A1. A1 then leans forward due to balance and steps over the line before A2 releases the pass for the throwin.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Confidence is part of my nature and not indicative of my accuracy. That said, in order for a player to get from inbounds to OOB, they have to be allowed to be, at one point, standing with one foot in and one foot out. Unless you're going to call a violation on the following play: Following a made basket, A1 grabs the ball and heads OOB for the proper endline throwin. A2 then steps OOB as well and receives a pass from A1. A1 then leans forward due to balance and steps over the line before A2 releases the pass for the throwin.

OK. Let's change it up a little. Team B scores. A1 legally steps out of bounds to make his throwin to A2, however, B1 immediately steals the thowin and is driving along the endline to the basket. Seeing what is about to happen, without delay in returning inbounds, A1 steps inbounds to take the charge. Everything that A1 does in terms of legal guarding position, is 100% legal, by the book, except A1 had one foot on the endline boundary line. Blocking foul on A1 because he had a foot on the boundary line, per a NFHS interpretation a few years ago, or player control foul because A1 was legally out of bounds? Now let's go back to the screen. Is the screen legal if the screener has one foot on the endline boundary line, and I already know that screens have nothing to do with legal guarding position? I honestly don't know the correct answer to this, but would love to be convinced one way, or the other.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

OK. Let's change it up a little. Team B scores. A1 legally steps out of bounds to make his throwin to A2, however, B1 immediately steals the thowin and is driving along the endline to the basket. Seeing what is about to happen, without delay in returning inbounds, A1 steps inbounds to take the charge. Everything that A1 does in terms of legal guarding position, is 100% legal, by the book, except A1 had one foot on the endline boundary line. Blocking foul on A1 because he had a foot on the boundary line, per a NFHS interpretation a few years ago, or player control foul because A1 was legally out of bounds? Now let's go back to the screen. Is the screen legal if the screener has one foot on the endline boundary line, and I already know that screens have nothing to do with legal guarding position? I honestly don't know the correct answer to this, but would love to be convinced one way, or the other.

We've had this (rather long) discussion a little while back when the NFHS ruling came out. First, all the NFHS said was A1 cannot have LGP, because one foot is OOB, or on the line. The discussion was whether A1 could still take a charge, even without LGP. I happen to feel that, even though A1 does not have LGP, they could still draw a charge if they were set and in the spot well before B1 got there. Not having LGP doesn't mean A1 can never draw a charge, only that they are more responsible for contact if it occurs in a close situation.

In your situation, I would say the same applies - even though A1 was legally OOB to begin with, they still do not have LGP when it comes B1. 4-23 (Guarding) specifically mentions in order for the player to obtain intial LGP, both feet must be on the playing court (inbounds). So their status would be no different than a player who was inbounds to start with.

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We've had this (rather long) discussion a little while back when the NFHS ruling came out. First, all the NFHS said was A1 cannot have LGP, because one foot is OOB, or on the line. The discussion was whether A1 could still take a charge, even without LGP. I happen to feel that, even though A1 does not have LGP, they could still draw a charge if they were set and in the spot well before B1 got there. Not having LGP doesn't mean A1 can never draw a charge, only that they are more responsible for contact if it occurs in a close situation.

Have you read case book play 4.23.3SitB(a) lately? That couldn't be more explicit and it says that your premise is wrong.

[Adam]

I'm away from home this week, can someone post the case play?

I don't recall that this case said a stationary defender could be guilty of a block. I recall it mentions a player maintaining LGP (that means moving), and the very specific reasoning for calling the block was the loss of LGP. If LGP is not required, then the case play is not relevant.