Short of time? Draw a foul!

[Nevadaref]

Anyone see the very smart play run by the womens' team from Western Carolina against College of Charleston with only 1.8 seconds remaining in OT?

C of C had just taken a two point lead by making a basket. WC had the right to run the end line, but with only 1.8 seconds left they probably didn't have enough time to advance the ball far enough down the court to get a decent shot. Therefore, they pulled a fast one on the opponent.

They ran the play that we've discussed before on here to draw a foul. C of C assigned a defender to guard and follow the thrower. The thrower takes the ball OOB and runs from one side of the basket to towards the other. Another WC player runs in and sets a screen in the area of the court under the basket. As the defender is looking at the thrower and following her across the court, she does not see the screener and runs her over. They got the foul call from an official, made the 2FTs at the other end and forced a 2nd OT. In fact, the game went 3OTs and WC won it.

I first saw Princeton run that play at the end of an NCAA tournament game when Pete Carril was the coach. They didn't the call and lost, but I still thought that it was good thinking and have always remembered it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/recap?gameId=290682717

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They ran the play that we've discussed before on here to draw a foul.

Did the screener have a foot on the boundary line?

[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.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by hbioteach

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

NFHS please.

[hbioteach]

Don't have the rules reference but check in rule 4 for incidental contact and screens.

You can't penalize a player for contact on a screen that wasn't seen if if the contact is violent. Discussed that very play with NCAA college assignor who observed that same play in a game earlier in the season. The officials no called the play. Assignor thought officials were right.

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by hbioteach

Don't have the rules reference but check in rule 4 for incidental contact and screens.

You can't penalize a player for contact on a screen that wasn't seen if if the contact is violent. Discussed that very play with NCAA college assignor who observed that same play in a game earlier in the season. The officials no called the play. Assignor thought officials were right.

This wasn't incidental contact. The guard ran through and pushed through the screener. It was the correct call.

[hbioteach]

Did not see the OP play. If the defender used arms to push through screener than of course its a foul is on defender. If the defender contacted defender and clearly did not see the screen then no call.