Short of time? Draw a foul!

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by 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.

This should have been your first post. You were wrong to insist that "Contact on a blind screen is not a foul."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

Still not right. Just because the opponent was looking the other direction and didn't see the screen doesn't mean that the screen was set outside of that person's visual field. In the play described the screen was clearly set to the side of the player and not from behind.

NFHS RULES
4-40-3 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side (within
the visual field), the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
4-40-4 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from behind (outside the
visual field), the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward
without contact.

4-40-7 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual
field, 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
as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact
and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if
he/she has the ball.


The only legitimate question is how does the NCAA define "outside of the visual field"?

[hbioteach]

Refererences are to stationary screen. Screener A1 sets a screen along the endline where the lane line meets the baseline. Defender B1 is guarding A2 who is running along the end line from the 3 pt line towards the middle of the court. Defender B1 moves along the endline guarding A2 and contacts screener A1. B1 clearly did not see the screen. You are calling the foul on B1?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by hbioteach

Refererences are to stationary screen. Screener A1 sets a screen along the endline where the lane line meets the baseline. Defender B1 is guarding A2 who is running along the end line from the 3 pt line towards the middle of the court. Defender B1 moves along the endline guarding A2 and contacts screener A1. B1 clearly did not see the screen. You are calling the foul on B1?

No, references in the NCAA book are to screens set on a stationary opponent outside his/her visual field. There is no "visual field" requirement on screens set on a moving opponent in the NCAA rule book. So if the defender runs over the legally set screener, then it is absolutely a foul on the defender.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by 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.

BioTeacher:

You need to re-read the defintion of screening. The definition of screening is identical for both NFHS and NCAA (and FIBA too), therefore, casebook plays from either rules set are equally applicable. You are missing the point in this discussion. While contact, even contact that can knock the screener on his or her tuchus, the screenee must stop upon making contact with the screener. If screenee runs through the screener, that is a foul by the screenee and from the description of the play that is what happened.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
It also wasn't a screen set out of the visual field. It was set to the side of the body of the opponent who was moving laterally.

hbioteach seems to be having great difficulty grasping that the severe incidental contact situation involves the blind screen which is set out of the field of vision, and that means from behind, not just in a direction in which the player isn't looking. The player is required to see an opponent to his left or right.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

If the screen was blind, the defender can not run through it. Using the arms is not required for a foul here.

I also do not believe it qualifies as a blind screen just because the defender wasn't looking that way. It depends on how you define "field of vision."

[Texas Aggie]

provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact

This is the most important part of the (Fed) rule. You should call this a foul if the opponent runs through the screen, whether inadvertent or intentional.

Also, keep in mind that the coach is not going to know this rule, so if you rule incidental contact (for whatever reason), be prepared to explain. "A situation like that is, by rule, incidental contact and not a foul..." Or, something like that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I also do not believe it qualifies as a blind screen just because the defender wasn't looking that way. It depends on how you define "field of vision."

I tried to tell him the same thing earlier.

[GoodwillRef]

This play happens in NCAA-M basketball all the time at the end of games and the refuse to call it...I think they deem it a "bush league" way to draw a foul.

I though it was a very well thought up play by W Carolina.

[jearef]

I saw the play on ESPN, and my first question was whether or not the screener had afforded the "screenee" time and distance to stop or avoid. Did anyone else get the same impression? I'm not suggesting the call was incorrect; I just wanted to see it again.

I also agree with the earlier post that expressed surprise this play still works. We always discuss the possibility of such a play in the waning moments of a tight game.