Incorrect. the ball was never inbounded. A still may run the endline.

To answer the question the OP intended to ask, yes the play is legal. I might very well no-call the contact, especially if the screener wasn't displaced. The purpose of the screen is to give the thrower space to get the ball in, and if that purpose is met, then the screener hasn't been disadvantaged. Defender has hurt only himself, and whatever advantage has been gained by the B team (legal advantage), might be taken away if a whistle is blown.

I'm not saying I'm sure that's how I'd call it, just looking at possibilities.

I think I remember a player similar to this happening in an NCAA game a couple of years ago. The crew went with a no call, and if I remember correctly, decision on here tended to agree with the no call.

The applicable rule here is 4-27-4
"A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball."

You might wish to check out this thread from last March. ;)

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...draw-foul.html

This is too early in the morning for this nonsense but here goes.

My first question to you, BBCoach is this: Did A1 stop immediately upon making contact with B2? If A1 did stop immediately then no foul has occured; B2's screen accomplished its objective. If A1 ran through B2 then A1 has committed a personal foul for pushing A1 and unless there was some action by A1 that would cause the official to think otherwise is a common foul and A1 shoots two free throws.

MTD, Sr.

Fixed it for you, I think (it's early for me here too). :)

representing,
You are showing your "ignorance" :rolleyes: to fellow referees, I mean officials. :rolleyes: On this officiating forum, please refer to the lines at the end of the court as endlines. In this instance, since you were not speaking to an official, but rather a coach, he likely still understood since he is, as a coach, equally "ignorant." :rolleyes:

Coach,
I have used the play you describe several times. It has only worked once -- all other times, we had to have a "Plan B" in order to get an opportunity to score. Sometimes incorporating the screener as the second inbounder can be effecive in relieving the on-ball pressure while using the former inbounder as the receiver -- depending upon the press being employed by the opposition. The more you know.....

Juulie,
Quite honestly, THE MAJOR PURPOSE of running such a play IS TO DRAW FOUL caused by the contact. While I understand your view (and it is a good thought in nearly all cases), in this case, as a COACH, I really WANT (and NEED) you to call the foul so we can shoot free throws (I probably have my best FTer setting the screen).

The play is completely legal. An officiating crew should call this foul if warranted -- proper time/distance and there was enough contact to warrant a foul (would the foul have been called on the offensive end for any other "on ball" screen?).

It's hardly an automatic foul. If the screen is blind, in my view, and your screener gets knocked over, we play on.

Smitty,
Please take the time to read my post. I think it is pretty clear.

Your post didn't say anything about whether the screen was blind or not. That's pretty significant in determining whether the contact, even if severe, is legal or not.

Coach, I don't care if that's your purpose; it's not a valid purpose, IMO. It's like the shooter who twists his body and jumps into a defender for the purpose of drawing a foul. I'm not giving him a foul simply because he wanted one.

A foul is determined by two things:
1. Who is responsible for the contact?
2. Was the non-responsible player put at a disadvantage?

In the OP, contact can be pretty severe and still not be illegal (assuming the screen was outside the visual field of the defender.) IOW, your screener can end up on the floor with a big bruise and a no-call could still be correct; depending on whether the defender attempted to stop upon contact.

Shaqs and Smitty,
So, once again, are you going to have a "train wreck" NO CALL if the point guard comes across half court, the ball side post steps up to the top of the key, the post then PLANTS BOTH FEET, the point guard (with defender within several feet) takes FOUR STEPS while dribbling toward the screener, the defender CRASHES INTO the screener because NO DEFENDER told the point guard's defender that the screen was coming, you are going to make NO CALL because the screen was blind??? Time and distance requirements for a legal screen are NOT infinite.

The inbounds play is NO DIFFERENT! If the screener is set and gives sufficient time and distance for the defender to be aware and change course, it is a FOUL on the DEFENDER!!! It is NOT a NO CALL simply because the defender took four steps without looking where he was going....

Or do I just have a misunderstanding of a legal screen?

Most likely that will absolutely be a no call. And yes, I believe you have a misunderstanding of a legal screen.