Call? or no call?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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,
Different situation from your example. A better example would be if a defender attempts to draw a player control foul -- it intent is to get a foul called -- are you NOT going to call the player control foul because the defender intentionally tried to draw the foul?

The inbounds scenario -- along with several other screening plays at the end of the game -- are all perfectly legal plays attempting to cause the defense to foul. In your example, the offensive player was twisting and attempting to draw contact by initiating the contact. The player initiating the contact is responsible for the contact. In the case of the inbounds play, assuming the screener has allowed appropriate time/distance for the defender to go around the screen, crashing through it should result in a foul according to the rules.

Or am I missing something?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Shaqs,
Different situation from your example. A better example would be if a defender attempts to draw a player control foul -- it intent is to get a foul called -- are you NOT going to call the player control foul because the defender intentionally tried to draw the foul?

The inbounds scenario -- along with several other screening plays at the end of the game -- are all perfectly legal plays attempting to cause the defense to foul. In your example, the offensive player was twisting and attempting to draw contact by initiating the contact. The player initiating the contact is responsible for the contact. In the case of the inbounds play, assuming the screener has allowed appropriate time/distance for the defender to go around the screen, crashing through it should result in a foul according to the rules.

Or am I missing something?

In your PC example, I may or may not call the foul, depending on the foul contact rather than the intent and desire of the defender or his coach. FTs are a result (penalty) of a play that took away an advantage or created an illegal advantage; they are not, in and of themselves, an advantage to be considered when determining whether contact warrants a foul.

If the defender is put at a disadvantage by the contact, and the offense is responsible for it, yes I'll call the foul.

Please read, again, the definition of incidental contact I posted earlier in the thread. In the example you give Smitty, it is likely a no-call by rule. Will it get called? Possibly, maybe even likely, depending if the official has the stones to no-call it. BTW, this rule is repeated virtually verbatim in the screening definitions (4-40-7).

[Welpe]

It seems that in 4-40, the time and distance requirements are what a screener must grant an opponent during certain situations. I believe this is irrelevant in how much contact is generated during a blind screen, isn't it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

representing,
You are showing your "ignorance" to fellow referees, I mean officials. 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."

Since other people have already addressed the screen issue with you, I will address this one. Actually whether someone calls the end line a baseline is not the same as someone referring to a foul as "offensive" when the term "offensive foul" has no relevance or definition what so ever in the game. A team control foul has a very specific classification and can determine when or when you do not shoot FTs. An offensive foul can be a foul that has not special application in the rules. You could have an offensive foul and still shoot FTs.

Using the term base line still refers to the same as end line and does not change the basic definition of what it is referring to. Using the term Referee and official have specific definitions which might refer to different people and very specific roles.

If you are going to make a point, at least be right about your point.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

I have (correctly) made a "no call" on the play you seem to be describing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I have (correctly) made a "no call" on the play you seem to be describing.

Me too.

Blowing through the screen, sure, call a foul.

Running into a screen? The contact could be pretty severe and still a proper no call. The point is to screen the player, not try to draw a cheap foul.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Me too.

Blowing through the screen, sure, call a foul.




Running into a screen? The contact could be pretty severe and still a proper no call. The point is to screen the player, not try to draw a cheap foul.

You got my vote.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by richmsn

me too.

Blowing through the screen, sure, call a foul.

Running into a screen? The contact could be pretty severe and still a proper no call. The point is to screen the player, not try to draw a cheap foul.

+1

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Since other people have already addressed the screen issue with you, I will address this one. Actually whether someone calls the end line a baseline is not the same as someone referring to a foul as "offensive" when the term "offensive foul" has no relevance or definition what so ever in the game. A team control foul has a very specific classification and can determine when or when you do not shoot FTs. An offensive foul can be a foul that has not special application in the rules. You could have an offensive foul and still shoot FTs.

Using the term base line still refers to the same as end line and does not change the basic definition of what it is referring to. Using the term Referee and official have specific definitions which might refer to different people and very specific roles.
If you are going to make a point, at least be right about your point.

Peace

JRut,
You would need to be back to the thread concerning a member of the forum calling coaches and officials "ignorant" for using certain terms.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

JRut,
You would need to be back to the thread concerning a member of the forum calling coaches and officials "ignorant" for using certain terms.

I am just pointing out how you do not realize the comments you are making. I do not need to read anything. But if you are going to make an issue out of language, at least get upset about the use of language that is relevant. The teams end line vs. baseline is very minor and do not change the meaning or understanding of the thing you are referencing. I have been here a long time, I think I know the origin of most comments you are referring to.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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?

You seem to have a misconception about "time and distance" and how they apply to screening. There are three different cases to consider:

ART. 3 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side (within the visual field), the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
ART. 4 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from behind (outside the visual field), the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.
ART. 5 . . . When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. The position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent. (NFHS 4-40)

Notice there is no mention of maximum time or distance allowed, only minimums that must be given. It is possible for a defender to run the entire length of the floor then crash full-speed into an unseen screen, causing a collision so violent it sends both players to the hospital, and it would absolutely be incidental contact (as long as the screener gives proper minimum time and distance, and the defender being screened attempts to stop or go around the screen as soon as he becomes aware of it).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Notice there is no mention of maximum time or distance allowed....

Just for completeness:

maximum time: 32 minutes

maximum distance: 94 feet

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

maximum distance: 94 feet

Diagonals?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Diagonals?

Not to mention ... Mark Padgett, don't read this ... overtime.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just for completeness:

maximum time: 32 minutes

Hmmm. There can never be more than 8 continuous minutes of live ball action, not taking into account last second shots. Maximum time is therefore 8 minutes plus any time allowed for an end of quarter shot that extends the live ball period.