Call? or no call?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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.

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?).

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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?).

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

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

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?

[Smitty]

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?

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

[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.

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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?).

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.

[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?