Call? or no call?

[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?