Call? or no call?

[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.

[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

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

buzzkill

[Adam]

Like that's the first time I've heard that.