Call? or no call?
 

Both teams are in double bonus. Team A has just scored to take a 1 point lead with 7 seconds left on the clock. B1 grabs ball out of the net and steps out of bounds to throw in, and is immediately being guarded at the end line by A1. B2 runs up to the baseline and sets a legal screen along the endline. B1 runs the baseline toward B2's screen, and A1 runs straight into B2's screen knocking B2 over, and it's clearly not a "flop." A1 had 3 steps before impact. Is this an defensive foul?

Just to be clear, this is hypothetical, I've not seen it done, but we have practiced it a couple times in case we ever have an opportunity to try it.

>>edited to change my question to is this a defensive foul?<<

Why would it be an offensive foul? Runs up to baseline and sets screen on along endline???? How does B1 grab ball out of net? A is on offense............:confused::confused::confused:

There is no team control during throw-ins, so it cannot be an offensive foul.

You're asking whether this would be a team control foul. Why would it be? Does A have team control?

What is an offensive foul?

Is this coming from the same person that said we have to give an explanation for a Technical Foul? :p

Peace

I meant to ask is this a defensive foul? Is there a call that can be made on the defensive player who ran over the screener?

It's a foul on A-1.....no team control on throw-in, and besides, A doesn't have team control anyway...they lost it on the try which ended in a made basket...B shoots the FTs.

I didn't say that. I said that if I don't know why a T was called -like for example on one of my players- then it would be in everyone's best interest to inform me why the T was called so I can take corrective action to make sure it doesn't happen again. I realize the official has no obligation to inform me. He or she can choose to be an @ss if they want, the rules support that.

Clearly, if it was me who was whacked, I am going to know why I was whacked and there's nothing left for me to do but sit down and shut up. Perhaps I thoroughly clear before, I thought that it really didn't need to be said as it's obvious. This is probably a very left brained web site, so I will try to be more specific and spell everything out clearly to avoid future confusion.

thanks, sorry bout the confusing question
 

I just wanted to clarify. We practice this, but I didn't know if it would work, or if it's legal. In this example, my team would be Team B. So yes, if executed properly and the correct call was made, my team would be shooting free throws according to your response.

Incidentally, while I've never seen it ran, the coach who taught this tactic to me has tried it once. The referee blew his whistle on the contact. He then declared an inadverdant whistle, reset the clock, and set it up again.

Now in this instance... the inbounds passer cannot run the end line now, correct?

Coach, if the screen is outside the visual vield of the defender, than your player needs to be prepared to take some serious contact. If the defender attempts to stop upon contact, there's no foul, even if the contact is severe.

Your play is perfectly legal, but I'm giving a lot of leeway to the defender on this play to let him try to stop. If I'm not sure, then he tried to stop.

Also, I'll need to double check the rule, but my memory tells me if the ensuing throwin (assuming no bonus) is on the same endline, it will be an endline throwin.

Confirmed: Rule 7-5-7b

No, not correct. The throw-in did not end. The right to run the end line is still there.

Let's keep that discussion on that thread, please.

Yes, it could work. Yes, it's legal. Yes, it would be a foul on the team that just scored (or else a no call). It's not that uncommon (at least once the situation -- team inbounding, running the end-line, with a few seconds left and behind by a point or two)

If there was an inadvertant whistle, the team would still be able to run the end-line.

No problem, I'm going to go sit down now, but just for the record I did get the last word in on the off topic :p

Ok, thanks

How about if a time out was called before the throw in was attempted or any contact? Can the inbounds passer still run the end line after the time out and plpay is resumed?

This isn't a fishing trip, as you guys know, us coaches often don't have good knowledge of the rules. I am just trying to learn

Yes, he/she can still run the baseline.

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.

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 <strike>foul</strike> 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).

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?

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

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.

You got my vote.

+1

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

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).

Just for completeness:

maximum time: 32 minutes

maximum distance: 94 feet

:D

Diagonals? :rolleyes:

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

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

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