Shelding an opponet

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

We just have to have the guts to call it, because it will not be a popular call at all. It will be the right call though.

But, "stepping in front" of or "impeding" as described in the initial OP or incidental contact is also nothing - and may also not be a popular call......unless this is soccer, then it happens all the time.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by grunewar

But, "stepping in front" of or "impeding" as described in the initial OP or incidental contact is also nothing - and may also not be a popular call......unless this is soccer, then it happens all the time.

Stepping in front of someone who is already moving is either a block or an illegal screen. Stepping in front and not drawing contact (which is what really happens most of the time) is nothing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Stepping in front of someone who is already moving is either a block or an illegal screen. .

Wrong. If time and distance are given( one to two normal steps or strides), the onus for contact then is on the player being screened. NFHS rule 4-40-5.

Each separate play has to be adjudicated by applying the screening principles laid out in NFHS rule 4-40.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict

One normal step was about all the time the player running for the ball had to react and he coudln't get around the player screening. The players doing the actuallly screening was using his back.

Again, I am envisioning the OPS scenario like a soccer player (Team A) shielding an opponent (Team B) from the opportunity to play the ball so it rolls out of bounds and Team A gets it. In this scenario, Player A having his back to Player B or not, unless B gets bludgeoned (sp) in some way, blocking a players way, with minor/possible incidental contact = no foul.

My understanding of the situation anyhow.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Again, I am envisioning the OPS scenario like a soccer player (Team A) shielding an opponent (Team B) from the opportunity to play the ball so it rolls out of bounds and Team A gets it. In this scenario, Player A having his back to Player B or not, unless B gets bludgeoned (sp) in some way, blocking a players way, with minor/possible incidental contact = no foul.

My understanding of the situation anyhow.

Finally.... someone knew what the OP was talking about!

I see this play from time to time and have never called a foul, but I have often wondered what would have to happen for me to call a foul. I supposed if A moved to contact B and didn't give B T&D, and B had a clearly obvious chance to obtain possession, I might call it - only because it's a HTBT type of play.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Finally.... someone knew what the OP was talking about!

I see this play from time to time and have never called a foul, but I have often wondered what would have to happen for me to call a foul. I supposed if A moved to contact B and didn't give B T&D, and B had a clearly obvious chance to obtain possession, I might call it - only because it's a HTBT type of play.

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

Anytime B is going for the ball, and A contacts B, there most certainly is an advantage gained. If B isn't given a legitimate chance at the loose ball and it's pending award goes to A, and A contacts B illegally, that is the definition of advantage.

But I do agree that something fairly obvious needs to be present for me to sound my whistle.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

+1 other than the no advantage gained part as Juggler said. Someone is going to get an advantage by doing this.

I am also looking for significant body contact and who is initiating it, loose ball one has to expect some degree of contact on the floor. The rules even state(if I remember correctly), 10 bodies moving is a relatively confined space there will eb contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict

One normal step was about all the time the player running for the ball had to react and he coudln't get around the player screening. The players doing the actuallly screening was using his back.

A player setting a screen does not have to be facing the opponent. As JR pointed out, all that is relevant is that the screening player give the required time and distance (which by your account you said one normal step was given).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict

One normal step was about all the time the player running for the ball had to react and he coudln't get around the player screening.

Judgment call on one normal step- depending on the speed of the player being screened. If you felt that the person being screened was able to stop, change directions or cause incidental contact only after the one normal stride, then no foul. Conversely, if you felt that the player being screened wasn't able to stop, change direction and lost a chance to get to the ball by running into the screener after the one normal stride, then a foul call is warranted.