Shelding an opponet
 

.

What one player was attempting to prevent the other from doing is not the important part. Where was the contact and what were the positions of the players involved in relation to each other?

One guy stopped the other from letting the air out of the ball? :D

Both players moving, one player steps in front of the other and shoulders him out of his path? Sounds like a blocking foul to me. The fact that the one player is not attempting to play the ball is not relevant.

There is nothing illegal inherently to get in someone's way. The only thing you could say is if he caused illegal contact to prevent movement. In other words the screen rules apply, but when there is a loose ball I would not start nitpicking what guys to going for the ball on that level. Now if he knocked him out of the way that is different but simply getting in the way of someone is not illegal at all.

Peace

We see this all of the time...basically the one player is "boxing out" the other so they can't get to a ball going out of bounds. This is a foul if there is enough contact and displacement takes place. IMO we don't call this foul enough and at times this play get really rough.

Bingo!

Apply NFHS rules 4-40-5,6&7.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

anyone else wondering what "shelding" is?

Nope, we pretty much know what he means.

Some of us, me included, are not good spellers.....and Mr. Spelling and Vocabulary man hasn't been around for a while.;)

Don't be a plumber.

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.

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.

+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.

RULE 4-25, SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT

Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted
and which does not constitute a foul.

ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When
10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.

ART. 2 . . . Contact, which may result when opponents are in equally favorable
positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements,
should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from
participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered
incidental.

ART. 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.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from
a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball
without making contact with the

Glad I scanned the answers first. I was going to quote you. Wait, I think I just did.

He is busy shooting squirrels with a borrowed bb gun.