Trainwreck, what's the call
 

Had the following play recently. Seeking guidance and advice

Charging foul on A1. B1 got to a spot legally first and sounds like he respected the elements of time and distance.

Team control foul.

Coach what did B3 do wrong?

I agree that this can't be a foul on B3 if he "never left his spot", but. . .

It's a team control foul, so no free throws.

I missed the part about the ball being already inbounded. :o Yes, it would be a team control foul.

That's one of my issues. When does B3 become an active factor in the play and become a guard (or screener) and time and distance start to apply? When he first takes position, when the ball gets inbounded, when the pass is released, when A2 approaches or when A2 touches the ball???
B3 was passive during this play til he got splattered by A2, and I consider that he didn't allow A2 the requisite time and distance, ergo Block.

Failed to allow time and distance to moving player without the ball
4-23-5, p 32 Rules, 10.6.11, p-94 Case

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or to be sarcastic (unusual for me, I know). But I honestly have no idea what this question means.

If B3 is planted like a tree since last Tuesday, and somebody runs over him, it just can't be a foul on B3, regardless if that other player has the ball or not or saw B3 there or not.

I can appreciate that you are serious, I am as well.

Nutshell question. Is B3, minding his own business, a defender a screener, or neither!!! and can actions beyond his control impact his status?
When do we consider B3, with his generic rights to his spot on the floor, to have morphed into a guarder (or screener) of A2 and for B3 to be obliged to yield time and distance to A2, the guardee, or as I prefer, the screenee? see 4-23, 4&5
I contend that B3 has his status changed from innocuously taking up space to a defender (or screener) based on the actions of A2 that draw B3 into the action. When B3 was drawn into the action he impeded A2's continued pursuit of the muffed pass by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Conversely, if A2 makes a clean catch, PC all the way

Agree with Scrapper1. Remember that every player is allowed a spot on the floor, provided he obtained that spot legally. I see nothing in the original post that would indicate he obtained his spot illegally.

Time and distance applies from the time the guard estabishes his position. Since B3 was stationary when the ball was inbounded and never moved, then he gave A2 time and distance to avoid contact.

Charging, team control foul on A2.

And the rules citation to back that statement up is NFHS rule 4-23-1--"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." B3 did just that and violated no rules before or after attaining that spot. Forget about guarding, etc. B3 simply had a legal spot on the court.

You're over-thinking the play.

The time/distance (if required) is measured from the very instant B3 gets to the spot. If A2 is more than 2 steps away at that point, it can't be a block. Sounds like A2 had several steps and a lot of time to go way around B3 but a bad pass led A2 right into B3. You got this one wrong.

Humor me, please...
Nutshell question. Is B3, minding his own business, a defender a screener, or neither!!! and can actions beyond his control impact his status?

Overthinking
 

Again, you are over thinking the play. B3 is a defender as team A is on offense ergo players from team B are on defense; B3 is a defender. He can also be a screener, and that status can be on offense or defense. You made the point that if A2 caught the ball and crashed into B3, then you call PC. The only difference between your block or PC is the status of the ball. This action beyond the control of B3, does not impact the status of B3. He is still legal. PC.

Justa, under the rules his status simply doesn't matter except for whether B3 has established or didn't establish a legal position on the court prior to the contact. It's the same principle as any player on the floor rebounding. All 10 players on the court can establish a legal position during that rebound and their opponents can't run into 'em or push 'em away from that position once it was legally established.

I Bet All Three Of His Sons Know The Correct Interpretation ...
 

justacoach overthinking? Impossible. justacoach thinking? Also impossible. justacoach underthinking? Possible, but only on a good day.

10.6.11 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A’s goal but is looking back to
receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from
B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and
before taking a step contacts B1. RULING: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible
for contact. In (a), B1’s position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to
contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact
is charging by A1. (4-40)

Neither, but it doesn't matter.

You could, I suppose, have a case for a no-call. If B3 wasn't paying attention, and if the contact wasn't "too bad" you *might* be able to say that B3 wasn't prevented from "normal offensive or defensive maneuvers".

It CANNOT be a foul on B3.

Your question is intended to imply that he doesn't become a "defender" or "screener" until an opponent with the ball makes contact with him. You're fishing for a way to justify calling a foul on B3.

As the others have said: stop fishing. The time/distance restrictions on screeners apply when the screener is moving, not when an opponent is approaching a stationary player.

No, no, no, say it ain't so. :eek: This is why you are 4th best in your family. :)

It doesnt matter if he's an elf, the most that's required of him is two steps time and distance.

Why would this be a team control foul? No team control in high school on throw-ins and if the player muffed the ball when never had team control...shoot the bonus.

A1 inbounds ball to A5.
A5 throws a lead pass over the head of wing player A2 who runs toward the division line, looking backward while trying to receive pass.

This part.

A5 threw the pass to A3.

My bad...I read it wrong...forgot about the first pass to A5!

Reading this post, it seems to me that you are justifying your blocking foul call on B3, who had a LGP, cheers

Really?
 

So, If A2 sets a blind screen and is not moving but does not give B2 a normal step, no foul on A2 because he is stationary? Or if, A2 moves into the path of B2 less than 2 steps in front of A2 but is stationary prior to contact, there is no foul on B2. When a player is moving without the ball time and distance are factors and the defense doesn't have to be moving. The defender must give them time and distance to avoid contact.

True, and mbyron may have misspoken slightly. That said, the OP is a situation where it seems from his own description that far more than two steps were given from the time B3 took his position.

Did I? rwest gave the game away when he said "A2 sets a blind screen." A2 did that by moving illegally into screening position and thereby violating the screening requirements: subsequent contact is a foul.

I never said it's not a foul if the defender is stationary at contact. I said that "The time/distance restrictions on screeners apply when the screener is moving." If a defender becomes a screener without having moved (the play comes to him), then contact is not a foul by the defense (might be a PC or TC foul).

I have added the applicable qualifier.

My point is this....
 

The time and distance principle is not just on a screener moving. If A2 sets a screen on B2 and is stationary when contact occurs but did not give B2 time and distance to avoid the contact it is a foul.

And mbyron's point is that failure to provide time and distance when required means the player moved just prior to contact. You're both saying the same thing and arguing over semantics now.

What have you then if A2 and B2 are 1 step apart facing each other and then B2 turns his back to A2 to see the play and then B2 turns back to run and after 1 step plows over A2?

Foul on B2. What's your point? Are you saying that A2's screen is now a blind screen?

The point is that time/distance can be mitigated by other circumstances.

Yes I agree with that. I never said it was sacrosanct. Just that time and distance does not apply to just a moving screener, but a stationary one as well. True he was moving to get to the spot but if he didn't give enough space or time when he became stationary then it is a foul on the screener.

That's when he violated the provisions on screening, and created a blind screen, right? That's my point, as Snaqs has divined.

Interesting question. Can we assume this isn't a blind screen since B2 was facing A2 when the screen was set? Or does it become a blind screen? In this scenario, I'd say even a blind screen wouldn't need more than 1 step T&D. If two is the max allowed, even on a dead sprint, then one is sufficient in this play.

No
 

B2 is moving around the screen of A2. A3 sets a screen right in the path of B2. B2 sees him but is not given enough time or distance to stop. A3 is stationary when the contact occurs, but because the time and distance factor the foul is on A3.

Rule 4.40.5 - 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.

And I repeat myself:

You keep saying 'no' and then agreeing with me. I'll stop trying to convince you of the last part. :rolleyes:

So we're going to let A2 "transform" a TC foul into a block as he runs over B2 just by turning his back to B2 right before the crash? I think not!

Agreed. The more I think about the play, the more I think it's not a blind screen, even if B2 slides right up against A2 (facing each other) before A2 turns to receive the pass.

This is why you're "just a coach"

The last thing I want to discuss is what we all feel the word "muffed" means . . .

In my mind I'm imagining, a tipped or missed pass that results in the train wreck and a ball now loose.

So you've got a hapless defender no sprawled out on the floor, a clumsy/unlucky offensive player sprawled on the floor and a ball bouncing/bounding/ rolling loose.

Above and beyond the rest of the conversation about who, what when and where. No one here seems particularly or clearly disadvantaged or more impeded more or less then anyone else as the game progresses. Unless you have concerns over rough play, enjoy the calamity and play on.

No call.

"Hapless defender?" I think the defender did his job, within the rules, and is now punished by being knocked to the floor.
Here's what I see.
Offensive player clearly responsible for contact.
Defensive player clearly within his rights.
Both players end up on the floor.
This is a clear advantage for the offense by knocking the defender to the ground. Regardless of rough play concerns, I've got a TC foul here unless A3 makes a clear attempt to stop upon contact with B3.

Really? That seems out of line from my POV.

Yep, you're right. I apologize.

Well, Lord knows I've done it, too.

FYI, this marks my 5th year as a patched official. I joined this forum while still practicing the black arts of coaching. I am patriarch of a ref dynasty of 3 sons, the oldest of whom, at 19, is working a full V large school schedule.
Your recantation of the snide remark accepted in advance.
I certainly feel I have earned the privilige of delving into the murky deep waters surrounding the philosophical basis of officiating and inciting a meaningful discussion, discounting your comments.

You certainly have. But you should probably read the rest of the thread before you respond to him again. He recanted (or at least apologized) an hour and a half before your last post. :) Don't you love a happy ending?

You're right. Remind me to activate the scroll gesture on my PDA and use my glasses!

No.

Agitator.