Foul or incidental contact?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Be polite with our guest, there are multiple posts in your history where you wrote "illegal screen".

C'mon you know if the defender gets faked out and goes the wrong way and runs into another offensive player who is about to set a screen it's probably incidental.

#1, Who are you? I don't know you. As far as you're concerned, I am BktBallRef.

#2, I wasn't impolite.

#3, I know no such thing.

Screens can be illegal but they are blocking fouls. If the contact prevented the defender from continuing to guard the opponent, then it's a foul.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

#2, I wasn't impolite.

Not directly, but correcting a publically declared coach on "rulebook terminology" (for which you are a known stickler) when you use the same phrase seems kinda hypocritical.

[JRutledge]

Well considering that a screen's legality is at issue, I have no problem with using the term "illegal screen" to describe the foul. Now the signal most of the time is the "blocking" signal. I do not see either reference to be outside of rulebook language. Screens are legal or illegal and the rules makes that rather clear. Otherwise this is an issue of semantics.

Peace

[Rich1]

Not disagreeing with any of you but need clarification...

If calling a foul for illegal screen (on or off ball), why isn't the punch signal all I need? This is an offensive, team control foul which is the very definition of the punch (although like most in my area I also use it for PC as will). The two hands to the hip signal is for a block, which I see more as a defensive call. I agree that essentially an illegal screen would be a block or push and would indicate such at the table, but I am not sure why or how to signal this when it happens. I can't see using a fist, then punch, then block and if my partner simply signaled with the fist then the block i would be thinking foul on the defense, not offense. Is there something in the mechanics book that shows a prefered sequence?

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Sounds like a no-call to me, especially if the defender went the wrong way and initiated the contact with the screener.

Coach, you gotta start taping your games! Just say it's for a highlight video or something but secretly funnel that video to us

I love this site. During the games I'll say to myself, I gotta remember that play and see what the guys say about this.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I love this site. During the games I'll say to myself, I gotta remember that play and see what the guys say about this.

If you're going to keep coming back you need to start videotaping these games!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not directly, but correcting a publically declared coach on "rulebook terminology" (for which you are a known stickler) when you use the same phrase seems kinda hypocritical.

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

As far as you're concerned, I am BktBallRef.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't need to know you personally to know your name ... you have made your Forum name-real name connection quite public ...

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum.

I agree with BktBallRef. As much as I truly admire those that post under their real names, some of us have been very strongly encouraged, under local, state, or international association social media guidelines, to remain anonymous on the internet. The internet is very powerful, and with a few clicks, many of us posting anonymously can be "outed" with a few simple cross references. I'm from Connecticut, I'm IAABO, and I've posted about a few of my articles being published. It wouldn't be to difficult to "out" me with just a few mouse clicks. Just because it can be done, and just because some of us have carelessly posted too much personal information, doesn't mean that it's right to "out" us. Also, to those Forum members that have reached out to me with private messages, that are usually answered with my real name, association affiliation, email address, home address, and home phone number, I would hope that they will continue to treat me anonymously when posting the Forum.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... some of us have been very strongly encouraged, under local, state, or international association social media guidelines, to remain anonymous on the internet.

From IAABO (International):

With the onslaught of social media (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.) there are many ways for officials to become controversial very innocently. Officials love to talk, I am sure you know the old saying "tell a ref tell the world". How often does the conversation between officials start with "I had this play" and then we continue with one upsmanship and "I had this play" and so on. We were always concerned when we were having an adult beverage in an establishment talking basketball, being heard by someone as we made comments about a coach, player or even rowdy fans. Why wouldn't we have the same concern today where, instead of being out in public making comments we now make them online? The danger again is that we do not know who views these comments, and we do not know what they will do with these comments.

In regards to basketball, I have watched officials put up a play online and ask for comments from others and there may be responses from a number of officials that give their "opinion", many of which are incorrect rulings. It amazes me that officials did not ask their own interpreters who have been IAABO trained and most likely can provide the correct response and rule citation. The interpreter also has another resource and that Is Peter Webb who is IAABO's Coordinator of Interpreters and who will respond to each and every question with the correct ruling and rule reference within 48 hours.

My concern is that an errant comment made by an official can come back to haunt them, in fact most Division 1 conferences have added this clause to the officials contract. "The office must refrain from any public criticism of the conference, Conference staff, coaches, student athletes, and Conference athletic departments. This criticism includes communicating with the media, and other basketball officials, as well as any method of social or electronic media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, email etc.). Any violation of this policy will result in disciplinary action being taken, which could include one or more of the following actions: private reprimand, suspension or termination".

This may filter down to the state athletic associations in the near future, thus the point of this article is to give our officials a heads up on what is happening in our officiating world. You just might want to give some thought to the above before you make that next "click".

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

AremRed:

If that's what he wants, then that's what you should do, unless you wish to have posts edited or deleted.

I'd do the same for any other member, BTW.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

AremRed:

If that's what he wants, then that's what you should do, unless you wish to have posts edited or deleted.

I'd do the same for any other member, BTW.

I do not know how anyone can expect to only be called something when people happen to know who you are? Some of us have been here a very long time and shared who we are on other forums or correspondence. I am not trying to get in the middle of their dispute, but if someone refers to me by my name other than what is listed, I do not see how I can control that, other than ignoring that person. And even then that is not how I will be referenced if others are talking. I seriously do not know how we can expect to control something like this even if we are expecting cordial conversation.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know how anyone can expect to only be called something when people happen to know who you are? Some of us have been here a very long time and shared who we are on other forums or correspondence. I am not trying to get in the middle of their dispute, but if someone refers to me by my name other than what is listed, I do not see how I can control that, other than ignoring that person. And even then that is not how I will be referenced if others are talking. I seriously do not know how we can expect to control something like this even if we are expecting cordial conversation.

Peace

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

Originally Posted by Adam

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

Polite, yes. Is this a bannable offense though?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

I agree with you, but I guess I do not feel that should be expected when you are so public like me or others here. Then again this is coming from a person that uses my real name, so I guess I do not see the big deal. But as you stated, I would not call someone anything they did not wish to be called. And I know many people here personally through real life or some other internet or social media outlet.

I was not trying to take this discussion in another direction. I just was curious that is all. Never thought much about it either way.

Peace

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

I was just concerned whether there should have been a foul or not. But, he was definitely charged for an illegal screen. The ref punched, pointing the other way while shouting "illegal". That's the extent of the mechanic(s) used, and that's standard around here for illegal screens.

Also, as an aside, I looked it up and the phrase "Illegal Screen" was used in the NFHS 2011-12 case book. Specifically:

"B1 is charged with an illegal screen against A2"

So, I think it's a term the NFHS is ok with.