Foul or incidental contact?

[Coach Bill]

I have an example from my game a couple weeks ago. My guy goes to set a screen for the ballhandler, the ball handler gives a fake, but drives away from the screen. The defender goes for the fake, makes contact with my guy setting a screen. He gets called for an illegal screen. I agree that my guy was not completely set when contact was made, so if he used the screen, I would have agreed with the call. The way it went down, I thought it was incidental contact. Your thoughts?

[rsl]

The contact probably slowed his reaction and recovery going back the other way, so I've got no problem with the foul call.

[JRutledge]

This is really a HTBT situation. I can see why a foul was called, but hard to say for sure without seeing the play.

Peace

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I have an example from my game a couple weeks ago. My guy goes to set a screen for the ballhandler, the ball handler gives a fake, but drives away from the screen. The defender goes for the fake, makes contact with my guy setting a screen. He gets called for an illegal screen. I agree that my guy was not completely set when contact was made, so if he used the screen, I would have agreed with the call. The way it went down, I thought it was incidental contact. Your thoughts?

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

[BktBallRef]

Since there's actually no foul that's called an illegal screen, your player was called for a blocking foul. It makes no difference whether the dribbler "used the screen" or not. If your player as moving and blocked the defender's path, that's a foul.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Since there's actually no foul that's called an illegal screen, your player was called for a blocking foul. It makes no difference whether the dribbler "used the screen" or not. If your player was moving and blocked the defender's path, that's a foul.

I've heard several officials blow the whistle, shout illegal, and point the other way on this call. What are they referring to if not an illegal screen? Maybe, they're stealing NBA verbiage?

Also, doesn't the defender's path have to be a path that affects the play? Otherwise, couldn't I simply tell my guys to run into moving offensive players and I'll get a foul call?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I've heard several officials blow the whistle, shout illegal, and point the other way on this call. What are they referring to if not an illegal screen?

There is no signal for an illegal screen. The most often used signal is a stop the clock fist, followed by a blocking foul signal (hands (not supposed to use fists) on hips), followed by a team control foul signal (punch), sometimes (not required) followed by some verbiage about an illegal screen.

The blocking foul is called due to illegal contact (block) as described as illegal activity in the principles of screening.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There is no signal for an illegal screen.

Sure there is. I point in the other direction.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There is no signal for an illegal screen. The most often used signal is a stop the clock fist, followed by a blocking foul signal (hands (not supposed to use fists) on hips), followed by a team control foul signal (punch), sometimes (not required) followed by some verbiage about an illegal screen.

The blocking foul is called due to illegal contact (block) as described as illegal activity in the principles of screening.

Not saying I agree with it, but 10-6-6 does say, "Contact caused by a defensive player who approaches from behind is pushing..."

I'd prefer it termed it "blocking", which explains why that's the signal I most frequently use cuz it makes sense.

Though this citation might not actually address the original post...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Also, doesn't the defender's path have to be a path that affects the play? Otherwise, couldn't I simply tell my guys to run into moving offensive players and I'll get a foul call?

Nope, and if you did that, you're players would likely be called for "illegal screens."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I've heard several officials blow the whistle, shout illegal, and point the other way on this call. What are they referring to if not an illegal screen? Maybe, they're stealing NBA verbiage?

Also, doesn't the defender's path have to be a path that affects the play? Otherwise, couldn't I simply tell my guys to run into moving offensive players and I'll get a foul call?

Not sure what they might or might not be doing. Yes, screens can be illegal but again, it's usually a blocking foul.

No, you can't just run into an opponent and get a foul called. You stated that your player was setting a screen. Evidently, the official determined that the screen was not legally set. Don't get hung up on whether the dribbler used the screener not.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Since there's actually no foul that's called an illegal screen, your player was called for a blocking foul. It makes no difference whether the dribbler "used the screen" or not. If your player as moving and blocked the defender's path, that's a foul.

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

C'mon BktBallRef 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.

[just another ref]

We need a description of the contact to say whether or not it was a foul.

[Nevadaref]

Tough to decide from a written description.
Screens do not have to be anywhere near the player with the ball.
This could be an example of an illegal off-ball screen or it could be a defender illegally contacting a cutting offensive player.
These are the difficult judgment decisions officials must make hundreds of times during games.
I wish that I could offer the coach more feedback, but some plays just come down to what a particular person sees and thinks at a certain point in the game.

[Adam]

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.

If the screen prevents the defender from getting to where he wants to go, and the screener isn't legal at the point of contact, then this is not going to be incidental contact.

The rule is "contact which prevents a player from performing normal offensive or defensive movements" (paraphrased from memory). Assuming the contact did that, and the screener wasn't legal when contact was made.