Crash…no whistle

Originally Posted by johnny d

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I cringe when I hear people pre-game that if bodies are on the floor we HAVE to have a whistle on the play. Basketball is a contact sport. But we all know that all contact is not illegal. Sometimes there is contact and it looks ugly but its possible nobody did anything illegal. Play on.

Yeah there's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid. I pregame if we have a block/charge which ends with both players on the floor then we should probably have a whistle. Obviously there are many other plays where two players may hit the floor from incidental contact, I think most of the pregames that mention needing a whistle for two bodies on the floor are referencing block/charge plays.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances.



Yeah there's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid. I pregame if we have a block/charge which ends with both players on the floor then we should probably have a whistle. Obviously there are many other plays where two players may hit the floor from incidental contact, I think most of the pregames that mention needing a whistle for two bodies on the floor are referencing block/charge plays.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether and and infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

I agree that if an illegal action has taken place then, if the officials are doing their jobs correctly, that illegal action will be seen and take appropriate action.

As I stated before:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take. And I would further add,

Four: If you, as an official are not doing One and Two, then why in the "H E Double Hockey Sticks" are you not?

MTD, Sr.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances

I think that there are plenty of times where two players can end up on the floor and have the contact incidental. But if it's on a screen, well, I guess I would have to see it to be convinced that it's possible to have a legal screen and that player hit the floor and not have a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I think that there are plenty of times where two players can end up on the floor and have the contact incidental. But if it's on a screen, well, I guess I would have to see it to be convinced that it's possible to have a legal screen and that player hit the floor and not have a foul.

Rule reference, 4-24-4
"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."

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

Rule reference, 4-24-4
"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."

Fair enough. So if you were to see this live, and the defender bowls over the screener, and ends up on top of him on the ground, would you have no whistle here?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Fair enough. So if you were to see this live, and the defender bowls over the screener, and ends up on top of him on the ground, would you have no whistle here?

"Bowls over?" When I see that phrase, I think of a player literally running into, through, and over a screener.

The rule protects a blind-sided defender from being called for a foul on something he can't be honestly expected to see coming. Once he feels contact, he needs to attempt to stop. If he doesn't, I have a foul. If he does, it's incidental contact even if the screener ends up on the floor.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule protects a blind-sided defender from being called for a foul on something he can't be honestly expected to see coming. Once he feels contact, he needs to attempt to stop. If he doesn't, I have a foul. If he does, it's incidental contact even if the screener ends up on the floor.

Ok, so one more question out of this, if the defender attempts to stop, and knocks down the screener, but that defender is still on his feet and ready to move on, still no foul, or HTBT? Just seems against the spirit of the rule for a player to set a legal screen, get displaced to the ground, and end up disadvantaged. I would almost feel better not calling it if they BOTH end up on the ground, at least then I can claim no advantage gained.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Ok, so one more question out of this, if the defender attempts to stop, and knocks down the screener, but that defender is still on his feet and ready to move on, still no foul, or HTBT? Just seems against the spirit of the rule for a player to set a legal screen, get displaced to the ground, and end up disadvantaged. I would almost feel better not calling it if they BOTH end up on the ground, at least then I can claim no advantage gained.

Yes, that's the intent of the rule. It's the risk inherent with setting a blind screen against a moving opponent. The screen was successful in slowing the defender. That should be enough.