Crash…no whistle

[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.