What is the call?

bucky

Camron Rust wrote
clear implication

Oxymoron

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
Ignore the ball handler / dribbler in the OP. B1 running down the court. A1 suddenly steps in front of B1 and does not give B1 time to stop / change direction. You can't honestly tell me that you're raising the "same path" argument in 99.99% of the plays where that happens. It's no different just because the OP has the BHD involved.

The comment makes it different.

COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact. When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

Absent the comment in 10.7.7 SITUATION (specifically regarding a "dribbler", and differentiating between "different path", and "same path"), I would agree with you.

Camron Rust

bucky wrote
Oxymoron

Yet, it was still clear as day....sort of like saying it is a blue sky day implying the sun is shining.

Kansas Ref

Anyone got a video of this type of action ?
From the reactive commentary of esteemed Forum members it is evident that there is a clear difference in how this play would be called if any of you would be adjudicating this action. Maybe this difference is the result of different ways folks are reading it [and thereby visualizing the play] or maybe it's due to way the Rule is being applied. Or maybe the NF verbiage of "different path" "same path" is problematic.

LRZ

If a "dribbler on purpose swerves in path,"* he/she is not simply "slowing down or stopping."** Instead, he/she is no longer "in exactly the same path and same direction."***

*Per the OP.
**Per the comment.
***Per the comment again.

Raymond

If the dribbler moves into the path of the defender, then screening rules apply as far as time and distance. If the dribbler and defender are on the same path, then the defender is responsible for contact if the dribbler stops.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac

LRZ wrote
If a "dribbler on purpose swerves in path," he/she is not simply "slowing down or stopping." Instead, he/she is no longer "in exactly the same path and same direction."

This is quite possible. However, after the swerve, it is also possible for the dribbler to establish a new path to the basket, where both the dribbler and the defender are now going in the same path and direction, thus bringing the screening exception into play before slowing down and before contact occurs from behind.

To be honest, I can't see myself calling a player control blocking (illegal screen) foul on a dribbler who changes direction and slows down to get his footwork established before a shot attempt and is plowed into by a defender from "behind" even if the defender is coming in at an angle (a different path and direction).

"Sorry coach, by changing direction and slowing down he set an illegal screen, it's a player control foul on your dribbler because he didn't allow time and distance for the defender to avoid contact".

That's not going to go over very well.

SD Referee

bob jenkins wrote
This wasn't a "same path and direction" play.

From the OP: "dribbler on purpose swerves in path and "slams" on the brakes "

You don't know that the dribbler moved into the line of the defense and stopped on purpose to get a foul. They might have had other ideas.

SD Referee

Camron Rust wrote
Don't be silly. The clear implication is that the defender was right there with the ball handler and the ball handler cut off the defender at the last moment. You're just trying to rationalize a way to not call it as prescribed.

I disagree.

Without seeing the video, we have no idea what really happened.

Perhaps the dribbler, had no clue if anybody was behind and was simply changing their direction. That's an offensive foul? No way!

I agree that based on what little we know, this is a foul on the defense. I've seen players in transition suddenly stop and pull the ball out in an attempt to run the offense. They have been run over by a defensive player hustling up court to get back on defense. That's not an offensive foul and what I envision from the OP. No way you can call that an offensive foul.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
"Sorry coach, by changing direction and slowing down he set an illegal screen, it's a player control foul on your dribbler because he didn't allow time and distance for the defender to avoid contact".

"And by the way coach, that's your dribbler's fifth foul".

Camron Rust

SD Referee wrote
I disagree.

Without seeing the video, we have no idea what really happened.

Perhaps the dribbler, had no clue if anybody was behind and was simply changing their direction. That's an offensive foul? No way!

I agree that based on what little we know, this is a foul on the defense. I've seen players in transition suddenly stop and pull the ball out in an attempt to run the offense. They have been run over by a defensive player hustling up court to get back on defense. That's not an offensive foul and what I envision from the OP. No way you can call that an offensive foul.

More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

#olderthanilook

Camron Rust wrote
More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

The "action" being the movement to screen or the resulting contact?

Camron Rust

#olderthanilook wrote
The "action" being the movement to screen or the resulting contact?

Moving in a way that cuts off the defenders path with contact and with not offensive purpose. It is sort of like a shooter jumping sideways just to draw contact on a defender that would have otherwise completely missed.

If the dribbler had done the same thing and been in a motion of passing the ball to a teammate in that direction, I would then consider it a defensive foul.

SD Referee

Camron Rust wrote
More irrelevant points. It has nothing to do with the dribbler knowing who was coming or where they were but the mere act of cutting of the path of the opponent. It is, by the action itself, an illegal screen.

By your argument, you'd have to argue that 80% of fouls shouldn't be fouls because the player committing them didn't mean to.

That's not what I meant and you know it. So if a dribbler, suddenly changes direction, for whatever reason, and a defensive player runs them over from behing you are going to go with an offensive foul by applying the screening principle?

Good luck with that. Some of you guys like to show how smart you supposedly are and apply principles that are not correct to the situation.

Camron Rust

SD Referee wrote
That's not what I meant and you know it. So if a dribbler, suddenly changes direction, for whatever reason, and a defensive player runs them over from behing you are going to go with an offensive foul by applying the screening principle?

Good luck with that. Some of you guys like to show how smart you supposedly are and apply principles that are not correct to the situation.

Better than showing how dumb you are by insisting on ignoring a clear case play.

SD Referee

Camron Rust wrote
Better than showing how dumb you are by insisting on ignoring a clear case play.

So based on what little the OP said, you are just going to assume that the play falls under the case you are citing? You're just going to go offensive foul in the situation described?

Go ahead, but I don't think you will find a lot of officials that will make that call. In an actual game, most officials will not call the play an offensive foul. Especially the situation in the OP. There's not enough information to assume that the case fits the situation.

Camron Rust

SD Referee wrote
So based on what little the OP said, you are just going to assume that the play falls under the case you are citing? You're just going to go offensive foul in the situation described?

Go ahead, but I don't think you will find a lot of officials that will make that call. In an actual game, most officials will not call the play an offensive foul. Especially the situation in the OP. There's not enough information to assume that the case fits the situation.

^ That is called rationalization.

FWIW, that OP was precisely this case play....that was the entire point of the OP.

Raymond

onetime1 wrote
Dribbler is in transition with defensive player running / trailing near half court. Offensive player can sense the defensive player is closing fast so dribbler on purpose swerves in path and "slams" on the brakes and gets knocked to the ground and trampled. Whatcha got?

How many steps did the defensive player take after the dribbler got in his path?

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
How many steps did the defensive player take after the dribbler got in his path?

After changing direction, and subsequently establishing a new path and direction, were the dribbler and the defender now both traveling in the same path and direction?

If so, I don't think that the number of steps matters:

COMMENT: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

If not, I think that the number of steps does matter because screening principles apply:

COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact.

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
After changing direction, and subsequently establishing a new path and direction, were the dribbler and the defender now both traveling in the same path and direction?

If so, I don't think that the number of steps matters:

COMMENT: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

If not, I think that the number of steps does matter because screening principles apply:

COMMENT: Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear. In this case, the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact.

It makes a difference as far as how soon the collision occurred afterwards. If he got in his path and stopped without giving the defender two steps to adjust between the time he got in his path and the time they collided, it's a foul on the screener. If he moved into the path and the defender got two or more steps before the collision, then if it's on the defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

« Previous Page Next Page »