Nap time.

Since we're getting so unnecessarily technical....there is no illegal screen signal. It just happens that a lot of illegal screens end up being of the blocking foul variety.

This has gone way beyond my initial post, and I didn't take it here. But alas...

Now I'm at work so I can't look at the book, but I'll take your words for it. However, I've been using the block signal for an illegal screen for years and nobody has questioned me on it. Maybe it's a local thing and someone told me about it.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Because most illegal screens are blocks. It's not a local thing, it's the proper signal in most cases. But illegal screens can also be holds or pushes, and the appropriate signal is given to the table when reporting. (Add a trip for NCAA-M)

You need to quit acting like folks here just disagree with you for entertainment. If you distrust what we say so much, you need to be in the book more.

If you don't have your books and you've never looked it up, why were you being so adamant on the subject?

I felt like I was clear in my first post. I saw push first, then an illegal screen. And the questions regarding my post weren't clear to me.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I'm the one that brought up the question in the first place, and it was a sincere question.

The part above in bold is what was concerning to me. The statement implies that an illegal screen can only be a blocking foul. As we have explained, an illegal screen can be a block, a hold, a push, a chuck, etc.

The action in play 3 is an illegal screen, and it is an illegal screen because of the push.

I had a pushing foul. IMO, it didn't matter what the dribbler did, where he was, etc. The offensive player displaced the defender.

You say that push and the screening action occurred at the same time, thus an illegal screen. I didn't see it like that the first time, but upon further viewing, like I said, I'm good with that.

I had no problem with that question, just the subsequent responses telling me what I said is the same thing. It's not... There can be a push separate from an illegal screen.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Which goes back to my question, which signal would you give to the table regardless if it were a screen or not? You were the one telling us it was wrong to call an illegal screen a push.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Hey, I admitted I was wrong when I said there must not be an illegal screen signal (same as blocking signal). But there is a pushing signal. And that there is the difference I was referring to.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Try this...

At the table..
1. Say "white 32" while using one hand to signal a three then a two.
2. "team control foul" while touching the back of my head (local thing they want us to do to make it clear no free throws)
3. "push" while giving the push signal.

Or...

1. and 2. stay the same
3. "illegal screen" while giving the block signal.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

You can say illegal screen, but that is not what the signal is called. I also will say "illegal screen" but I rarely say the signal, I describe the action like saying, "Push in the back on the rebound" while giving a "push" signal.

Peace

And in some locations, the team control signal is the only one to be given on a team control foul.

In my state they want us to give the type of foul after the TC signal.

Peace

My state HS authority and every college observer or supervisor I've met want the proper signal for the act that happened.

You can call this play an illegal screen, a push, or whatever, but the SIGNAL will be a PUSH.

But if your local association is doing its own thing, don't get mad at us because we reference what the rule book and manual say.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Like I said, I give the block signal and I haven't been corrected. And I can't say where I got that from. My ass? Idk

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk