Question about a junior girls play

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, "moving screen" is not proper terminology. It may be commonly used, but it doesn't communicate something that is illegal. The contact that comes in combination with SOME "moving screens" may be illegal, but a moving screen is often legal and even sometimes with contact. So, calling a "moving screen" implies the wrong thing just as "being set" does.

Section 35

Art. 4. No player, while moving, shall set a screen that causes contact and delays an opponent from reaching a desired position.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Section 35

Art. 4. No player, while moving, shall set a screen that causes contact and delays an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Yes BUT, a player can set a screen while moving without creating the contact.

So not all moving screens are illegal.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes BUT, a player can set a screen while moving without creating the contact.

So not all moving screens are illegal.

K next time an evaluator says that you missed a moving screen just tell him there is no issue with that because it may not have been illegal.

Ill be sure to add illegal moving screen to my future statements since no one will have any idea what I am talking about if I just say moving screen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

K next time an evaluator says that you missed a moving screen just tell him there is no issue with that because it may not have been illegal.

Ill be sure to add illegal moving screen to my future statements since no one will have any idea what I am talking about if I just say moving screen.

You said it was proper rule book terminology. It is not.

Don't get upset when you make a definitive statement and then get challenged.

Plenty of esteemed officials use "over-the-back" and "reaching". Doesn't make those phrases rule book terminology.

Me, I ignore it when coaches yell out about "moving screens" b/c most time they are referring to a play where an offensive player is legally running down the court and just happen to be in the way of a defender.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You said it was proper rule book terminology. It is not.

Don't get upset when you make a definitive statement and then get challenged.

Plenty of esteemed officials use "over-the-back" and "reaching". Doesn't make those phrases rule book terminology.

If you are going to split hairs I said it was proper terminology, not proper rule book terminology.

Based on the amount of clinicians and board members I have listened to use that "terminology" I deem it in the very least acceptable if not proper.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

If you are going to split hairs I said it was proper terminology, not proper rule book terminology.

Based on the amount of clinicians and board members I have listened to use that "terminology" I deem it in the very least acceptable if not proper.

"common" < > "proper"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes BUT, a player can set a screen while moving without creating the contact.

So not all moving screens are illegal.

And if you include the next article (IIRC), it says that the screener can be moving at the time of contact if the movement is in the same path and direction. So, you can even have a "moving screen" with contact that still isn't a foul.

Just because a lot of good officials use the term doesn't make it proper.