Moving Screen

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

The words "moving screen" as a phrase does not show up in the case or rule books

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul, as a common description to why this particular illegal screen is illegal.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by scrounge

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul, as a common description to why this particular illegal screen is illegal.

That is only part of establishing a legal screen. Simply continue reading section 40. There are other articles.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by scrounge

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul.

I prefer to use the word (and show) "block" then punch the other way to describe illegal contact by A2 resulting from an attempt to screen opponent B1, for instance.

Perhaps I'm wrong?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I prefer to use the word (and show) "block" then punch the other way to describe illegal contact by A2 resulting from an attempt to screen opponent B1, for instance.

Perhaps I'm wrong?

We've been told to show block and punch.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by scrounge

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul, as a common description to why this particular illegal screen is illegal.

A screener may be moving if he/she is moving the same direction as the defender.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

A screener may be moving if he/she is moving the same direction as the defender.

Getting warmer... same direction and path.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Getting warmer... same direction and path.

If they're moving in the same direction but not the same path, it will be very hard to have contact. So, while you are correct, it really doesn't matter.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by scrounge

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul, as a common description to why this particular illegal screen is illegal.

I'll concede "moving" is a reasonable antonym of "stationary". However, without contact, there is no "screen". Thus "moving screen" is still invalid in this context, and only serves to confuse people into thinking that moving while attempting to screen without contact is against the rules.

[Umonblue]

So do you see from all the threads in regards to an Illegal Screen? We have different answers, reasons and definitions.....but still NO concrete answer to the Original question.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Umonblue

So do you see from all the threads in regards to an Illegal Screen? We have different answers, reasons and definitions.....but still NO concrete answer to the Original question.

Can't figure out your question in OP.

Maybe try again, without all the suppositions and declarative statements left out.....

hint: Illegal screen is a meaningful term in officiating jargon and should result in a personal foul, never a violation.

Moving screen is used by ignorant laypersons

[nolanjj68]

Originally Posted by Umonblue

So do you see from all the threads in regards to an Illegal Screen? We have different answers, reasons and definitions.....but still NO concrete answer to the Original question.

It was answered in the first reply. If no contact it's not a violation or a foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by nolanjj68

It was answered in the first reply. If no contact it's not a violation or a foul.

And in posts 3, 4, 7, 10.

After that, things mutated a bit since the OP was correctly answered.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Umonblue

So do you see from all the threads in regards to an Illegal Screen? We have different answers, reasons and definitions.....but still NO concrete answer to the Original question.

The original question was a misinterpretation of what happened. We still don't know what happened in the original play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by scrounge

True....but rule 4-40-2 says the screener must be stationary, and 10-7-11 says it's a foul if a player does not adhere to the rules of screening found in 4-40. So....would not 'moving' be a reasonable opposite of 'stationary'? Non-stationary sounds a bit stilted, no?

Seems to me that "moving screen" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use for a foul, as a common description to why this particular illegal screen is illegal.

So is the screen moving when you set your feet outside of your frame? What about if you are "set" and you do not give your opponent the proper time and distance? There are many examples of screens that can be illegal and totally set. There are more requirements for a screen than if you are moving or not.

Peace

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So is the screen moving when you set your feet outside of your frame? What about if you are "set" and you do not give your opponent the proper time and distance? There are many examples of screens that can be illegal and totally set. There are more requirements for a screen than if you are moving or not.

Peace

Of course not, I never meant to say that *all* illegal screens are "moving screens", just that it's a perfectly acceptable common language way of explaining why a particular illegal screen would be illegal. Just like "arm bar", "playing thru the back", "cut off" are common categories for pass interference, this is a handy way of categorizing the type of illegal screen. It's not the only illegal screen in the rule book by any means, but it's absolutely there as one type of illegal screen, by any reasonable description. That's all I'm saying.