Moving Screen

[bucky]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

While this may be technically true, there are definitely words/phrases that describe a moving screener, screener that is moving, screening a moving opponent, etc.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Umonblue

So if an offensive player moves late in front of a defensive player (to set a pick) and makes that defensive player stop or go around him without contact then there's no call? No Violation for an Illegal/Moving screen? Reason I ask I saw this in a college basketball game and called as a violation...that crew must have called it wrong then.

I find it unlikely that a college crew called a "moving screen violation."

[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.

[nolanjj68]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Nolan:

I think you need to re-read NFHS R-S40-A4 again before you make that statement. I don't have my NCAA Men's and Women's Rules Books in front of me but they have the same Definition as the NFHS Rules have.

MTD, Sr.

Oh I did before I made the post. It's not there.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Umonblue

So if an offensive player moves late in front of a defensive player (to set a pick) and makes that defensive player stop or go around him without contact then there's no call? No Violation for an Illegal/Moving screen? Reason I ask I saw this in a college basketball game and called as a violation...that crew must have called it wrong then.

What you may witnessed is a screen set out of bounds. In that case, it is a violation and there does not need to be contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jay R

What you may witnessed is a screen set out of bounds. In that case, it is a violation and there does not need to be contact.

Reference, please.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Reference, please.

My bad. Looked in the rule book and could not find it. I thought the NCAA had a similar to the NBA.

The NCAA rule book says that a screen must be set inbounds for it to be legal. Does that mean that a screen set OOB is ruled a foul?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by nolanjj68

Oh I did before I made the post. It's not there.

I typed the wrong Rule reference. It should have read: R4-S40-A6, not R4-S40-S4.

I corrected my original post.

MTD, Sr.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jay R

My bad. Looked in the rule book and could not find it. I thought the NCAA had a similar to the NBA.

The NCAA rule book says that a screen must be set inbounds for it to be legal. Does that mean that a screen set OOB is ruled a foul?

Yes, if there's contact that creates an advantage (similar to how you'd call a screen that's "too wide").

FED does not have that language, but it should.

[BillyMac]

A moving screen is not in and of itself a foul; illegal contact must occur for a foul to be called. If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction, and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step, and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed, and distance of the defender.