Moving Screen
 

Just some clarity and confirmation. It is only a "Violation" if the Offensive player makes a Illegal/Moving Screen with no physical contact and it is a "Personal Foul" if there is physical contact i.e. swings hip into defender, sticks knee out, etc.?

Foul if contact otherwise nothing.

An illegal/moving screen without contact is not an illegal/moving screen. I'm not sure what you would call it, but it's not a violation. And, of course, it's not a foul either.

This is one of the great vampire myths that just won't die. A moving screen is NOT a violation, despite what gets argued in darn near every pick up game in the country. An improper screen can be a foul, if it is illegally moving or the cheap acts that you describe. Not all movement is illegal on a screen, which is again oft misunderstood.

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.

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.

Rule 4. Definitions Section 40 Screen is where you will find your answer.

"Moving screen" is not in the NFHS rule book. Things that happen in college do not necessarily translate to NFHS.

Crews get things wrong all the time. We just got to recognize what went wrong and learn from it.

If the offended coach didn't get T'ed up for the tantrum he threw about it, I suspect there was something else going on that you didn't realize.

UMONBlue....your query makes me think of coaches/fans that want a "reach" or "over the back" called. There is no such foul.

In fact, I don't know any player that can steal a ball w/o reaching for it in some way. And there are certainly great rebounders that can simply out jump an opponent reaching higher and sometimes over an opposing rebounder.

Same with a "moving screen". A player can move anywhere on the court. No foul there. Now, if the "reacher", "over the backer" or "moving screener" hold/strike, displace or contact the opponent, respectively, then we have illegal contact and thus a foul.

Otherwise, happy reaching, over the backing and move screening.

I always find it extra hilarious when a coach yells "Call the reach!"

Nolan:

I think you need to re-read NFHS R4-S40-A6 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.

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

College (at least Men's which is all I care about anyway) does not have such language in their rulebook either. The screening rules are pretty much the same across the codes. And a screen can be illegal and be stationary. This is why officials and coaches need to stop using this term.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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?

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

We've been told to show block and punch.

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

Getting warmer... same direction and path.

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

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.

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?

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

I corrected my original post.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

From The List ...
 

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

Moving screen still not in the NFHS rule book.

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.

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

NolanJJ68:

From the most recent Rules Codes (NFHS: 2017-18; NCAA Men's/Women's: 2017-18 and 2018-19):

NFHS R4-S40-A6: "When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent."


NCAA Men's R4-S35-A5: "When opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction (one behind the other) and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall be responsible for such contact."


NCAA Women's R10-S5-A5: "When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall be responsible for such contact."


We can also go back as far as the 1963-64 (the oldest Rules Book in my Library, and you should appreciate me climbing up into my attic this morning to get it, just ask BillyMac) National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBC, the predecessor Rules Committee to the NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees) Rules Book, from it Comments on the Rules (prior to the NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees, the Definitions of Guarding and Screening were not in Rule 4 but in the Comments on the Rules after Rule 10:

"3. Screening-- ... When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his opponent. ...


One can see a pattern here: "Moving screen" has been in the Rules for quite some time.

MTD, Sr.

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.

"Time and Distance" is the requirement for setting a legal Screen, whether it is a Stationary Screen or a Moving Screen. One cannot go wrong when asked what did the Screener do wrong when setting an illegal Screen by replying each and every time: "He/she did not give "Time and Distance" when setting his/her screen." It is short (at least by my standards, LOL) and sweet, and is accurate per the Rules.

MTD, Sr.

You have chosen to parse my words to prove that the words moving and screen appear in the rule book. Fine, I give up. My point was "Moving screen" those words as quoted do not exist in the rule book as a definition, as a violation, or as a foul as the OP asked about. I was trying to help end the myth of "moving screen" that we hear ignorant coaches and parents scream about. I also hear "illegal screen" when players are moving next to each other with no contact. Another one of my favorites. As I said, I give up. Last post on this subject.

I humbly accept your surrender "young padawan". Have a great season.

MTD, Sr.

Why Can't They Be Like We Were, Perfect In Every Way ???
 

What's The Matter With Kids Today?

Most of the illegal screens seen around these parts involve the screener illegally sticking out a leg, a hip, or an elbow to impede the progress of the defender.

What's wrong with coaches today? Back in the mid-twentieth century, we were taught to get there a little early, get set, and don't over extend any body part. I guess that coaches today don't teach that anymore. Also, kids today aren't taught how to use screens properly. We were taught to get as close to the screener as possible, usually shoulder to shoulder, not leaving any room for a defender to squeeze in. Players today don't get as close to the screener, forcing the screener to move, or to overextend a body part, in order to screen off the defender.

Bill:

Sticking out a leg or a hip would definitely would be an infraction of Time and Distance. Using the elbow to impede that progress of the Screened Player could fall more under Holding; just my two cents.

I would be willing to qualify my original statement such that it applies to the vast majority Illegal Screens that we have over the course of the season. And I like it because it is "short and succinct" (a phrase that is rarely associated with me, LOL).

MTD, Sr.

You should not use a term that bastardizes the rule. If you say moving screens are illegal and there is no contact and displacement (required even by an illegal screen) then you might misunderstand the rule. Players often stop short of any contact or contact that would cause displacement. Sometimes players move and slip on the screen and it was never set, but they did not create any contact or displace their opponent. Again this is why we should stay away from the term. And blind screens require a normal step, well a blind screen can be set and totally illegal. A screen again is either legal or illegal and it does not matter if you are moving or not.

Heck, I have not called an illegal screen because when the potential screened player sees the screen, they stop and move around the bad screen. I will put it this way, in football, it is not holding just because you are held. It is holding when you demonstrate you are trying to get away and the point of attack is affected. If you cannot keep going on the screen or stop and give up because someone is in front of you in basketball, I am not calling the foul. It is really that simple for me.

Peace

So the final confirmed answer to my original question that turned into several other questions is that a Moving/Illegal Screen without contact can never be called just a VIOLATION....YES?

Yes, because not matter how poorly a Screen is set, if there is no contact between the Screener and the Screened, no infraction of the Rules has occurred.

MTD, Sr.

Is English your second language? Just asking, because this question has been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Those &$#@& kids on your lawn? Get a grip. In *every* era, players push boundaries. Why do kids set sloppy screens and why does the ball handeler go to soon? Because it doesn’t get called! Why in the world should coaches teach players to do it “right” when it is more effective to do it “Wrong”and refs don’t call it? At least in games I watch, refs let players get away with a lot. Smart players look for the boundaries and do everything they can get away with. Don’t blame coaches on this one.

If I run past you, is that a foul?
If I run around you, is that a foul?
If I run near you and decide to stop running, is that a foul?

Scary ...

If you expect it to be a violation, what would the "violation" be: Moving on the court without contacting anyone?

I graduated from H.S. in 1969 and my H.S. basketball coach was also an OhioHSAA registered basketball official. Whenever he was asked why he was a basketball official, his reply was: "How can you teach someone to play the game if you do not know the rules." To elaborate on that, my coach taught Guarding and Screening right out of the Rules Book. If one were to have observed our practice one would have thought he/she were watching a basketball officiating camp. Before I could graduated from H.S. I could quote "chapter and verse" of the Guarding and Screening rules. That is why I can say with absolute certainty that the Guarding and Screening rules have not changed in over 50 years, not to mention that I started officiating in 1971 and the oldest rules book in my library is the 1963-64 season.

MTD, Sr.

Fouls (Rule 10), Violations (Rule 9) ...
 

When coaches, fans, etc., yell, "Moving screen" (a phrase never used by officials), they usually want a foul (not a violation) called, even though there may not be illegal contact. All fouls, with the exception of technical fouls, involve illegal contact.

Violations are noncontact illegalities: traveling, illegal dribble, out of bounds, three seconds, backcourt, ten seconds, five seconds, basketball interference, goaltending, free throw violations, etc.

What you should probably be asking is can a moving screen without contact ever be called a foul? Or, maybe you really are asking if a moving screen without contact can ever be called a violation?

No, and no.

Personal fouls, like an illegal screen, always involve illegal contact (an illegal screen is often a blocking foul, and a team control foul (no free throws)).

And a moving screen, with or without contact, illegal, or otherwise, can never be called a violation, it's not even mentioned in Rule 9 VIOLATIONS (see partial list of noncontact illegalities above, travel, etc.).

Screen with legal contact (even with severe legal contact)? Nothing.

Screen with illegal contact? Foul.

Screen with no contact? Nothing.

A violation never even comes into the picture, it's a non sequitur.

BillyMac:

Valiant effort and clearly stated but I think your efforts are for naught. OP either can't or won't be able to fathom plain English, either for lack of language aptitude or pure stubbornness. My sense is that both apply.

Rational, Logical, Sequential, Examples, All The Bells And Whistles ...
 

I pulled my "Middle School Teacher" hat out of retirement, and pretended that I was writing a lesson plan for my students.

Did I use the phrase non sequitur properly? I don't think that I've ever used in its written form before today.

Billy, you corrected one typo, but left two other errors. C+.

If you truly aspire for the status of hipster, you must employ the current trendy term "ELI5".

Translated as 'explain like I'm five' years old.

Non sequitur is apropos.

Miss McGillicuddy would mark you down for misspelling the past participle of 'to write', and have you march to the blackboard to write it at least 100 times, in your best cursive.

My Manners Need Improving ...
 

Been there. Done that. When "after school" (now it's called detention) for misbehavior, Mr. MacNeck, my fifth grade teacher, would have us write, "My Manners Need Improving.", on the blackboard as many times as he saw necessary.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.F...=0&w=246&h=182

Whenever a HC wants a Foul for a poorly set "moving screen" in which there was no contact I always tell him/her that this is not soccer where the penalty for Obstruction is an Indirect Freekick.

MTD, Sr.

Almost thought we had a Honeymooners reference there!

Miss McGillicuddy ...
 

Our Gang (also known as The Little Rascals).

The Gang's teacher before Miss Crabtree.

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.