Screening

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

On bit of a side note....

Generally speaking, there has to be contact for there to be a foul. Given that concept, I think there should be reform that penalizes illegal things that don't have contact, but affect the defense. This is close to being a good example. If someone sets a screen with their feet wider than deemed by the rules, they should be penalized, specifically if it affects the defense. If there is contact, the call is easy. Now, if the defense runs, because of the wide stance, in an adverse pattern to avoid contact, I think the screener should be penalized. I'm thinking violation. Without contact, we have excessive elbow swinging being a violation. Why not a new one for an illegal screen without contact.

Stupid? Genius? Other acts that might be treated similarly?

What about a player attempting to block a shot such that the shooter has to adjust to get around it. If not for that, the defender may have very well hit the shooter's arm. Are we calling something on that because the shooter had to adjust and, in the process of doing so, avoiding creating a foul on the defender and missed the shot?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What about a player attempting to block a shot such that the shooter has to adjust to get around it. If not for that, the defender may have very well hit the shooter's arm. Are we calling something on that because the shooter had to adjust and, in the process of doing so, avoiding creating a foul on the defender and missed the shot?

That is a move by the defense, not the offense. I am discussing an illegal screen by the offense.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

That is a move by the defense, not the offense. I am discussing an illegal screen by the offense.

The point remains. If we're going to call what-ifs, where does it stop?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point remains. If we're going to call what-ifs, where does it stop?

Not sure what you mean. It stops when a player does something illegal that negatively impacts another player. Your previous play described something that was legal.

[deecee]

Just make a call. Do it for the kids. They are all going to get horrible hurt if we don't.

[Big_Blue_Wannabe]

Originally Posted by deecee

Just make a call. Do it for the kids. They are all going to get horrible hurt if we don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Not sure what you mean. It stops when a player does something illegal that negatively impacts another player. Your previous play described something that was legal.

And a screen that moves or has a stance too wide but doesn't cause contact is also legal.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And a screen that moves or has a stance too wide but doesn't cause contact is also legal.

Um, no kidding, that is what could use a change. Originally indicated in my post some time ago.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Um, no kidding, that is what could use a change. Originally indicated in my post some time ago.

I know. I'm just wondering how far you want to take the idea. Hence, my question about a defender who disrupts the shooters shot without making contact such that it would be a defensive foul if there were contact.

Your idea, at least if I'm understanding it, is to make something illegal that, without contact, influences the ability of an opponent to make a desired play but elected to deviate from a desired path while, if the opponent hadn't avoided contact, there would be a foul.