NFHS Revised Legal Screening Rule

[bob jenkins]

A. Yes

B. I don't think that rule was intended to address this situation. So, previously, the choices were to call it legal, or to use the "not covered in the rules" clause to extend the "defense must be in bounds to get a charge call" to this situation.

[BillyMac]

Now we have a citation for why it's illegal for a player to set a screen in front of the concession stand in the hallway outside the gymnasium. Contact, blocking foul. No contact, no foul, get a slice of pizza.

[Camron Rust]

i'm curious about why they even care.

First, the offensive teammate using the screen can't legally go OOB around the screen. The defender trying to get through the area can't legally go OOB around the screen. If the screen is set OOB, it just makes it easier for others to go "below" the screen on the inbounds side. Setting the screen with one foot OOB vs just inbounds is actually a disadvantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm curious about why they even care.

Good point.

I, obviously, can't read the mind of the NFHS (who among us can), but, food for thought, how often does one see 9-3 (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) enforced. For me, I've never called it, and have only observed it being enforced just once in almost forty years.

Maybe the NFHS wants us to call a blocking foul for a player who accidentally, and unintentionally, sets a screen, with contact, with one foot out of bounds, similar to how they want us to call a blocking foul for a defensive player who tries to take a charge with one foot accidentally, and unintentionally, out of bounds.

Does the NFHS believe that a foul "trumps" a (possibly subjective, what's unauthorized) violation, regardless of which happens first?

Maybe the NFHS wants the game to be played on the playing court as much as possible.

Just spit balling here.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

i'm curious about why they even care

I think they were just bringing it into harmony with the two NCAA codes. It's not like it's a common play. I've never seen it. You?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... bringing it into harmony with the two NCAA codes.

Now we can all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.

Cue up the Coca-Cola "Hilltop" commercial (young'uns can check it out on the Google, or the YouTube).

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

B. I don't think that rule was intended to address this situation. So, previously, the choices were to call it legal, or to use the "not covered in the rules" clause to extend the "defense must be in bounds to get a charge call" to this situation.

Bob,
If there's contact by the defender into the screener that merits a foul call, it should be ruled a block. The new casebook settles that. I get that.
What about if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in only incidental contact or no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen. Would that still be a deemed legal and result in a no-call? Or might you then rule a 9-3-3 violation for "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason"?

(Trying to get my head around this, I still have a hard time picturing why a screener standing on or over the endline offers any kind of benefit, ala Cameron Rust's point above. This change could not have been based on high demand from the customer base. I've never seen it, ever. It really doesn't seem to be that realistic of a play. But we're going to be asked this question, so....)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

What about if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in ... no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen. Would that still be a deemed legal and result in a no-call? Or might you then rule a 9-3-3 violation for "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason"?

Great question.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

What about if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in only incidental contact or no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen.

If the contact delays the defender, then it's not incidental. It's a foul, even if the contact was minor.

No contact, no foul.

[JRutledge]

I guess you could call a violation on the screener. Most of the time that is the offensive player. Not saying that is what should be done, but that is the remedy if you are that worried about a player setting a screen and stepping out of bounds without any contact. I really do not see what else we can do here or should do.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

That would be the classic leaving the court without an authorized reason/out of bounds of his own volition violation, because he went out of bounds illegally, and gained an advantage from doing so.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... the classic leaving the court without an authorized reason ... violation.

Classic? Classic? The Wizard of Oz is a classic movie. Good Vibrations is a classic Beach Boys song. The 1953 Chevrolet Corvette is a classic car.

Almost forty years and I've never observed a player set a screen out of bounds. Never, ever. I only once observed 9-3 (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) being enforced, for an offensive player who went around a screen and almost ran over my partner, as the lead, out of bounds. Classic? How often do you see this play to call it a classic?

Probably more appropriate to do your best Maxwell Smart impersonation? "Ah, it's the old set a screen out of bounds trick."



(How about that Barbara Feldon?)

https://youtu.be/fy33kNEIwgw

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in ... no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen.

So I've been thinking about the "no contact/off the playing court/advantage gained/leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" situation with a slightly different slant (guarding rather then screening) than the one we've been discussing.

Ball handler A1 is advancing the ball in his backcourt. Knowing that the ten second count in winding down, he quickly heads toward the right sideline hoping to get across the division line. At the last second, defender B1 cuts him off at the right sideline, with no contact, but the defender has one foot out of bounds. A1 retreats with a reverse dribble and then heads toward the division line, but due to the slight delay caused by the illegally (9-3) out or bounds defender B1, the official sounds his whistle for a ten second violation.

Is the defender illegally (9-3) off the playing court? Yes. Does the defender illegally gain and advantage by this act? Yes. Can a blocking foul be called on the defender? No, there was no contact.

Before calling the ten second violation, should the official have called a violation on defender B1 for illegally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason (9-3) that resulted in the defender gaining an illegal advantage that caused ball handler to later violate?

Maybe some these "classic" situations are not as cut and dry as some of us would like to believe.

Should we be ruling 9-3 on a screen set out of bounds, that with no contact, slows down and disadvantages the screened defender?

Odd, very rare, situations? Yes. "Classic"? No. But, inquiring minds still want to know.

Do we need to put up chicken wire around the playing court to keep the players on the playing court?





That's why basketball players are called "cagers" (I bet a lot of you young'uns didn't know that).

When Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. started officiating, he was in charge of walking around the perimeter of the playing court, making sure that there were no gaps in the chicken wire, and that there were no chickens on the playing court. It's true. It's true.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... No contact, no foul.

Agree. But how about a 9-3-3 (leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) violation (assuming advantage gained)?