NFHS Revised Legal Screening Rule

[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 BillyMac

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

My point is simply this. For many years, we've known that in a guarding situation, a defender must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the defender is always called for a blocking foul.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.

Many of us never thought to extrapolate that to say that a defender in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the defender gains any advantage.

Now we have a new (modified) rule, and interpretation. In a screening situation, a screener must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the screener is to be called for a
blocking foul.

4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.

Now a few of us want to jump on the bandwagon and extrapolate that to say that a screener in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the screener gains any advantage.

Does the NFHS want us to make either of those non-contact assumptions?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[just another ref]

All the case plays for 9.3.3 involve the player completely leaving the court. Does anybody ever call this under any circumstances for a player with a foot on the line?

[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)?