NFHS Revised Legal Screening Rule

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by bucky

Yes.

bucky: just another ref was talking about the non-contact 9-3-3 violation (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason).

Doesn't your "Yes" answer refer to a contact (screening) situation?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

bucky: just another ref was talking about the non-contact 9-3-3 violation (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason).

Doesn't your "Yes" answer refer to a contact (screening) situation?

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.

And, if there's no contact, that play is NOT a violation. If it were to be a violation, then the violation would happen as soon as A1 sets the screen (and that would be before the contact). The violation would make the ball dead and the (non-F, non-I) contact would be ignored. Since this IS NOT what happened (the play is allowed to continue to the contact), the initial stance is NOT a violation.

[deecee]

It's been great watching billy converse with himself. This post could be a whole 10-12 posts instead of 29.

However, I would cringe if a partner of mine called a "leaving the court" violation here.

[Freddy]

Assuming, for the sake of illustration, that everything else he did was legal, this screener's foot was OOB, this would, by the revised wording of the screening rule 4-40-1, be a blocking foul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwo4R2S8qbQ

Right?

(I must like using commas...)

EDIT: Link, fixed, now, I, think.

[bob jenkins]

bad, link,

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

bad, link,

Link, fixed,

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's been great watching billy converse with himself.

Because I'm not quite ready to jump on the "9-3-3 violation (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) bandwagon" every time a player has part of one foot on a boundary in a noncontact situation (guarding and/or screening). It appeared that some were ready to jump on ("classic"). Not me.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because I'm not quite ready to jump on the "9-3-3 violation (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) bandwagon" every time a player has part of one foot on a boundary in a noncontact situation (guarding and/or screening). It appeared that some were ready to jump on ("classic"). Not me.

IMO...

That whole "unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game for reasons that do not even apply to the game %99 of the time. It was written to prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side. It isn't for actual actions on the court. Otherwise, we could apply that dozens of times in a game like a player saving a ball from going OOB, going OOB during a lay-up, falling OOB after being fouled, etc.. Those are all authorized actions being part of the game and so would someone having a foot OOB when setting a screen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

That whole "unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game for reasons that do not even apply to the game 99% of the time. It was written to prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side. It isn't for actual actions on the court. Otherwise, we could apply that dozens of times in a game like a player saving a ball from going OOB, going OOB during a lay-up, falling OOB after being fouled, etc.. Those are all authorized actions being part of the game and so would someone having a foot OOB when setting a screen.

Sounds good to me.

Would this (below) be a real violation of 9-9-3?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

At the time, I liked my partner's call because I almost called it before a foul switch when the same player, using the same play, almost ran me over when I was the lead. I remember telling myself, "If he does that again, I'm calling the violation". My partner, with no communication from me, beat me to the punch.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

"unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game... prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side.

bucky is probably referring to this play:

[ilyazhito]

Re: saving a ball from going out of bounds, that is an authorized reason to go out of bounds (or at least towards the boundary line). The other autheorized reason is substitution). Any other reasons are not.

In NCAA rules, the "guy in the hallway" play would be blown dead as soon as the player received the ball to shoot. The Lead would give the delayed violation signal,and blow the whistle (unless C detected the disappeared player re-appearing). In NFHS, his actions would merit a technical foul. While I would not necessarily call a technical foul for a screen set out of bounds, I would call an illegal screen if a player attempted to set a screen out of bounds, because, by rule, he cannot do so legally, just like a player cannot legally take a charge standing on or inside the restricted area arc (no-charge semicircle) in those games that use the arc [unless the offensive player does some other illegal action].

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

bucky: just another ref was talking about the non-contact 9-3-3 violation (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason).

Doesn't your "Yes" answer refer to a contact (screening) situation?

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.

Indeed, I was referring to a screening situation.