NFHS Revised Legal Screening Rule
 

Given that the NFHS has added the words in bold to rule 4-40-1 and added 4.40.2 to the casebook to read:

4-40-1: A screen is legal action by a player who, while touching the playing court, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

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.

Is it correct to maintain and teach that:

A. The NFHS screening rule now parallels NCAA-M and NCAA-W (both of whom say, "In establishing and maintaining legal screening tactics, the screener shall . . .be inbounds) in regards to a legal screening position requiring the screening player not to be out-of-bounds?

B. Previously, the only NFHS enforcement for the SITUATION above would have been to rule a 9-3-3 violation for "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason"?

Aside from the two questions, A. and B. above, that I'm interested in getting answers to, I find it interesting that only the NCAA-M, NCAA-W, and now the NFHS require inbounds status for a screener to be legal. Neither NBA nor FIBA apparently does. And now NFHS is the only code that actually has a casebook reference prescribing a foul be called in the situation that an offensive player make contact with a screener who is out-of-bounds. The two NCAA codes seem to infer that a foul would be called in that situation, but the NBA and FIBA would expect a violation to be called prior to any contact that might occur.
Anybody know any different that this?

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.

Now I Know How To Rule ...
 

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.

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.

George Bernard Shaw On The Forum, How Cool Is That ...
 

Always on the job. Always teaching. Your guys must be the best trained guys in Michigan, maybe the country, maybe the world, maybe the ... Never mind.

And I doubt that George Bernard Shaw's quote, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach", fits your situation.

As usual, Freddy's not dead.

Spit Balling ...
 

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.

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?

And Make S'mores ...
 

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).

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....)

I am.

They are.

I'm sure there's an insult in there somewhere, but darned if I can't separate the sincere from the chatter.

Thank you for the compli-slam. I think. :cool:

The rule change does two things:

1) It is now the same as the NCAA Men's and Women's Rules, and

2) It makes the Screening Rule consistent with the Guarding Rule.

MTD, Sr.

A Four Neptunian Game ...
 

I was serious and sincere. We have a similar interpreter/trainer/clinician, and I believe that we're lucky to have him. I would hate to be on a board/association that didn't have such a hard working interpreter/trainer/clinician.

Do note that I decided to come up short on calling your guys the best trained guys in the Solar System. I've heard that the basketball officials on Neptune are fantastic. Of course, it's a four official game, and each official had six eyes mounted on conical turrets and that can move independently of each other. With eyes like that, I would be working state finals every year.

From The Great And Powerful Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...
 

Amen.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

Great question.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=300&h=300