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

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.

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

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.

Violation ???
 

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

Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 

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."

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=213&h=168

(How about that Barbara Feldon?)

https://youtu.be/fy33kNEIwgw

Hypothetical Situation ...
 

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?

http://40.media.tumblr.com/3bda0dfff...5q5lo1_400.jpg

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Y...=0&w=422&h=163

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.

Extrapolate ...
 

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.

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?

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

9.3.3 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane.
A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second
count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING:
A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
(9-7)

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally
goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained
by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as
he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot
nearest to where the violation occurred.

9.3.3 SITUATION C: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally
goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and
A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for
a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot
nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the
ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will
count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules ???
 

Yes. Many of you are forgetting one play for which this rule really applies (IMO). The throw-in with end-line run. The offense is down and runs the play to draw a foul on the player guarding the inbounder. Happens to me about once every 5 years. Offensive player or screener is usually very near the endline. Needs to have both feet inbounds now or automatic block.

A Real Play That Really Could Happen ...
 

Nice catch bucky. Thanks.

Contact ...
 

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.

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.

Looking for Video Clips of It
 

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.

bad, link,

Link, fixed,

Indeed, I was referring to a screening situation.

Jump On The Bandwagon ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=243&h=161

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.

Almost Ran Over My Partner ...
 

Sounds good to me.

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

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.

It's The Old Run Out The Door Trick ...
 

bucky is probably referring to this play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b-WKpL1Zx2w" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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].

Any Other Reasons Are Not ???
 

Any other reasons are not? C'mon ilyazhito. Really? You've got to be kidding. Right? I can think of dozens of other authorized reasons that are not violations. Let's just start with going of of bounds to make a throwin after a foul, or a violation. How about after a made basket? How about a dozen different plays when the momentum of a hustling player without the ball takes him out of bounds, sometimes sliding on the floor? How about a player, with no contact, stepping on a boundary line in an attempt to guard an opponent, or again with no contact, to set a screen for a teammate (the main topic of this thread and maybe subject to debate)?

Listing just two authorized reasons (saving ball and substitution) and calling "any other" unauthorized is utterly ridiculous.

Saving the ball, substitutions, and throw-ins I understand, but what other legal reason would a player have to be out-of-bounds during a live ball?

Perhaps being out of bounds without a legitimate reason is illegal because a player can use the boundary to his advantage to avoid defenders. If a player cannot go out of bounds during play, or guard another player from out of bounds (drawing a charge from OOB is inpossible, because the rule says 2 feet on the floor, inbounds, facing an opponent, to establish LGP), then a player cannot set a screen out of bounds, not to mention setting a screen with contact.

No Longer Chicken Wire Around Basketball Courts ...
 

Now you've gone from two reasons to three reasons.

How about the fore mentioned situations when the momentum of hustling players, offensive players, and/or defensive players, without the ball, takes them out of bounds, sometimes sliding on the floor, or ending up sprawled all over the bleachers?

We've even allowed players (see above) without the ball who have accidentally or unintentionally gone out of bounds to legally come back inbounds, with just one foot inbounds and the other foot off the floor, and gain possession of the ball (some erroneously believe that it must be two feet inbounds).

Let's even consider the ultra-extreme, very rare situation of a sick player who runs off the court to use a restroom. Calling a violation here will not end well, probably with you telling the coach that he has to sit on the cold bus in the parking lot for the rest of the night.

We can't be calling violations every time a player without the ball accidentally or unintentionally steps on a boundary line. I'm fairly positive that that's not the intent of the NFHS.

Trickery situations? Sure. Unsporting situations? Sure. Noncontact guarding/screening advantage situations? Possibly debatable (the main topic of this thread).

There's probably a good reason why I've only seen this (9-3-3) called once, and never called it myself, in almost forty years of officiating basketball games and observing others officiate basketball games (plus another twenty-five years of coaching). Is it possible that in all of these games that a player without the ball only once stepped on a boundary line? Were all of these games officiated by incompetent officials?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/s...smb090117l.jpg

Billy, I don't think that the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" rule was designed to prevent players from leaving the court UNintentionally. Rather, it was designed to prevent players from leaving the court intentionally to gain an illegal advantage, to show disgust and/or resentment to the officials, or for other reasons not specified (perhaps to prevent a Malice in the Palace situation from occurring in a HS game) . Only intentional leaving of the court is disallowed in NCAA (the violation is for leaving the court of one's own volition), so it would not be a stretch to assume that the NFHS rule is to be enforced in a similar manner, barring a contrary case play or official interpretation from the NFHS.

In your situation (a player getting sick on the court), the covering official would stop play immediately, unless the opponents of the injured/sick player have an advantage and immediately use it), leaving the court for an unauthorized reason would not apply, because there are other procedures covering that situation. In my previous answer, I emphasized that a player might not have many valid and legal reasons for leaving the court, because a team member may go to change his jersey outside the visual confines of the court, an injured team member can leave the court for treatment, etc.

Evolution Of An Understanding ...
 

While in this thread you have evolved from highly restricted reasons for leaving the court legally to slightly less restrictive reasons, I suggest that you continue to evolve. I've answered your posts with lots of legal reasons why a player could leave the court.

Now that's what I like to hear.

Now your going backwards. The scarcity of the 9-3-3 call has to give you a pretty good idea that leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason is a very rare call. Why? Probably because there are a hell of a lot more legal reasons why a player would leave the court than there are illegal reasons for a player to leave the court.

I suggest that you approach this from another angle.

Rather than trying to make up a list of legal reasons for a player to leave the court (as you have in this thread, believing that it will be a very short list) try making up a list of situations where it would be illegal to leave the court. You'll probably find that the later will be a much shorter list, especially if you stick to real life game situations, not the odd situations like the "out the door" play.

Like I already said, almost forty years and only one 9-3-3 call in my games. There's got to be a reason.

Use the combined experiences of Forum members to your advantage. I've learned a lot from the members of this Forum, you can teach a old dog new tricks.

Sometimes I think some of you officiate basketball on a different planet than I ever did...

Is Pluto A Planet ???
 

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.u...=0&w=280&h=187

And remember, it all simply and innocently started with this:

Thanks Freddy.

And for some of us we officiated in a different century! LOL!

MTD, Sr.

Here's an example of the play cited above:
Endline Throw-In Screener OOB - New Rule 4-40-1

Embedding is your friend
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEacw0g_4-Y" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

In the Ancient Days when real engineers and chemists used slide rules, this would have been Charging by White. Under today's NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's Rules we have a Block.

MTD, Sr.

I Blame The Coach ...
 

And it still would have been a charge if Black #1's coach had taught him to run this special play with both feet in bounds.

In my Ancient Days, my coach taught us to get one foot on the sideline when we were pressing. It reminded us that we shouldn't leave any bit of room along the sideline for the ball handler to sneak past us along that sideline, and to funnel the ball handler toward the center of the court where we would get help to set up a trap.

Now that's illegal if there's contact along that sideline.

Misty water-colored memories.

I hate this rule. It serves no purpose at all. Having a foot OOB doesn't gain the screener any advantage he doesn't get by keeping the foot just inbounds. Now, the officials have to watch for that foot for no good reason.

Assuming you feel the same way about a defender having a foot OOB while drawing a player control foul.

I do on both. I also don't care for the restricted arc in other rule sets.

Unfunded Mandate ...
 

I'm always afraid that I'll miss the foot on the boundary while I'm concentrating on the illegal, or lack thereof, contact, for both the new screening rule, and the old block/charge rule. And it's another reason that I'm always pleased that we don't have the restricted arc in high school basketball.

It's like the "unfunded mandates" that the Sate of Connecticut is always putting on our local towns, especially in regard to education, "By new law, your school systems have to do it this new, and better, way, but we're not giving you any additional State money to do it". The NFHS is asking us to look for illegal contact and to look at the boundary lines without giving us an extra eye, or an additional lobe to our brain.