The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Illegal Screen? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/104370-illegal-screen.html)

Camron Rust Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1030119)
I would disagree. This implies that an offensive player can only move "away" from any defender otherwise they are illegal. A player is entitled to their space and can move per the OP. Both players were moving parallel and "any" contact would not have been illegal for the offense.

If the defender is trying to get to the ball handler on the other side and the offensive player, they are not moving parallel. If the offensive player is moving and the defender is trying to get to the ball handler on the other side, the offensive player has violated the screening rules that require them to be stationary when setting a screen...and must be stationary for 1-2 steps since the opponent is moving. What you've described is a textbook illegal screen.

deecee Tue Feb 12, 2019 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1030157)
If the defender is trying to get to the ball handler on the other side and the offensive player, they are not moving parallel. If the offensive player is moving and the defender is trying to get to the ball handler on the other side, the offensive player has violated the screening rules that require them to be stationary when setting a screen...and must be stationary for 1-2 steps since the opponent is moving. What you've described is a textbook illegal screen.

so you're saying an offensive player that's moving MUST stop when a defender approaches them and all the onus on the contact is on the offense?

Camron Rust Tue Feb 12, 2019 03:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1030164)
so you're saying an offensive player that's moving MUST stop when a defender approaches them and all the onus on the contact is on the offense?

If that defender is attempting to guard someone else, yes. The offense is setting a screen whether they are trying to or not. In doing so, they must cut off the path of the defender legally and continuing to move when the defender is trying to go around them in order to guard someone else is not legal (if there is contact).

deecee Tue Feb 12, 2019 03:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1030177)
If that defender is attempting to guard someone else, yes. The offense is setting a screen whether they are trying to or not. In doing so, they must cut off the path of the defender legally and continuing to move when the defender is trying to go around them in order to guard someone else is not legal (if there is contact).

I disagree with this. You are advocating that any offensive player that stands between a defender and an offensive player that said defender wants to guard must be either (1) moving away from the defender OR (2) remain still otherwise any contact is a foul on the defender.

This is contrary to the principle that all players have a right to place on the floor on a first come first serve basis and screening principles apply only during the act of screening.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 12, 2019 04:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1030178)
I disagree with this. You are advocating that any offensive player that stands between a defender and an offensive player that said defender wants to guard must be either (1) moving away from the defender OR (2) remain still otherwise any contact is a foul on the defender.

This is contrary to the principle that all players have a right to place on the floor on a first come first serve basis and screening principles apply only during the act of screening.

I think you meant offense there.

You are right about what I'm advocating. That is the fundamental concept of screening.

This is not contrary at all to the concept that players have a right to a space on the floor. The offensive player is moving to a new space on the floor and only gets there legally if they meet the rules that define getting there legally. When a screen occurs, it has to be stationary, by rule, unless the screener is moving directly away.

You seem to think a screen is something more specific than it is.

Quote:

ART. 1 . . . A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
This player IS screening. If the offensive player is moving (in any directly other than away from the defender), it is not a legal screen if contact occurs. A screen need not be a deliberate act. A screen occurs when an offensive player's position or actions block the path of an opponent.

If it were any other way, you'd have screeners pretending not to set a screen to avoid the requirements of screening.

deecee Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:00pm

Yes I meant offense in that spot.

So say you have 3 players running parallel

A1 A2 B1

B1 then wants to guard A1 and turns to go guard A1 but makes contact with A2 who is still moving in the same path he/she is. You would call this a foul whereas I say it's not a foul on A2. He didn't do anything wrong at all.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1030198)
Yes I meant offense in that spot.

So say you have 3 players running parallel

A1 A2 B1

B1 then wants to guard A1 and turns to go guard A1 but makes contact with A2 who is still moving in the same path he/she is. You would call this a foul whereas I say it's not a foul on A2. He didn't do anything wrong at all.


First, A2 is not moving in the same path as anyone. They're parallel paths, not the same one. If they're in the same path, then A2 need not stop if B1 is following in that path.

A2's movement is continuing to cut off B1's path to A1. A2 must follow the rules for screening. What ever path B1 attempts to take to A1, A2 must be in it 1-2 steps before B1 reaches the spot, not just before.

What you have just described is a textbook illegal screen. It usually happens across the top but it isn't any different just because they're running down the court.

deecee Wed Feb 13, 2019 07:29am

I respectfully disagree. No where does it say that an offensive player must stop movement simply because a defender is about to cross paths with them. The 1-2 steps caveat is in relations to the setting of a screen, not a decree that an offensive player must give a defender 1-2 steps leeway of any contact.

Nevadaref Wed Feb 13, 2019 07:50am

Camron is right.
Offensive players cannot be running around the court and causing collisions with defensive players who are attempting to reach the ballhandler. That is an illegal screen.

Picture the NFL “pick play” in which two wide receivers cross. During this movement one WR runs into the defensive back who is attempting to guard another WR. This leaves the second WR open to receive a pass. This is illegal in football (offensive pass interference) and is also an illegal screen on a basketball court.

In order to be legal in a basketball game A2 must come to a stop before contact occurs. Also, as Camron has stated, A2 must come to a stop and give B1 1 or 2 strides because B1 is a moving opponent. If B1 were stationary, A2 can stop anywhere short of contact with the opponent, except when behind him and then he must give 1 step.

The onus is on the offensive player to stop in a basketball game. The reason is that defenders need to be allowed to move in order to guard. This is the very reason why we have screening rules. If we didn’t, then non-ballhandlers on offense would simply run into the defenders and knock them down or away from the ballhandler.

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1030210)
I respectfully disagree. No where does it say that an offensive player must stop movement simply because a defender is about to cross paths with them. The 1-2 steps caveat is in relations to the setting of a screen, not a decree that an offensive player must give a defender 1-2 steps leeway of any contact.

The main point you're missing is that it IS a screen. There is no specific intent required for it to be a screen. It is a screen by nature of its effect.

Kansas Ref Wed Feb 13, 2019 03:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1030058)
Are there any fouls you can call that don't involve contact? What are those fouls and do they apply here?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

*Well, I have observed that sometimes officials are goaded into calling the non-existent but culturally-prevalent "reaching-in" pseudo-foul when Bx is defending ball-handler Ax. Bx is maintaining their LGP but also striking at the "air-space" of the dribbled ball while trying to disrupt or steal the ball--but NEVER making contact with the arm/hand/torso of Ax. I've seen officials call this a foul when no contact is made.

ChuckS Wed Feb 13, 2019 03:40pm

Playing Devil's Advocate, based on the recent posts by DeeCee and Camron and NevadaRef:

A1, standing still at the top of the FT semi-circle, unguarded, dribbling. Cutter A2 runs parallel to the end line, through the FT lane. B1, standing near the basket, sees A2 begin his cut, and tries to draw an illegal screen call by timing his approach to "guard" A1, so that he collides with A2....illegal screen?

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2019 04:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckS (Post 1030254)
Playing Devil's Advocate, based on the recent posts by DeeCee and Camron and NevadaRef:

A1, standing still at the top of the FT semi-circle, unguarded, dribbling. Cutter A2 runs parallel to the end line, through the FT lane. B1, standing near the basket, sees A2 begin his cut, and tries to draw an illegal screen call by timing his approach to "guard" A1, so that he collides with A2....illegal screen?

Yes....or No.

You have to determine where B1 is trying to get to.

Is B1 chucking a cutter preventing A1 from getting somewhere and committing a block in doing so or is B1 trying to defend A1 and A2 is illegally cutting of B1's path to A1.

Raymond Wed Feb 13, 2019 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1030253)
*Well, I have observed that sometimes officials are goaded into calling the non-existent but culturally-prevalent "reaching-in" pseudo-foul when Bx is defending ball-handler Ax. Bx is maintaining their LGP but also striking at the "air-space" of the dribbled ball while trying to disrupt or steal the ball--but NEVER making contact with the arm/hand/torso of Ax. I've seen officials call this a foul when no contact is made.

That may be true by improper application, but it is not true by rule book. There are no "non-contact" personal fouls. So a screener may be in the way from end line to end line, but as long as there is no contact there can be no illegal screen.

Raymond Wed Feb 13, 2019 04:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1030258)
Yes....or No.

You have to determine where B1 is trying to get to.

Is B1 chucking a cutter preventing A1 from getting somewhere and committing a block in doing so or is B1 trying to defend A1 and A2 is illegally cutting of B1's path to A1.

NCAA-Men's wants us to call a double foul if the defender "blows up" an illegal screener.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1