The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 01:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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?
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 03:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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).
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 04:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Tue Feb 12, 2019 at 04:10pm.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 07:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 07:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 07:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,645
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 03:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 151
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?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckS View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:24pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
*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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:26pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Screen or Not APG Basketball 43 Tue Jun 19, 2012 05:08pm
Illegal Screen? stiffler3492 Basketball 8 Mon Feb 20, 2012 07:47pm
Illegal screen or not? dave30 Basketball 3 Fri Nov 14, 2008 07:31am
illegal Screen johnyd Basketball 7 Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:20am
Illegal Screen slickrick Basketball 5 Tue Mar 20, 2001 03:25pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1