|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
|||
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 Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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:
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 Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Tue Feb 12, 2019 at 04:10pm. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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 Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
*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.
|
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
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 Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
NCAA-Men's wants us to call a double foul if the defender "blows up" an illegal screener.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
Bookmarks |
|
|
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 |