Fun With Screens ...

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...s0WMxB6sPU.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is not an illegal screen.

This is a challenging play. Black #33 in the high post attempts to set a screen on white #11 to help a teammate attempt a 3-point attempt. Black #33 initial screening stance is wider than shoulder-width, and is moving to her right when the defender is attempting to get under the screen to defend the try.

The rule states, the screener must be stationary, except when both the screener and opponent are moving in the same path and the same direction. (4-40-2c) So, therefore, the fact that Black #33 is moving while attempting to screen makes this an illegal screening position. As we have discussed before, the severity of contact is not a factor in screening situations. If the screener is moving and contact occurs, which impedes the defender, it is a foul.

So was there contact that illegally impeded the defender? In our humble opinion, the screener (despite being in an illegal position by moving while attempting to screen) did not cause contact that impeded the defender. However, it should be noted that this opinion is in the minority. 56% of respondents believe the screener did cause contact that impeded the defender and therefore have rules support to rule a team control foul on this play.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is an illegal screen 57% (including me). This is not an illegal screen 43%.

[JRutledge]

Nothing. I see no contact and certainly no displacement.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nothing. I see no contact and certainly no displacement.

Peace

Agree...it had the potential for being an illegal screen, but when the defender chose to go around it without contact that impeded the defender, it can't be a foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... it had the potential for being an illegal screen, but when the defender chose to go around it without contact that impeded the defender, it can't be a foul.

Anybody who's officiated basketball a lick knows what the fans in the cheap seats are yelling.

"Moving screen".