Fun With Screens ...

[BillyMac]

Is this an illegal screen? Observe the play and make a judgment if there is an illegal screen set to free up the jump shooter.

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

Two choices: This is an illegal screen. This is not an illegal screen

My comment: This is an illegal screen. Black #33 took a step to her right and made illegal contact with defender White #11.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My comment: This is an illegal screen. Black #33 took a step to her right and made illegal contact with defender White #11.

Center had a great look and passed, so I have no problem with anybody else passing on this play. Tough call for me. Probably depends on what's already happened in the game, what's been called, and what hasn't been called.

[Valley Man]

Probably a "Hey make sure you are set on your screens" from me

[bob jenkins]

Contact allowing black to get an uncontested 3-point try. Illegal screen.

[Camron Rust]

I'm not sure there was any contact that impeded the defender. It looks like she saw the screen and avoided it. At most, she touched the screen with her hands, but it was her own actions that rerouted her.

[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".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not sure there was any contact that impeded the defender. It looks like she saw the screen and avoided it. At most, she touched the screen with her hands, but it was her own actions that rerouted her.

And that is how I think in general we should call them. Many times players set bad screens, but the screened player or mostly the defender alters their own route, which causes no displacement. I do not reward an illegal screen unless the screened player is knocked off of their spot. But if they choose to not keep going or stop short of any significant contact, let it go. Kind of like a holding foul in football, where the defender has to do something (or the offensive player often in the secondary) to get away. If you give up, not giving you anything.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Many times players set bad screens ...

... And sometimes the teammate using the screen uses the screen poorly, allowing too much space for a defender to squeeze through, which often results in the screener moving to adjust to close up that extra space.

As officials we can often predict these situations from a mile away, and prepare to watch for illegal movement and, possibly, subsequent illegal contact.

As a coach, I used to ask my players who didn't use screens properly, "Did you really want to lose your defender?".

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... And sometimes the teammate using the screen uses the screen poorly, allowing too much space for a defender to squeeze through, which often results in the screener moving to adjust to close up that extra space.

Exactly, BillyMac: 100% my observation, too. Years ago, I used to see the dribbler pass by the screener nearly touching shoulders. Nowadays, I see enough real estate between teammates that I expect to see a "For Rent" sign appear in that space.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Years ago, I used to see the dribbler pass by the screener nearly touching shoulders.

Back in the mid-twentieth century, when I was in high school, we were taught to use screens with teammates "rubbing" shoulder against shoulder.

That's Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. in the upper right hand photo, demonstrating his two hand set shot.

[Raymond]

I don't think the screener prevents the defender from doing what she wants to do, which is going under the screener.

I think if she contests over the top and there is even slight contact, then I'm far more apt to lean towards calling a foul.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk