Fun With Moving Screens …

[Raymond]

If there was contact preventing the defender from moving the direction he wanted to go, definitely an illegal screen. I cannot see from this camera angle if that's the case.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I got nothing.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

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

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...MzuN2FiaOW.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a legal play.

This is an interesting play. Blue #12 is moving around the perimeter in an attempt to screen his opponents. By rule, 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 Blue #12 has clearly violated that aspect of the screening principles.

But there is another aspect that needs to occur for a foul to have been committed. By definition, A screen is a legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

There is no question; there are times throughout the sequence that Blue #12 is moving and in the way of defensive players as they attempt to play defense. But, are the defensive players prevented from reaching a desired position because of contact by Blue #12?

After Blue #12 passes the ball, he steps directly toward White #24. He and his opponent both stop and have their hands raised in a vertical position. This is legal incidental contact. White #24 uses his hands to contact Blue #12, as White #24 steps to his right. After the White #24 steps to his right, Blue #12 turns and faces White #24. Once again, White #24 appears to extend his hands toward Blue #12, and Blue #12 appears to be displaced. Blue #12 then proceeds to slide right, then slide left, and then back to the right to stay in front of White #24. On each occasion, White #24 appears to stop and change direction without making an effort to get around the screener.

There is no question that Blue #12 was not in a legal screening position at times during this play. However, the primary teaching point of this play is there still needs to be contact that inhibits the opponent for a foul to occur.

If (and it is a big if) White #24 was stopping before contact and changing direction, then a foul has not been committed. 72% of respondents do believe that White #24 was illegally contacted and foul has been committed by Blue #12 on this play.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is an illegal screen 72%. This is a legal play 28% (including me).