Fun With Moving Screens …
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

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

Is this an illegal screen? Observe the actions of the player (Blue No. 12). Is this a legal screening action by this player? Are the officials in proper position to view this play? Who is responsible for viewing the action?

Two choices: This is an illegal screen. This is a legal play.

My comment: This is a legal play. All the movement by Blue #12 is just short of contact.

There was one time there was a borderline screen. I am not likely calling any of these without the defender doing something to get into position. The defenders simply give up when the screener is in front of them. Legal play.

Peace

Defensive Pressure ???
 

Thought the same thing. Certainly not great defensive pressure. Defender made it easy for the screener, easy for the ball handler, and easy for the officials.

moving screen? yes Illegal screen? No Without contact you cannot have an illegal screen. In the video I do not see enough contact if any to warrant a call

I'm surprised "Technical foul for waving one's hands in front of a defensive player's face" wasn't one of the choices.

Bleacher Bums ...
 

Tell that to the fans in the cheap seats.

or most coaches

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

I realize that bob jenkins was just kidding, but for the greater good of the cause:

10-4-6-D: A player must not: Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes. Note: Purposely diverting an opponent’s attention by waving is different than holding or waving the hands near the opponent’s eyes for the express purpose of obstructing the vision so that he/she cannot see.

2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules Points Of Emphasis
Specific unsporting acts. The committee is concerned about the following specific unsporting acts. Coaches, players and officials must pay particular attention to these areas:
Face guarding. A new rule change that calls for a technical foul for face guarding regardless of whether or not the offended player has the ball calls attention to the problem. The NFHS first defined face guarding as illegal in 1913. The rules have essentially been unchanged and have received varying degrees of emphasis through the century. Face guarding is defined in rule 10-3-7d as purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes. The penalty is a technical foul. Face guarding could occur with a single hand and a player's hand(s) do not have to be waving; the hand(s) could be stationary but still restrict the opponent's vision. The committee does not intend for good defense to be penalized. Challenging a shooter with a 'hand in the face' or fronting a post player with a hand in the air to prevent a post pass are examples of acceptable actions. The rule and point of emphasis is designed to penalize actions that are clearly not related to playing the game of basketball properly and that intentionally restrict vision. Often, that occurs off the ball or as players are moving up the court in transition.

I've only seen this activity by a single player, a high school friend of mine who, in gym class games (we called it gym back then, not physical education), always ended up guarding me and who always did this to me, always with two hands. It was so damn irritating that I often swatted his hands away like a mosquito. It really didn't block my vision much, but it was distracting, which was probably his intent, and it worked.

Every time I come across 10-4-6-D in the rulebook, I think of him from over fifty years ago. The NFHS should probably put a picture of him next to the rule in the rulebook.

Over fifty years of playing, coaching, and officiating, and I've never seen anybody come even close to doing this except for him.

So it he touched him would we have an Intentional or Flagrant foul as well? :D

Peace

and down the rabbit hole we go

My point is that both are equally (un)acceptable calls in this situation.

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

I got nothing.

MTD, Sr.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

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).