High school rule: player entitled to his space on the floor

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

Okay. Well an extended leg into the path is an obvious foul if that's where the contact is. I was thinking more about OIC on a screener torso with their legs outside plane vs. OIC on a defender torso with their legs outside plane, as well as a defender sliding to move outside their plane but not into the path.

And essentially a "prone player foul" is only a foul...if it's actually a foul.

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

We've stretched outside of the OP but this is good discussion.
The last few posts have got me thinking more about that part you mentioned there in bold.

If A1 is setting a screen with their legs well outside of their normal stance, and B1 makes 'legal' torso contact with A1...it shouldn't really matter where A1's legs are as they really don't have any impact on the contact made vs. if A1 was setting the screen with his legs inside shoulder width
I'm not trying to pick apart the rules/case book on what is/isn't a foul or what we've come to know as fouls...but it's just interesting to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

We've stretched outside of the OP but this is good discussion.
The last few posts have got me thinking more about that part you mentioned there in bold.

If A1 is setting a screen with their legs well outside of their normal stance, and B1 makes 'legal' torso contact with A1...it shouldn't really matter where A1's legs are as they really don't have any impact on the contact made vs. if A1 was setting the screen with his legs inside shoulder width
I'm not trying to pick apart the rules/case book on what is/isn't a foul or what we've come to know as fouls...but it's just interesting to me.

Then it is a legal screen. I haven't seen anyone argue that it isn't. I have the same principle for screeners and defenders, if their legs are outside their base but contact is to their torso, they were legal.

What I have a problem with is contact occurring to the legs of a screener/defender with their legs outside of their base and officials deeming the screener/defender to be legal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Then it is a legal screen. I haven't seen anyone argue that it isn't. I have the same principle for screeners and defenders, if their legs are outside their base but contact is to their torso, they were legal.

I have, several times. There are many that read the statement that says a screeners legs must be no more shoulder width for the screen to be legal as an absolute regardless of where or how contact occurs.