Shoulder Width Screen ???

[JRutledge]

That is how it called that I am aware. It is where the contact takes place that matters, not just the set up of the screener.

Peace

[bucky]

Must there be contact?

A1 sets a screen with their legs spread very far apart. This forces a defender to completely change their path by moving in a wide motion, to avoid contact. This allows the offense player to easily get open.

Illegal screen even without contact?

[Robert Goodman]

I used to play with my feet close together and my knees far apart.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I used to play with my feet close together and my knees far apart.

10-7-1 Contact: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

I call illegal screens all the time for contact with extended knees and extended elbows.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I used to play with my feet close together and my knees far apart.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

Must there be contact?

A1 sets a screen with their legs spread very far apart. This forces a defender to completely change their path by moving in a wide motion, to avoid contact. This allows the offense player to easily get open.

Illegal screen even without contact?

All personal fouls involve contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

Must there be contact?



A1 sets a screen with their legs spread very far apart. This forces a defender to completely change their path by moving in a wide motion, to avoid contact. This allows the offense player to easily get open.



Illegal screen even without contact?

Defensive player swings his hand wildly to block a shot. Offensive player changes the shot to avoid the contact. Should we call a defensive foul without contact?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

All personal fouls involve contact.

Could it be considered a technical foul (non-contact) then?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Defensive player swings his hand wildly to block a shot. Offensive player changes the shot to avoid the contact. Should we call a defensive foul without contact?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, as this was a defensive player and there was nothing illegal by the swinging. In the previous example, it was done by the offense and the screen was illegal based on definition.

If the extra-wide stance is illegal but nothing can be called without contact, is this an instance whereby we have an illegal action in the rulebook but no penalty? (I can think of only one other instance)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

Could it be considered a technical foul (non-contact) then?

Only if you think it's somehow "unsporting" -- and this example doesn't fit with any of the other examples of "unsporting" in the rules book.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Only if you think it's somehow "unsporting" -- and this example doesn't fit with any of the other examples of "unsporting" in the rules book.

Under Section 19 article 5 (technical foul) there is no mention of "unsporting".

Unsporting fouls are defined under article 14:

"ART. 14 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which
consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in
accordance with the spirit of fair play"

Do you not consider being in an illegal position to be "behavior not in accordance with fair play" or "unfair conduct"?

Other actions considered to be unfair have written penalties and we adjudicate accordingly. Again, I would ask, is this an instance of illegal play that is not penalized? So far, some are suggesting yes. If so, an occurrence of that is very rare...as in perhaps argued by some as being the only instance of this in the rule book. (the requirement of the scorer wearing stripes might be argued as anther instance but that is a different thread)

Originally Posted by Raymond

A screen is only a screen when there's contact. Otherwise it's just somebody standing on the court somewhere.

If a defender is in an illegal guarding position and the offensive player goes around them, are you using that same philosophy to call a foul?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I like your logic Raymond, and I officiate it the way everyone has described so far. I still feel your case is not quite the same situation. In your case, a player' illegal position does not penalize the opponent. In the case I described, the player's position does penalize the opponent.


I am merely trying to determine if this is a case of an illegal activity that has no documented penalty. It appears to be the case. A player can break a rule and not be penalized within the rule book.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

under section 19 article 5 (technical foul) there is no mention of "unsporting".

Unsporting fouls are defined under article 14:

10-4

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

Could it be considered a technical foul (non-contact) then?




No, as this was a defensive player and there was nothing illegal by the swinging. In the previous example, it was done by the offense and the screen was illegal based on definition.

If the extra-wide stance is illegal but nothing can be called without contact, is this an instance whereby we have an illegal action in the rulebook but no penalty? (I can think of only one other instance)

A screen is only a screen when there's contact. Otherwise it's just somebody standing on the court somewhere.

If a defender is in an illegal guarding position and the offensive player goes around them, are you using that same philosophy to call a foul?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Could it be considered a technical foul (non-contact) then?

Setting a screen, even a bad one is not unsporting behavior.

Originally Posted by bucky

No, as this was a defensive player and there was nothing illegal by the swinging. In the previous example, it was done by the offense and the screen was illegal based on definition.

If the extra-wide stance is illegal but nothing can be called without contact, is this an instance whereby we have an illegal action in the rulebook but no penalty? (I can think of only one other instance)

There is no penalty for things that do not cause illegal contact. Just like the example of swinging hard but missing the player on a block attempt is not a foul either. You do not call a foul for something that would only be illegal if there was contact but there is no actual contact. You are way overthinking this.

Peace

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

10-4

Unsure why this is mentioned as this is for team technical....unsporting behavior is also under player technical. ???

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Setting a screen, even a bad one is not unsporting behavior.

There is no penalty for things that do not cause illegal contact. Just like the example of swinging hard but missing the player on a block attempt is not a foul either. You do not call a foul for something that would only be illegal if there was contact but there is no actual contact. You are way overthinking this.

Peace

Unsporting behavior is subjective.

Perhaps I am overthinking but I also think maybe you are over simplifying.

Your blanket comments

"Just like the example of swinging hard but missing the player on a block attempt is not a foul either. You do not call a foul for something that would only be illegal if there was contact but there is no actual contact."

do not seem accurate. We know of excessively blocking a shot is called as an infraction even though no contact was made with the shooter. Also, swinging a punch, without contact, is also certainly penalized.

These are 2 examples of calling fouls without any contact being made. I get your point...applying those blanket statements during "normal" course of play. Makes perfect sense. But also remember my point, no to dispute what you are communicating, but rather to see if anyone else can think of a situation where doing something illegal is not penalized by written rule.

Anyone? Can anyone think of one or some? Billy? Rule book experts?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Unsporting behavior is subjective.

Perhaps I am overthinking but I also think maybe you are over simplifying.

It is not totally subjective. We have standards for what is unsporting and doing something that is common in the game does not result in a technical foul because we just say it does personally. You will not find any support that you have an illegal screen that involves no contact and then results in a technical for unsporting behavior. If you do, let me know what that reference is or tell me how that would be received by a supervisor that you potentially eject or disqualify a player because they set a bad screen with no contact.

Originally Posted by bucky

Your blanket comments

"Just like the example of swinging hard but missing the player on a block attempt is not a foul either. You do not call a foul for something that would only be illegal if there was contact but there is no actual contact."

do not seem accurate. We know of excessively blocking a shot is called as an infraction even though no contact was made with the shooter. Also, swinging a punch, without contact, is also certainly penalized.

There is no violation of any rule that says that is an infraction of any kind. Swinging elbows is, but that has a rule specifically addressing that situation. There is no such infraction or violation of any rule for trying to block a shot and not making any contact. Again, this is a good time to look up such a reference if you do not believe me.

Originally Posted by bucky

These are 2 examples of calling fouls without any contact being made. I get your point...applying those blanket statements during "normal" course of play. Makes perfect sense. But also remember my point, no to dispute what you are communicating, but rather to see if anyone else can think of a situation where doing something illegal is not penalized by written rule.

You have three veteran officials who have been doing this for over 2 decades each telling you what you should not consider, so I guess if that is not good enough that is fine. But I can tell you that it is very unlikely someone is going to say a foul takes place without contact. Even a technical foul that involves contact can only happen during a dead ball. The other actions are spelled out with either language or attempting to fight. Setting a bad screen is not in that category. But hey if that is what you believe, I guess. LOL!!!!

Originally Posted by bucky

Anyone? Can anyone think of one or some? Billy? Rule book experts?

Peace