Shoulder Width Screen ???

[bucky]

Wow, posters here sure are confusing. How can I be dead wrong...or even wrong... when I agreed with everyone? Not one time did I indicate an illegal screen should be called without contact. I merely asked questions about it...literal questions. Furthermore, I indicated, more than once, that I was not disputing anyone and that my focus was on this situation (an illegal position) being one that carried no written penalty. I even went so far as to ask if anyone could think of others...repeatedly. No one responded to that but yet, they kept going on about the illegal screen concern.

Strange responses folks. Look at the words typed. Of course, I have been through this many times on this site. People read into things without focusing on the actual words.

I've been gone too long. Now I recall what I was missing.

Issue closed. Thanks for feedback.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... my focus was on this situation (an illegal position) being one that carried no written penalty. I even went so far as to ask if anyone could think of others...repeatedly. No one responded to that but yet, they kept going on about the illegal screen concern.

This was as close as I could get to a similar situation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But with no contact, it's not a foul, and I doubt that it will ever be a violation (like excessive swinging of elbows with no contact).

And I did try to understand bucky's concerns, offering an olive branch, so to speak.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

An offensive player setting a screen in an illegal position (extra wise stance, extended knees, extended elbows, moving) is gaining an advantage when a defensive player is forced, avoiding contact, to go the "long way" around such an illegal position screen.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This was as close as I could get to a similar situation.

You were thinking in terms of a similar action that can be penalized without contact. That is not the goal.

The goal was to find a similar action, as far as being illegal, but without a written penalty. It is illegal to position oneself in that wide stance, however, there is no written penalty for it. So, is there any other defined, illegal activity/action for which there is no written penalty? I previously suggested another example being the scorer not wearing a striped shirt. The rulebook states that it is mandatory but yet there is no written penalty. With regards to the screen, it is illegal to position oneself a certain way but yet, there is no written penalty.

Are there any other such items that are deemed illegal/required/mandatory, in any way, that carry no written penalty? That was my aim. I will admit, it should probably have been a new/different/other thread entirely. (I may have had one a looong time ago)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

You were thinking in terms of a similar action that can be penalized without contact. That is not the goal.



The goal was to find a similar action, as far as being illegal, but without a written penalty. It is illegal to position oneself in that wide stance, however, there is no written penalty for it. So, is there any other defined, illegal activity/action for which there is no written penalty? I previously suggested another example being the scorer not wearing a striped shirt. The rulebook states that it is mandatory but yet there is no written penalty. With regards to the screen, it is illegal to position oneself a certain way but yet, there is no written penalty.



Are there any other such items that are deemed illegal/required/mandatory, in any way, that carry no written penalty? That was my aim. I will admit, it should probably have been a new/different/other thread entirely. (I may have had one a looong time ago)

A screen is only a screen if there is contact.

Don't know if it's still in the rule or case book, but I do remember seeing words written to that effect concerning "moving screens" in regards to them only being illegal if there is contact.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... concerning "moving screens" in regards to them only being illegal if there is contact.

Agree 100%.

Been that way for forty-plus years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Wow, posters here sure are confusing. How can I be dead wrong...or even wrong... when I agreed with everyone? Not one time did I indicate an illegal screen should be called without contact. I merely asked questions about it...literal questions. Furthermore, I indicated, more than once, that I was not disputing anyone and that my focus was on this situation (an illegal position) being one that carried no written penalty. I even went so far as to ask if anyone could think of others...repeatedly. No one responded to that but yet, they kept going on about the illegal screen concern.

Strange responses folks. Look at the words typed. Of course, I have been through this many times on this site. People read into things without focusing on the actual words.

I've been gone too long. Now I recall what I was missing.

Issue closed. Thanks for feedback.

I am trying to understand why a technical foul was invoked in this conversation. Why would someone even mention that as if that is something that should be part of this conversation? That to me is the weird part, not responding and saying that is inappropriate for the situation. I have no idea whatsoever why someone would mention a technical and then get mad when everyone clearly was stating that was not the appropriate penalty or application.

Peace