Shoulder Width Screen ???
 

IAABO (not the NFHS) came out with an interesting ruling on a recent "Make The Call" play:

For a player to establish a legal screening position, They must ensure their feet are no more than shoulder‑width apart (NFHS 4-40).

In this play, the screener's feet are clearly wider than shoulder width, which would seem to support a team-control foul being ruled on this play.

The NFHS Rules Committee recently approved a new rule interpretation that supports a screen to be legal, (even if the screener's stance is wider than shoulder width), if the only contact that occurs is on the screener's torso.

So beginning with the 2024-25 season, the contact we see in this clip will be legal incidental contact.

If the contact occurs below the torso in the leg area, the contact will continue to be illegal if the freedom of movement of the player being screened is inhibited.

It will be important for officials to learn this new interpretation, which will be supported through a casebook play. The rule itself will not change, which could be misleading.

We hope this play summary helps you apply this new interpretation accurately to this type of screening situation going forward.

That's the way it should have been called -- and was common here.

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

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?

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

All personal fouls involve contact.

That's always how I've been taught to call it and how I have taught others.

Sometimes it takes a while for the rules makers to catch up with common sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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

Contact ...
 

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.

Moving Screen ...
 

Don't hear it from coaches and fans as much as in ancient times, but officials used to get complaints about "Moving screens" when there was no contact.

Guess they finally wisened up.

A moving screen is not in and of itself a foul; illegal contact must occur for a foul to be called.

Extra Extra Wide ...
 

Nice to finally have it in "writing", especially for those extra extra wide feet screens, where the coach says, "That has to be illegal".

No. And if he makes no attempt to get around that player and help cause the contact it would be nothing as well. ;)

Peace

Michael Scott (The Office) ...
 

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)

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.

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

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)



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.

10-4

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

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


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?

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.

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. ;)

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!!!!

:rolleyes:

Peace

Throwing a punch and missing is a flagrant technical foul, like almost every other technical foul, it does not require contact. Throwing a punch and missing cannot be a flagrant personal foul because flagrant personal fouls require contact. Thus neither example from Bucky is relevant. Where I officiate, a person's career would last about the length of a game if they started penalizing illegal screens without there being contact.

NFHS 10-4 is Player Technical (at least in 22-23; the latest book I have handy at the moment). And, one of the articles references unsporting fouls. A wide screen with no contact is not one of them

Illegal Position Advantage ..
 

bucky is dead wrong, but I get what he's saying.

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.

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).

I get your position bucky, but you're dead wrong.

It's no different than a defender standing with his legs wide apart and his arms out stretched to his sides like a cross and the offensive player deciding to go around.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No Contact, No Foul ...
 

Exactly, certainly an illegal position, but also certainly not a foul without contact.

Some players don't know how to set legal screens.

Some players don't know how to use legal screens.

Some players don't know how to create illegal contact that will benefit them to their advantage, they shy away from such illegal contact (go around it).

And, of course, some players are trying to win Academy Awards.

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.:)

Excessive Swinging, No Contact, Illegal ...
 

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

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

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

This has always been the case. The interpretation is just clarifying the rule (not changing it) because there were a number of people promoting incorrect interpretations that suggested a screener contacted in the torso be called for a foul if their foot was too wide. An extended leg for screening (or for guarding) only matters and has only ever mattered if that is where contact occurs.

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

Moving Screens ...
 

Agree 100%.

Been that way for forty-plus years.