Shoulder Width Screen ???

[BillyMac]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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

[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.

[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 bob jenkins

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

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

[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

[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 bucky

Must there be contact?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's the way it should have been called.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is where the contact takes place that matters, not just the set up of the screener.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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

[JRutledge]

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?

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

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

[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.