Screen....on all fours

[Larks]

Please hold back the "doggy style" references!

Yes, it happened....not in my game!

Rec Ball so NF if you please...

A2 intentionally goes to all fours in the lane out ahead of a fast break in front A1 who has the ball and B1 guarding him. I suppose not seeing A2, B1 falls over him and the offensive player goes around for an easy layup.

I am sure we would all call this illegal / borderline unsportsman.

NF sez:....RULE 10 SECTION 6 CONTACT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Anyone see a specific reference that could be a better rule that covers this?

Larks


[Edited by Larks on Feb 23rd, 2004 at 02:56 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Larks
Anyone see a specific reference that could be a better rule that covers this?
Larks

Yes. NF 11.1 - "No player or animal on the court shall be on all fours except in donkey basketball games."

[Larks]

Followup....whats your penalty here?

Book sez: PENALTY: Personal Foul (Section 6) Offender is charged with one foul, and if it is his/her fifth foul (personal and technical) or if it is flagrant, he/she is disqualified.

I know you gotta see it. This smells kinda flagrant.

[Larks]

Ok, I've now been told that the official passed on the call (DOH) despite the fact that he observed them "practicing" this play in pregame warmups.

Their question to me was "should we have stuck the coach" as well. I dont see where a personal foul of this nature also brings a penalty on the coach.

Thoughts?

[Adam]

Originally posted by Larks
Ok, I've now been told that the official passed on the call (DOH) despite the fact that he observed them "practicing" this play in pregame warmups.

Their question to me was "should we have stuck the coach" as well. I dont see where a personal foul of this nature also brings a penalty on the coach.

Thoughts?

I can't see sticking the coach. I see a few options. (1) PF for an illegal screen. Player only has that part of the vertical plane that is directly above his/her feet. (2)Intentional foul. (3) Unsportsmanlike T (4) 3 seconds; I might be inclined to call this if there was no contact (ie, B1 sees the "screen" and stops or goes around or leaps over it). If coach complains, I'd inform him he's lucky I didn't T his player.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Larks
A2 intentionally goes to all fours in the lane out ahead of a fast break in front A1 who has the ball and B1 guarding him. I suppose not seeing A2, B1 falls over him and the offensive player goes around for an easy layup.
[Edited by Larks on Feb 23rd, 2004 at 02:56 PM]

I'd call it "intentional tripping."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Larks
Please hold back the "doggy style" references!

Yes, it happened....not in my game!

Rec Ball so NF if you please...

A2 intentionally goes to all fours in the lane out ahead of a fast break in front A1 who has the ball and B1 guarding him. I suppose not seeing A2, B1 falls over him and the offensive player goes around for an easy layup.

I am sure we would all call this illegal / borderline unsportsman.

NF sez:....RULE 10 SECTION 6 CONTACT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Anyone see a specific reference that could be a better rule that covers this?

Larks


[Edited by Larks on Feb 23rd, 2004 at 02:56 PM]

From the NFHS 2003-04 Rules R4-S39:
A1: A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
A2: To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and same direction.
A3: When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
A4: When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.
A5: When screening moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance not need to be more than two strides.
A6: When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener is moving, the opponent is responsible for contact if the screener slows up or stops.


A player is entitled to any spot on the floor, provided he gets to that spot according to the rules. As long as A2 did not violate any provision of R4-S39, then I believe that he is not guilty of a blocking foul.

[One-Whistle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
From the NFHS 2003-04 Rules R4-S39:
A1: A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
A2: To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and same direction.
A3: When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
A4: When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.
A5: When screening moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance not need to be more than two strides.
A6: When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener is moving, the opponent is responsible for contact if the screener slows up or stops.

A player is entitled to any spot on the floor, provided he gets to that spot according to the rules. As long as A2 did not violate any provision of R4-S39, then I believe that he is not guilty of a blocking foul.

How about R4 Sec 23 Art 2:
... to obtain legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have BOTH FEET touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso MUST BE FACING the opponent.

[footlocker]

MTD, your wrong. This play is wrong. The coach and the players involved are wrong. This is not basketball and for MTD to allow the play and justify by the rules is flat wrong. (Sorry I'm coming on so harsh here.)

Your dangerously close to being labeled a "book referee." (unless you have been labeled this already) This play is unfair, unethical and dishonorable conduct. However, I know that is a definition of a non-contact unsporting foul. So, I could call the kids for simlpy trying it- after all the ref saw them practicing the play. (BTW-preventative maintenance- got to tell them if they try this it will be penalized, then no situation)

If you only reflect the book and no common sense then you have a problem as an official. If the screen was a good idea then why not stay standing? Reason, there was intent to harm and embarrass. This equates to taunting. "T".

You have to call this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by One-Whistle


How about R4 Sec 23 Art 2:
... to obtain legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have BOTH FEET touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso MUST BE FACING the opponent.

While I do agree with you in principal on this play, a player that is screening is NOT guarding. They are two different actions. Guarding, as defined, is done only by defensive players. A screener is NEVER required to be facing the opponent.

I do believe the intent of screening is that the screener be standing. We call it a block anytime an opponent runs into a screener's extended hip, arm, leg. So, a player on all fours is not in a valid screening position. When the opponenent hits them, I've got a block.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by footlocker
MTD, your wrong. Your dangerously close to being labeled a "book referee." (unless you have been labeled this already)

Gee, do you think?

Z

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by One-Whistle

How about R4 Sec 23 Art 2:
... to obtain legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have BOTH FEET touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso MUST BE FACING the opponent.

One-Whistle:

The play in this thread is about screening not guarding. Therefore, R4-S23-A2 does not apply, in fact all of R4-S23 does not apply to this play.

MTD, Sr.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Yes. NF 11.1 - "No player or animal on the court shall be on all fours except in donkey basketball games."

Which is the same as rec ball

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Larks

A2 intentionally goes to all fours in the lane out ahead of a fast break in front A1 who has the ball and B1 guarding him. I suppose not seeing A2, B1 falls over him and the offensive player goes around for an easy layup.

Sure looks like an illegal screen to me!

[Back In The Saddle]

Not only is this behavior "unbasketball-like" in it's nature, but from the description sounds like it is possible to cut a players legs out from under him and injure him. I would be inclinded to issue an immediate T for this behavior based on the potential danger. Call it unsportsmanlike behavior. Would I be over-reacting?

Also, if it were observed in practice, a word to the coach would have been appropriate, IMO.