I've always found it interesting to watch players at the younger levels as they set screens and the defenders as they deal with the screen. Yes, some will practically tackle the defender as he passes. "How could it be a foul on me? My team has the ball!" But other times the defender will oblige and run in a big wide arc to avoid the screener, and naturally, sometimes the screener will follow and almost herd the defender right off the court. This, of course, leads to yells from the "knowledgeable" coaches and parents: "Moving screen! He can't do that!" I have explained this several times this year that, yes, he can do that, as long as there is no contact. This gave me an idea.
(Yes, I do get ideas.) Take your best ballhandler, put your widest body in front of him, and have the two of them turn the corner and take it right to the hoop. A kind of a power sweep, if you will. I think there is at least a chance that the defense would part like the Red Sea and your
guy could shoot a layup. Has anyone ever seen anything close to this tried? Did it work? Could it work? Have I gone totally over the edge?

How is it on the other side of the edge?

It will depend on the knowledge and experience of the opposing coach. It will work sometimes... and not others.

I did it this year several times to break the press-kind of like the flying wedge <g>

Worked several times against fellow (very) weak teams.

Got our clock cleaned by most of the teams-must of been the coaching.

BTW-just finished my dual role of coaching youth league (above) and officiating again after a fifteen year layoff. Many props and thanks to all of you who have helped me be a MUCH better official than I was before I started participating in this forum.

Can't tell you how many times I have had situations that I read about here and end up using this forum as part of my personal pregame ritual before going to the site.

If anybody has info on officials camps in Raleigh/Central NC area, please let me know.

Chris

ROTFLMAO

See! Told ya!

Correct, no foul without contact.

I've seen little kids screen with their arms straight out. Kinda funny.

In coaching, the biggest problem I had with screens was the person that the screen was set for (dribbler or cutter), cuts or dribbles so wide that the defender can easily get through the screen. I told the players to 'take some skin', i.e., bump your teammate so that there is no room for the defender to get through. I see players at ALL levels fail to use a screen properly.

"It takes two people for a screen to be effective."

Green Bay sweep
 

A team of 3rd grade girls, and the coach had them run a power sweep to the right. His two biggest girls lined up in a mini stack just above the circle, and as the point dribbled up to them, they took off to the right, almost shoulder to shoulder, with the point guard dribbling right behind them. They would get a couple of fouls called early in a game, but the intimidation factor was so great that after a couple of times, the girls from the other teams would just run out of their way. After two games of doing this, the rec department got on the coach's case (in writing) and also told the officials (in writing) that this was considered unsportsmanlike conduct any any further use of it would be a "T".

I guess the guy went back to football, since he kind of dropped out of sight after that season.

Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Please tell me that the officialsm, after receiving the letter from rec. dept., that what the team was doing was legal and not unsportsmanlike conduct, and showed the rec. dept. the rule book.

Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by CYO Butch Please tell me that the officialsm, after receiving the letter from rec. dept., that what the team was doing was legal and not unsportsmanlike conduct, and showed the rec. dept. the rule book.

This is not the NFHS or NCAA here. Rec departments and rec leagues make up all sorts of rules on how a game is to be played and called.

MTD
Please tell me you don't think this is how you want third grade girls or boys to learn to play basketball. Pull this crap in HS and people will draw fouls, and you will stop doing this. But there is no reason to put third graders in a position of being told to stand in front of a freight train and take a charge for the team. They are not sufficiently skilled or experienced to have to deal with this kind of strategy, nor should they be. This isn't basketball as played at any level of the game. This is pure BS.

You really amaze me sometimes. This is clearly outside the spirit of the rules, is unsporting, and an inappropriate way to teach basketball to youth players. If you can't recognize this, you should stick to HS and skip the youth games. (This last piece for those who think we are a bunch of softies)

Amen
 

Of course the Green Bay Sweep is legal, per se, but it sure scared the heck out of those little girls. Hawks Coach, you, like many who post here, understand there is a HUGE difference between what goes on on behalf of the little ones and high school players for whom the official rules are written. The league in question (Montgomery County, MD, Department of Recreation) has a set of very explict guidelines for coach and parental behavior, playing time, etc. Their 3rd graders are not allowed to play zones. Imagine a little kid out there trying to guard their "man" when she is run over. Most of them really were terrified. This happened six years ago, but for the girls I worked with that year, they still remember playing in that game, how "dirty" the other team was, and how freightend they were when they saw the two" monsters" coming at them.

And by the way, MTD, just because it isn't illegal in the NFHS rule book doesn't mean it can't be unsportsmanlike. Do you think Dennis Rodman's intimidating behavior (choose your thug) in the NBA would be allowed in HS? There are age and level appropriate lines that shouldn't have to be spelled out in the book. For a league to give written guidance to the officials in it should be welcomed by the officials and should never deserve a rebuke from them. It is pretty common practice for youth leagues in general, and rec leagues in particular, to spell out differences from the NFHS book. In this case, the officials were glad to get the explicit direction so that it could be applied consistently by all of them.

I would like to think I could have called this without direction from the league, but would have welcomed this directive.
MTD, it's only legal if the league says it is. They could even redefine traveling if they wanted to.

In the structural engineering profession, a structural engineer is hired to design a building because he/she is the expert in designing buildings not the person who hired him/her. While the structural engineer is ethically required to put his client's needs before his/hers, that does not mean that he/she can ignore good engineering practice or design codes to give the client what he/she wants. If the client wants the building designed in such a way that would violate design codes or good engineering practice, the structural engineer is ethically required to ignore his/her client's desires.

How does the structural engineering example apply to the situation in this post. Simple, the basketball officials were hired by the recreation department because they are the experts in the rules of basketball and the mechanics of basketball officiating, and the recreation department is not. Just because the recreation department wants the game officials to ignore the rules, does not mean the game officials are to follow the recreation department's directive. The game officials have an ethical and professional duty to inform the recreation department that what it wants the game officials to do is in violation of the rules of basketball.

I know that there are officials in this post that thing that what the coach is doing is despicable, but having two players run down the court, shoulder-to-shoulder in front of the dribbler, is not an infraction of the rules. Yes, I know that recreation leagues draw up special rules for their leagues, such as running clock and stopped clock situations, timeouts per game, disqualification for a single unsportsmanlike technical foul, and such. But to attempt to charge a player with a technical foul for doing something that is legal under the rules is just wrong and a misguided attempt to enforce a psuedo sportsmanship rule.

From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English:

Officious (oh-fish-is) - adj - (1) Asserting authority in an overbearing way. (2) See above post.

Mark,

To ask you "How is it on the other side of the edge?" would not be appropriate at this time because in this case it is obvious you have gone over the edge and entered a BLACK HOLE.

Not that your answer was wrong per rule but for the fact your answer was wrong per the spirit and intent of the learning experience that the Governing Body wished to convey to it's members.

You need to rethink your "misguided attempt to enforce a pseudo-sportsmanship rule" quote.

1. In a few weeks you will be officiating in the Ohio Special Olympics State Basketball Tournament that I will be assigning. They play strictly NFHS rules with no modifications. Yet, I know over the course of the games you will ignore a traveling violation because the player with the ball has two deformed arms with only 2 fingers on each hand and is barely able to hold the ball let alone bounce it. My friend, I call that enforcing your own psuedo-sportmanship rule.

2. We have officiated in many venues in which the organizing authority has modified the rules so all players can gain a positive experience from their participation. You accepted those modifications and we had a great time officiating. It boggles my mind you would then instruct another official that it is his "ethical and professional duty" to tell the authorities that their modification violates the rule. Hint: they already know it; that's why they call it a rules modification. Bottom line is the officials better follow the rec dept directive because they are the bosses.

Finally, to equate engineers purposely ignoring design codes and building legalities with rec directors modifying rules of a "game' is just plain rediculous. (I think enough is said there so I will not elaborate).

I wish to reiterate to all on the forum that Mark is able to accept officiating in a venue that has modified the rules. He accepted the modifications and did not run to the organizers with his rule books in hand to show them the errors of their ways.

If the original attempt at blocking for the dribbler was my game I would be thinking "This is a good time for a multiple foul." I've never called one but this would be a great time to assess fouls on both blockers.

I might even be tempted to suggest to the battered coach that it is time to set up his own fence. "Run your two blockers into this." Oooops multiple fouls again.

I'm betting that if you called a multiple foul just once the coach would go nuts. Then you T and eject him, if appropriate.

Other wise, I think about two multiple foul calls and you wouldn't see that tactic for the rest of that coach's career, let alone the season.

That's a facet of the rules I've never used. :)

And I think you would add, as would I, appropriately enforcing your own psuedo-sportsmanship.

I do think Mark likely mispoke when he said "ethically required to ignore his/her client's desires." I would assume that Mark would flatly say "I can't do that; hire some one else. This is a safety issue. If I do what you want, I'm violating safety rules and creating a hazard." Which is the opposite of this situation of taking a situation that is likely dangerous for the defender and rectifying it with a new rule. Not that I agree a new rule is the best solution. I would have done my best to rectify the situation myself within the latitude of the rules - basketball should not be a game of fear tactics.

And if I couldn't solve it, perhaps a new rule would do it for me.

That was funny, until I remembered that we were talking about third grade girls. That made my stop laughing.
I think that you could easily put an "over" in front of the "officious" in this case. The "spirit and intent of the rules" and "sportsmanship" just died in the face of literalism.

I was talking about MTD's post.

Teaching 3rd grade girls to run doubled-up moving screens is not something I promote.

Ignoring it in the name of "rules purity" or something is like leaving a starving man to starve because we're not legally obligated to feed him.

I knew that you were referring to MTD's post, and I agreed completely with your point. As well as the way that you were making your point. To let someone get away with something like that in 3rd. grade girl's ball is ludicrous. Unfortunately, MTD Sr. doesn't agree with us- which really doesn't surprise me. He is entitled to his opinion, though. I just can't see too many people agreeing with his opinion in this case, be they coaches or officials.

Right. But if the client petitions the city for a variance to the design codes, and the variance is granted, then the engineer can design such a building.

So, it would have been "wrong" for the officials to restrict the coach from using this play, it's allowed for the league to restrict it and for the officials to then enforce the league directive.

How can the screen play being discussed in this thread be ruled illegal if there is no illegal contact. How many times in a game have we seen A1 grab a loose ball in Team B's frontcourt and immediately start to move the ball quickly down the court via a dribble and A2 and A3, who are directly in front of A1, start running pell mell down the court too in hopes of either getting open, keeping defenders from getting to A1, or to draw defenders away from A1.

This play has to be looked at in its total. If there was no contact then there was no foul. If there was contact among players then the requirements for guarding and screening must be applied and a determination must be made as to whether A2 and A3, the screeners were guilty of contact with B2 and B3, or were B2 and B3 guilty of contact.

Daryl has already taken me to task over my previous post in this thread, and I guess I am being a stubborn old mule, but sticking to my guns over my position. I just find it hard to call the play intimidation by A2 and A3 just because they are two third grade girls who happen to be larger than the rest of their classmates. If A2 and A3 were the same size as the rest of the players on the court or even smaller would we consider their actions in this type of screening play intimidating, I think not. While the recreation department is trying to put its heart in the right place, it is misguided.

I have coached my ten year old son's 10U basketball team for the last two years (3 and 17 for those two seasons) and we faced some teams that had some large very good players. My players would look at these players and how they played and would get out of the way when they drove to the hoop. Should I have said to the Toledo P&R Dept. that these players are intimidating and when they drive to the hoop, that should be considered an unsportsmanlike technical foul. I think not.

The fact remains, the recreation department wants to penalize two players for doing something that is completely within the rules only because they are larger than the rest of the players on the court. I am sorry but I cannot advocate that type of rules making or interpretating.

As I prepare to sign off on this post, I have remembered that Daryl and I have at least two long automobile trips to basketball tournament this Spring, and I am sure that this play will be discussed in great detail..

Have a great weekend everybody, I know I am my family with have a busy one, with both our boys competing in the NW Ohio YMCA Swimming Championship in Lima, Ohio (both Saturday and Sunday) as well as playing basketball games in a YMCA Spring League in Toledo on Saturday. We will be putting lots of miles on both of our cars tomorrow.

But right now I have to leave to have a root canal done. Ta ta, don't forget your hat, The Traveling Gnome.

By calling it an "unsporting technical foul" under rule 10-3-7, just like the Recreation Department suggested.

And I answered in under 10,000 words,too. :D

There is not any problem in a basketball game that I can't solve using rule 3 nfhs and rule 2 sec. 4 ncaa.

I don't know of a rule specifically mentioning two players running shoulder to shoulder in front of the ball carrier, (Oops) dribbler, with kids trying to stay out of their way.

If the assignor/administrator for the league has an issue with the way I call the game, they will let me know. I will then continue refereeing for them, or not, depending on whether we can come to a mutual understanding of the way they want the game refereed and the way I am going to referee.

Mark
Situation A: Structural engineer follows laymen's modifications to accepted practice that results in a building that is substandard - bad idea. we agree.

Situation B: Structural engineer follows laymen's modifications to code that enforce a stricter (and therefore safer) set of rules - may cost more, but clearly not unsafe and clearly not the engineer's place to do anything other than to explain the potential cost ramifactions of the stricter standard. Not sure if you will agree to this, but it seems to make sense from my seat.

Situation C: Supervisor of a league mandates a rule interpretation in the interest of player safety and enjoyment of the game of basketball. Kids involved are getting their very first basketball experience, trying to decide if this is a game they want to play. Coach is clearly employing an intimidation tactic well outside the spirit of the rules of basketball, but not specifically illegal. His tactic does nothing positive for anybody involved, and jeopardizes player safety and the personal enjoyment of at least half of the participants. You clearly disagree that a modification of little kid rec rules in interest of fairness, safety, and enjoyment is a bad idea, when a ref with any sense would have implemented a personal interpreaion on the spot to eliminate this activity. Why you oppose this will remain a puzzle in my eyes.

Situation D: The next time the family goes to Nags Head or Ocean City I’ll be sure to hire a structural engineer to build the sandcastles. ;)

The point here is that it was THE LEAGUE that made the ruling. I agree with Mark that this probably is best not handled by the refs on the floor, in the first game of the year. But when the league says, "Okay, this isn't how we want basketball played in our league", then the refs are merely taking care of business when they issue an unsportsmanlike T, in this case. It's completely appropriate for the league to take this stand, in the same way that it's completely appropriate for the league to say, no zone defense, or no backcourt pressure. If a ref doesn't like that rule, he or she can work in a different league. The play is legal in high school, according to NFHS, but in the Kiddie Kourt league in Wherever, USA, the board has issued a new rule, and that's their perogative.

If what the client wants is in violation of design codes that have to do with the structural safety of the building the city can grant all of the variances it want to the code but no structural engineer will make the changes per the client's request.

Why do I think the recreation league is wrong? Go back to the original description of the play. Team A was using its two biggest girls. The recreation legaue's decision is political correctness run amok. And for those that do not know my political persuasion, I am a liberal Democrat who abors political correctness.

Once again I ask the question, if Team A had used its two smallest players to set the moving screen would we be having this discussion? I do not think so. The two players from Team A are being singled out soley because of their size.

Mark -- You're arguing against yourself here. Safety IS the first issue for refs, and they should want variances to the rules that promote safety just as your engineer will only respect variances that recognize aand work within safety standards. When the league makes a "variance" that is clearly against safety, it makes sense for refs to question it, or even ignore it. But when the "variance" is TOWARD a better game, a safer game, a more positive basketball experience for some very little people, why would that be a problem?

Julie:

I made another post just before you made this one and I think it will answer your question.

MTD, Sr.

Political correctness to insist that 3rd graders play basketball instead of rugby? I am a liberal Democrat, too, and can't see that that has anything to do with it. What the girls were learning in that situation was not basketball. That play has its place where the opponent players know how to deal with it. But these girls most emphatically do not. I can't see that this is illegal discrimination of any sort whatsoever. It is discrimination that I want my daughter to practice dribbling, passing, setting legal screens, rebounding, shooting and other basketball fundamentals. Taking a charge for the team comes in much later when my daughter has enough bulk to survive, and enough quick thinking to counteract.
Besides, the league certainly has the right to make that rule if they want. If they had worded it differently, such as "no zone offense" or "every player must be given five shooting opportunities during each game" or something that would break up the flying wedge, would that be less offensive to you?

These girls were singled out by their own coach for this particular play. That's not the league's fault. The discrimination happened before the league got involved. If the parents feel their girls are being picked on, it's the coach they should be talking to.

Do the parents sign up their big girls for them to learn to intimidate others? Why wouldn't they want their daughters to learn to shoot, dribble and pass? Later, when the offense is more canny and skilled, this play will be useless and their time in the game will have been completely wasted. Why would anyone want to put up with this?

[Edited by rainmaker on Mar 12th, 2004 at 01:06 PM]

Mark
Let's be clear about who singled out the big players. It was the coach! He picked his most intimidating players and chose to use them in a decidely non-basketball intimidating manner.

The league is not harming these two players. It is actually doing these two big girls a favor because they are not being used in an appropriate manner, especially at an instructional level. They are learning a tactic that is completely inappropriate for high level basketball, because at that level, it will result in players drawing fouls. By making the coach use his players in a manner appropriate to the game of basketball, it is forcing the coach to at least make an attempt to teach these young players something of value.

Of course, it won't fix most of the other things that I think coaches do with big players at young ages, but it will really help these two kids, their teammates, and the rest of the players in the league. Everybody wins in this situation in my book.

Re: Amen
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CYO Butch

Quote:

The league in question (Montgomery County, MD, Department of Recreation) has a set of very explict guidelines for coach and parental behavior, playing time, etc.

My old league! This is where I got my start, CYOB. Where do you play, and who runs your league? Who made this call (if you don't mind saying)? I know a lot of the folks at Rec and they are good people. We worked on some coach and league issues back a few years.

Besides, the league certainly has the right to make that rule if they want.

[/B][/QUOTE]Juulie, Mark is assidiously trying to ignore this fact, but the league doesn't have to make up a new rule. It's already covered under the existing rules. The league is saying that this type of play is unsporting, and they want their officials to call it as unsporting. The officials can do that now under the existing rules- i.e. rule 10-3-7. In other words, it is covered under our existing "building code". :D

Mark, forget about "building codes". I would be pleased to listen to any argument that you would like to make that states exactly why a "T" <b>can't</b> be called under R10-3-7.Please attach rules references.

MTD,

If I were interested enough I could dig out my old college texts and identify the exact name of the logical falicy you have perpetrated in this thread.

To compare the legal and ethical obligations of a licensed professional engineer that are mandated, often by law, to prevent the loss of potentially billions of dollars in investment capital and lost human lives to a ruling from a league about unsportsmanlike behavior is an absurdity of unimaginable proportion.

The inescapable consequences that follow the ignoring of the laws of physics, or the just retribution of a society's legal system upon those who violate its laws cannot possibly be compared to some rec league board deciding to alter the rules of a game.

To suggest that any official should refuse to comply with the board's desires based upon such incredibly flawed logic is as absurd as the comparison made to justify it.

This is simple
 

Mark you said that this ruling is unfair to the bigger girls,okay,but most rec leagues at this level don't allow:

1. Zone defense.Unfair to less athletic players.

2. Press.Unfair to the more athletic players.

3. Isolation offense.Unfair to more advanced players.

Get the point,yet?

It's already covered under the existing rules. The league is saying that this type of play is unsporting, and they want their officials to call it as unsporting.[/B][/QUOTE]

This sounds like the job of a rules interpreter. Based on Mark's signature line, this probably crosses a fundamental line of demarcation when leagues begin to interpret rules.

Can't have layment doing the job of a highly trained and certified professional. They might apply common sense to this situation, when we clearly need a detailed examination of the moving screen rule.

Re: Re: Amen
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Quote:

Originally posted by CYO Butch Quote: The league in question (Montgomery County, MD, Department of Recreation) has a set of very explict guidelines for coach and parental behavior, playing time, etc. My old league! This is where I got my start, CYOB. Where do you play, and who runs your league? Who made this call (if you don't mind saying)? I know a lot of the folks at Rec and they are good people. We worked on some coach and league issues back a few years.

I don't rembember who the key people were in the rec league back then. I was coaching the Clarksburg ES girls, and the "sweep" was used against us in the second game of the season. One girl was hurt (only minor, but did not go back in the game), and a number of the others got bumps and bruises well in excess of anything from any other team all season. It was also our only game when we were shooting foul shots because of more than 10 fouls on the other team, and this game it was BOTH halves. I almost had to verbally restrain one of my player's dad who was so furious at the other coach I was afraid a fight was going to break out.

I talked to the officials at half-time about it, but maybe they were trained by MTD :D, since they said they couldn't do anything except when there was contact. They also said, however, that they would address the issue at their weekly meeting with the rec department. It was the following week that the ruling came out. I was tremendously impressed by the rec department AND the officials they used, even when they were young ones. Everybody, except that one coach, seemed to understand why everybody was there. As they used to say "Rule 1, This is for the kids; Rule 2, Treat everybody with respect; Rule 3 ...; Rule 10, if you can't figure it out, see Rule 1."

I've also worked with the Gaithersburg City rec department, and they too are a pretty great group. In their league, the officials are all (or used to be 100 years ago) employees of the rec department, and while they weren't always the best at that job, they incorpated teaching into their officating role and they were a joy to be around for the young teams.

The DC area has plenty of high power teams, and for those kids for whom intense competition is important they (or should I say their parents, at least for the very young ones) have plenty of choices. Somehow, I doubt that any of them have to worry about the Green Bay Sweep. The last I checked, this was still not anybody's idea of teaching basketball (well, except maybe in NW Ohio ;) )

btw, MTD, I vacation on Middle Bass Island in a cottage my grandfather built in the 1920's, and I LOVE NW Ohio!

Sorry, Mark, but it seems you are saying that when you get to ref in the NBA, you will call three-point goals from the 19'9" line, not the 23'9" line, because it is in the NFHS or NCAA rule book, or eject players after the 5th foul, not the 6th.

Leagues make the rules, referees enforce them. If you check with the rec league rules, I'm sure they say that NFHS rules will be followed, except where specified in the league rules (ex. no zone defenses, mercy rule, no dunking, each player must play 8 minutes per game, etc.) If the league changes the rules in the middle of the season, the rules still must be enforced.

Isn't this a oxymoron?

Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Above is the original play we have been discussing. If Team A had used its two smallest players to effect the moving screen would the recreation department had issued a directive that this type of play is to be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. I think not. The fact that Team A used its two biggest players is what has everybody's briches in a bind.

The best way to handle this type of screening action is to enforce it per the rules. If contact occurs and it is the result of a player from Team A not setting the screen correctly, charge the player from Team A with the appropriate charging or pushing foul. And, if contact occurs and it is the result of a player from Team B not obtaining a legal guarding position or from setting her own illegal screen then charge the player from Team B with a blocking foul.

Furthermore, how many times have we had coaches complain to us about moving screens and we, correcttly, told them that since there was no contact there was no foul. How can we now tell a coach that we are going to charge one of his players with an unsportsmanlike technical foul for setting a moving screen, where no contact occured, thus making the moving screen a legal screen.

I am sorry, but I reiterate my position, that the recreation department's directive is nothing more than political correctness run amok.

We clearly disagree
 

I find this to be rules interpretation run amok. You and your rulebook appear to stand alone on this one.

Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

The fact is that the team did use it's two biggest players, we know what happened, and most of us agree that the league can make such a determination.

Since the team didn't use the two smallest players, we don't know how the league would have ruled, so it's pointless to speculate on it.

Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

But that is just the point, Team A used its tWo largest players to set a moving screen, what difference does the size of a player has to do with the situation? "Nothing, absolutely nothing!"

This was decision borne out of political correctness, plain and simple.

If a bunch of third graders are being chased around the court by a couple behemoths behaving in a decidedly un-basketball-like manner, is it political correctness or common sense? Why would you want this to continue? What end does it serve? Who does it benefit? Can you state a single benefit that any child in one of these games derives from allowing this to continue? You cite rules, but absolutely nowhere do you provide a benefit to following these rules in this case.

More to the point, given a group of 8 year old kids who don't know how to dribble, pass, or shoot, why would you want the POE in my one hour of practice per week to be how to take a charge from a player twice their size?

What you are seeing is priorities, Mark, not PC.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Mark, why isn't this unfair to the larger players who aren't learning anything of value? Why aren't you upset about what it does to 8-year-old girls to be set up as objects of fear and loathing? I can't see what this has to do with political correctness!

Just look how you are describing the play of these two girls': "a bunch of third graders are being chased around the court by a couple behemoths behaving in a decidedly un-basketball-like manner"

If these two girls' were your daughters would you like someone to call them a couple of behemoths just because they are the two biggest players on the court.

Once again the only reason, the recreation department issued its directive is because the size of the girls setting the screens. If the players involved were not the biggest players on the court, nothing would have been said. Furthermore, if one follows the recreation department's directive, does that mean, if the two smallest players on the team set the same type of screen, that they too are guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct?

Once more I state that the best way to handle the situation is to apply the guarding and screening rules as written in the rules book.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

The recreation department set up these girls as objects of fear and loathing by issuing such a stupid directive. If the girls's coach who designed this play had used the two smallest girls on the team to set the screen in this play not a word would have been said. The officials would have officiated as per the rules and the game would have gone on.

The directive was just political correctness run amok. Instruct the officials to apply the guarding/screening rules and the problem would have gone away on its own.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Based on your arguement they should be able to press,play zone,and run an isolation offense too.After all those non-rule book rules unfairly hinder players based on size and ability.

Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about this? This is not about being PC,it is about making the game fair,safe,and fun for little kids that are learning to play basketball.

Mark
We have argued that there are problems with letting this play go as it is at this age group. I simply ask for you to list a benefit that somebody realizes. Big girls aren't learning anything. Driver is getting a wideopen lane, so she isn't learning. Everyone on this team will learn this as a good hoops tactic when it is never employed at higher levels. The opponents gain nothing, unless they put themselves at risk so they can draw a foul.

So please, once again, I would like to know who benefits from allowing this type of play to go on in 3rd grade?

What is the deal?
 

Plus it's YMCA or rec ball. They use the NFHS rules as a guideline not a policy. They make their own rules based on the level and age of play. Quoting NFHS rules for this particular thread means squat IMO.

Who started this fiasco?
 

When I started this thread I never dreamed it would lead to anything like this. As to the play in question, I pictured it as a gimmick play like the barking dog on the inbounds play that might work rarely if at all. As far as the size of the girls involved, I see that as a non-issue. Were the girls in question that much bigger than some of the others?
Probably not, but even if they were, as 8 year old girls go it seems that smaller girls are often the most tenacious, aggressive, yes, sometimes, dirtiest players on the court just as in any age group. As far as improving real basketball skills the lesson here is to teach the defense to stand its ground, and that a defender is entitled to maintain her own spot on the floor. Is this play potentially dangerous? Perhaps, but no more so than many other situations. BUT, I wasn't there when all this happened, so like countless other times, I yield to those who were, and if the powers that be say this play is illegal, I cannot imagine any referee starting an argument about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Mark,

I coach YWCA elmentary girls. I don't spend much time teaching them how to block a shot and not GT, I also don't take time to teach them to not tap the ball while it's on the rim. Likewise, I teach them to stand their ground on defense but I don't teach them to take a charge.

How do you teach a 10 year old girl to take a charge?

The girls are not ready yet, the officials are not ready yet and I contend that YWCA elementary league basketball is not ready.

Thanks, Stan

I don't have my rules book with me, but doesn't it say something about using intimidating tactics? If we're talking about a few moving screens where the defense voluntarily runs 10 feet away, I've got nothing. But if we're talking about a point guard running between the tackles following the full back and tight end, with the defense running for cover, I'll allow the first basket to count. But I'm stopping the ball right now and informing the coach that it's a play I find questionable and any future occurrances will force me to decide whether to call an unsportsmanlike T on his girls. It would be in his best interest not to make me decide.
FWIW, the first time I have to call it, I'll pick one of the blockers and call a T. The next time, I'm calling a T on each blocker.
The play in question was done repeatedly, to the point where the defense eventually got scared. This isn't basketball.
Same situation as the player getting on all fours to set a screen.

Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Not to beat a totally dead horse, but the officials in our game (the second game of the season) did enforce the rules, but the behavior succeeded in doing what it was intended to do - intimidate the opponents. Fouls were called (although they were not "intentional", and I don't remember if that was an option back then), a couple of girls got pushed around pretty hard with what a football coach would have called "good, clean, blocks", and one girl was even pushed to the floor. Perhaps the officials could have taken further action, but everyone other than the offending coach agreed that the behavior was outside the spirit of the league.

MTD, as a parent, you know that you have had to come up with some rules explict for your kids as a result of their behavior. "Jimmy, do not put peanut butter in your sister's hair" was not something you imagined you would ever need to articulate as a "rule". I am sure that the rec department never imagined that they would have to have an explict rule related to intentional intimidation of 3rd graders. Like good parents, when they found behavior contrary to their standards and morals, they took action to correct abberant behavior.