I think the hang up with Rut's post was on the word "displacement." I agree with his premise, but think we should change "displacement" to "impediment" as a prerequisite for an illegal screen. No, contact itself doesn't warrant a foul, but if that contact impeded the defender's progress (to include but not require "displacement"), I've got a foul.

[Edited by Snaqwells on Apr 5th, 2004 at 11:27 AM]

I would agree snaqs, as long as impediment means that the screen was the impediment, not the defender quitting on the play because of the screen.

Absolutely. And we have to judge whether the defender gave up before or after the contact, IMO.

I think you also need to add the word "illegal".

"...if illegal contact impeded the defender's progress, I've got a foul."

One example of no contact, no illegal screen
 

would be, in my view, the dreaded pick-in-the-back. I am a bear on this, players sneaking up behind (out of the visual field) others, but - if the defender never knows the guy/girl is their, and there is no contact, no UTILITY gained from the . . . attempted . . . screen, then nothing happened.