Pick N roll or Moving Screen

[JRutledge]

Z,

"A player who is screened within his/her visual is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In case of screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball."

Now this is a direct quote from Rule 10-6-3 in the last paragraph.

And in the POE this past year, on Page 70 it says in B-1,

"A legal screener must be stationary prior to contact with hands and arems close to the body." When these two requirements are nto met and when there is sufficiant contact delivered by the screener to bump, slow or displace, it is a foul on the screener."

Now what that tells me, that just because there is contact does not mean it is a foul. But the contact must stop them from doing something they would have normally done. And if a player being screened just gives up because someone is in front of him (which I think is very common) a foul in my opinion should not be called.

Peace

[zebraman]

I agree in part Rut, but you said in an earlier post that you'd want displacement to call a foul. I said that it isn't always required on a screen. Since you are now quoting scripture, I shall take the pulpit as well. :-)

"A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...."

"A player who screens shall not: Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. If the screener violates any of these provisions and contact results (Note: the word displacement is not used) , he/she has committed a personal foul."

Z

[JRutledge]

Z,

Again I think you are missing the original point. Just because there is contact, does not mean I am going to call a foul. I was taught when I played to try to fight through screens. If a player just gives up his rightful position because the player is in his way, then he/she was not stopped from doing anything. He/she decided to give up that position on their own and was not put at any disadvantage. Which goes back to the 4-27, Incidental Contact rule. Maybe the word "displacement" does not fit, but I am not calling a foul on a player that jsut touches another player and does not meet all the critria for a screen. Because if we called fouls on screens every time there was contact, we could call a foul on all screens.

Peace

[rwest]

I completed my first season of officiating basketball this past November. So, I'm still a rookie. I don't have my rule book with me, but I recall that a blind screen is illegal if there is not at least one step between the screener and screenee. This gives the screenee a chance to avoid the screen. How often do you call this and what do you have to see as far as contact/displacement in order to call the foul? Also, what is the correct call? A block? Push?

How about when the screener doesn't keep his elbows tucked into his/her body? Suppose the elbows are out passed the hips? What must you see to call this? Displacement or just the fact that the defender had to swing out more to avoid the screen?

Thanks!
Randall

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The only thing that I got "inner" is a buncha organs that are wasting away. And no smart remarks about outer organs doing the same either, Woman!

Wimmen!

Well, then, as a man . . .

Jurrasic, the outer organs are wasting away, too!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Z,

Again I think you are missing the original point. Just because there is contact, does not mean I am going to call a foul. I was taught when I played to try to fight through screens. If a player just gives up his rightful position because the player is in his way, then he/she was not stopped from doing anything. He/she decided to give up that position on their own and was not put at any disadvantage. Which goes back to the 4-27, Incidental Contact rule. Maybe the word "displacement" does not fit, but I am not calling a foul on a player that jsut touches another player and does not meet all the critria for a screen. Because if we called fouls on screens every time there was contact, we could call a foul on all screens.

Peace

I gotta agree with Rut on this. 99% of the time, displacement (or lack thereof) is a good way to judge whether or not the contact was incidental. Good athletes aren't going to be stopped by a small brush on an illegal screen.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rwest
I completed my first season of officiating basketball this past November. So, I'm still a rookie. I don't have my rule book with me, but I recall that a blind screen is illegal if there is not at least one step between the screener and screenee. This gives the screenee a chance to avoid the screen. How often do you call this and what do you have to see as far as contact/displacement in order to call the foul? Also, what is the correct call? A block? Push?

I probably never call a blind screen, mainly because the player being screened stops when they feel the contact. There is no reason to call a foul in those situations.

Originally posted by rwest
How about when the screener doesn't keep his elbows tucked into his/her body? Suppose the elbows are out passed the hips? What must you see to call this?

Contact that affects the player being screened from doing what they already are trying to do.

Originally posted by rwest
Displacement or just the fact that the defender had to swing out more to avoid the screen?

Well you cannot call the latter. The last example is not a foul or anything for that matter. But most coaches think that is illegal, which it is not. It would be like calling a foul on a defender that violates verticality rules without any contact.

Peace

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always thought the purpose of a pick & roll was to force a switch and thereby create a 2 on 1 situation for the offense, leaving the screened defensive player a step behind the play. It would seem to me that having the screener block out to hold the screened defender instead of releasing to become part of the offensive attack would give up that advantage. [/B]

We start our offense with guards in the blocks, posts out on the wings. The entries come from the posts screening down, gards pop to wings. Posts are supposed to screen, then reverse pivot toward middle, which places them just ouside the lane, just above the blocks. No point in going further, they would roll into each other. They screen, seal, and pop to the elbow if the wings do not open up.

We also use the screen and seal on many differnt inbounds plays. And even pick and roll is a pick, reverse pivot toward basket, then movement.

So you are right that pick and roll involves movement, but many screening actions do not involve the screener leaving that immediate area. It really depends on the situation.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Z,

Again I think you are missing the original point. Just because there is contact, does not mean I am going to call a foul. I was taught when I played to try to fight through screens. If a player just gives up his rightful position because the player is in his way, then he/she was not stopped from doing anything. He/she decided to give up that position on their own and was not put at any disadvantage. Which goes back to the 4-27, Incidental Contact rule. Maybe the word "displacement" does not fit, but I am not calling a foul on a player that jsut touches another player and does not meet all the critria for a screen. Because if we called fouls on screens every time there was contact, we could call a foul on all screens.

Peace

I got the point, but your earlier post made me think that you only call an illegal screen foul when there is displacement. I can think of several illegal screen fouls that I have called that do not cause displacement.
Just one example: Double screen down on one block. Shooting guard runs past it to rub defender. Defender starts to go around the screen and one of the screeners moves sideways and bumps defender. Contact is minimal, but it was illegal and prevented the defender from staying with the offensive player who now has an uncontested shot. Foul. We're heading the other way.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


I got the point, but your earlier post made me think that you only call an illegal screen foul when there is displacement.

No Z, displacement is the main thing I am looking for.

Originally posted by zebraman
Contact is minimal, but it was illegal and prevented the defender from staying with the offensive player who now has an uncontested shot. Foul. We're heading the other way.

If you deem the contact to prevent the defender from staying with the offensive player, then you have a foul. The amount of contact is not my issue when I call a foul. Sorry, but it is not.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by JRutledge

No Z, displacement is the main thing I am looking for.

On screen's I call it often without displacement since the screen illegaly stops the defender even if the defender chose to slow up rather than run over the screener.

The defender may just think he'll get the foul if he pushes through. Can't penalize the defender for trying to not make contact it frees the player for whom the screen was set.

If the screener moves (illegally), there's contact and it frees the dribbler for an advantage, I've got a foul not matter how much contact there is.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
. And no smart remarks about outer organs doing the same either, Woman!

Believe me, I couldn't care less about your outer organe! (Or the inner ones either...)

[CYO Butch]

Originally posted by rainmaker

[/B]

...

The problem is that the screener thinks it's her job to stop the defender, but that's not correct. It's her job to give the playmaker an opportunity to lose the defender. If the playmaker doesn't rub shoulders with the screener, the defender can slip right between and there's no problem. THE BURDEN IS ON THE PLAYMAKER. I think a lot od coaches don't realize what the problem is, and they don't know who to talk to. Screens won't need to move, if the playmaker will do her part to run the play correctly.

[Edited by rainmaker on Apr 2nd, 2004 at 08:50 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]
Can I quote you to my team? Better yet, do you want to coach my team? (The dark side beckons, Rainmaker. Remember the dark side allows you to howl and rant at officials, and you don't have to worry about rules, mechanics, dressing properly, or even acting human.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

So it is screen, hold til contact, pivot immediately on contact to a new position that is advantageous to the offensive player. Pivot after defense stops and before defense reacts and begins to move again, because pivoting into a moving defender and hindering that movement is a foul.

Great description, Coach. That's basically what I look for on pick'n'roll plays:
1) Did the screener get there in time? If not, illegal block.
2) If they got there in time, did they then set a legal screen? If not, it's usually because they are "rolling" early and into the straight line path of a moving defender, and then hipping them or using "butt" contact to slow the defender down. Foul on screener. If the screen is legal, I ignore or no-call the subsequent collision even if the result may be fairly heavy contact and displacement. Similar to what Rut was saying, I think. The screener has gained their team an advantage by completing the successful screen. Calling the contact a foul on the defender now just gives the offensive team a second advantage on the same play that was not really intended under the screening rules.
3) Did the defender see the screen and still try to push through the screen? If so, call the contact on the defender if you feel that he's gaining an advantage by getting through quicker, or the contact is rough or excessive.
4) Finally, just as you said, I look at the screener to see if they "roll" into the defender. If so, and the contact gains them an advantage- illegal block.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

No Z, displacement is the main thing I am looking for.

Fair enough then.. even though the main thing I am looking for is what the screen does to the defender. I was apparently misled by your post that said, "Not only should their be contact on a screen, there should be displacement as well." Then further misled by your later post that said, "I still would want displacement at the levels I work." Then I was misled once again by your post that said, "And even in the rules is suggests that displacement still needs to be present on any screen."

Z