I coach 7th grade boys and whenever I teach a screen and roll, one of them always questions whether moving after contact is legal.

I tell them if they are pivoting and using their backside to contact the defender, they are OK, but if they keep facing the defender and move both their feet to keep him pinned, it is going to be a foul.

My problem, this explanation is just from my experience. How do all of you differentiate between a screen and roll, and a moving pick.

Just trying to teach my boys the proper way, I appreciate the help.

Coach, pivoting and then using their backsides is illegal. The screener has to hold their position on the "pick" part of a "pick 'n' roll" until they feel the contact, <b>then</b> roll. Or "roll" without contact. If they pivot and roll before the contact, it's usually an illegal screen. Whether it gets called or not is another story.

If they pivot and roll before the contact, it's usually an illegal screen. Whether it gets called or not is another story. [/B][/QUOTE]

How can it be illegal if there is no contact?

What are we thinking "using their backside" means? If it means the screener pivots then moves out the defender with his backside, then we have a foul. If it means the screener pivots then holds his position, I don't see how this can be a foul.

How can it be illegal if there is no contact?

What are we thinking "using their backside" means? If it means the screener pivots then moves out the defender with his backside, then we have a foul. If it means the screener pivots then holds his position, I don't see how this can be a foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Jurrasic is assuming that 7th grade boys aren't going to wait for contact before they roll. They're just going to go through the motions regardless of what else happens. That's a pretty safe assumption, I think, and applies to 7th grade girls, too, I should add. In fact, without good coaching, most players are going to fall into this category. What he's saying is that it's illegal to run into position and then keep moving in an attempt to screen their player, whether that continued movement is more steps or a roll move. The screen must wait in position until contact, and can then roll as the screen-ee tries to get around him. If the screen-ee backs off and never makes contact, the screener can do whatever he or she jolly well feels like, and shouldn't be called.

I'd like to add a tangential editorial on the subject of the player(B1) the screen-ee is guarding, most often the dribbler. If B1 doesn't move fairly near the screen, so that the screen-ee has no choice but to confront the screener, that's when it's most likely there will be a moving screen. What I see a lot of in Middle School girls, is B1, whether it's a dribbler or the star shooter headed for her sweet spot to receive the ball, running through the play as it's designed. She's got a guard right on her, in legal guarding position. The screener gets into position and waits patiently. B1 swings around the screen, maybe a little wide, or perhpas the screener isn't quite on the X on the floor, and the defender is just running right through a nice ilttle hole in the offense. Now the screener leans, or steps in, or even reaches across to try and stop the defender. The foul is very easy to call.

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]

We might understand that (as officials), but the individual that is asking the question does not. Not only should their be contact on a screen, there should be displacement as well. I do not know many legal screens that do not have contact, even when moving.

Peace

Jeff, I would word this a little differently, just because the word "should" can be so confusing. I'd say, "In order to call an illegal screen, you should wait for contact, and for displacement, as well." Just for the record, I wouldn't wait for displacement. Most contact by an illegal screener gets called, at least at the levels I work. It's a matter of helping the kids develop good habits. But I can see that you work several levels above me, and at that amount of skill, a certain amount of contact may not be worth calling. But I want Tiger to know how 7th grade boys are supposed to do it.

This is a great point. Many illegal screens are the fault of the ballhandler, who does not use the screen properly. The ballhandler allows the defender to stay with him/her by leaving too much space around the screen. So to do his/her "job", the screener is forced to do something illegal in order to get the defender off of the ballhandler.

I still would want displacement at the levels I work. Because if a screener comes over to make a screen and it is illegal, I feel that the "screeny" should make some attempt to get around the screen. If they give up the position and just back off, if there is contact or not, I am not calling a foul. And even in the rules is suggests that displacement still needs to be present on any screen. But that does not mean you have to have a lot of contact to do so either.


I understand about making them have good habits, but we do not help them by calling things automatically that we will never call when they get a few years older. Understand 7th graders are only 2 years away from HS. I do feel that you cannot call a game exactly the same (type of contact I am referring to) as compared to a HS game. But you cannot fundamentally call something you would not call in other aspects of the game. A player that is screened needs to know that he or she should have to run thru the screen to some extent to get a foul called in their favor. And if they are displaced in any way, then we have a foul. But just a roll away move is not in itself a foul. Not unless they are pushed out of the way to some extent.

But then again, it is hard imagining the play being described without seeing it for myself.

Peace

How can it be illegal if there is no contact?

What are we thinking "using their backside" means? If it means the screener pivots then moves out the defender with his backside, then we have a foul. If it means the screener pivots then holds his position, I don't see how this can be a foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]I don't think that I did say that. However, I meant that contact while the screener is moving as in the coach's example is an illegal screen.

Now, maybe you can explain something to me. You stated " If the screener pivots and then holds his position, I don't see how this can be a foul". If the screener pivots into the defender's path, and then the contact occurs even though the moving defender wasn't enough given time or distance to avoid that contact-just because the screener WAS stationary when that contact occurs, you are saying that this isn't an illegal screen? Right? Rule 10-6-3(c)- <i>"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"</i>. That's exactly why the screener using his butt in the coach's example is usually an illegal screen.

I edited this to remove a sarcastic remark- one that I had no business making in the first place. It was out of line in this thread.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 2nd, 2004 at 09:33 AM]

Good job, Jurassic. Get in touch with that inner parent!

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! :rolleyes:

:D

So, lets define the sitch a little better. A1 sets legal screen facing B2, A2 uses screen well, B2 runs right into screen. B1 switches to A2, thus creating the opportunity to roll. But as I coach, I do not like my guy to roll and release the defender, because then the defender can catch up to the play. I want them to roll and pin (hold) the defender with their backside, like a block out. Thus creating space between the basket and A1 with B2 behind.

Now, as the pass is made, A1 will move toward the pass and hopefully have a nice lane to the hoop.

So is the pivoting and pinning, with contact all the way, but without displacement, just holding the defender in one spot legal.

Tiger
I think you are stating it the way I teach it. Hold position until contact. At contact, B2 stops because of the contact. A1 then immediately executes a reverse pivot establishing a new position on the court, and holds that poistion. That position may be in slight contact with the defender, but should not cause displacement.

When I teach the screen then pivot (or as I teach it, screen then open to the ball), the pivot should happen before defender starts to move into that open space, or it will be a moving screen. 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.

If B2 alters his path and A1 pivots into him to block him from "catching up" to the play, I'm almost sure to call the foul unless hesitation by B2 lets A1 clearly get position first - not likely at this level.

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.

In the 10+ years I coached GS/MS boys & girls, I taught the screener to always follow their teammate with the ball with their eyes, turning head and body as needed - then go to the basket & look for the pass. This helps them hold the screen until contact, then forces them to pivot away from contact with the screened defensive player and puts them in optimum position to become part of the offensive atack to get the pass if their defender switches - creating the desired 2 on 1 situation.

FYI, to combat the pick & roll on defense, teach your players how to hedge & recover.......

I don't think that NFHS rules indicate that there needs to be displacement at all on an illegal screen for it to be a foul. In fact, it's pretty clear in reading about screens in the rule book and case book that merely impeding the progress of an opponent with an illegal screen is a foul. If the defensive player is put at a disadvantage by an illegal screen and can no longer stay with his/her player due to even slight contact, it's a foul. There is much less contact required to gain an advantage on a screen then there is on other plays where we choose to pass on some contact such as rebounding action where the contact does not prevent the "right player" from getting the rebound.

Z

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 <i>bump, slow or displace,</i> 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

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; <b> nor impede the progress of an opponent....</B>"

"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 <I> (Note: the word displacement is not used) </I>, he/she has committed a personal foul."

Z

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

What about....
 

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

Well, then, as a man . . .

Jurrasic, the outer organs are wasting away, too!

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.

Re: What about....
 

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.

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

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

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.

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. <BR><I>Just one example:</I> 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

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


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

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.

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

...

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.)

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" <b>into</b> the defender. If so, and the contact gains them an advantage- illegal block.

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, <i>"Not only should their be contact on a screen, there should be displacement as well."</i> Then further misled by your later post that said, <i>"I still would want displacement at the levels I work."</i> Then I was misled once again by your post that said, <i>"And even in the rules is suggests that displacement still needs to be present on any screen."</i>

Z

I agree completely - just that I differentiate the classical pick & roll from a screen & seal move and was addressing the former. We also used many variations of screens, including down screens & several inbounds plays as you described.

My favorite offensive component was pass, then screen away from the ball. I'd start them on it in 5th grade and gradually spoonfeed plays built on that premise until by 7th or 8th they were able to execute a reasonably effective dummied down version of UCLA's motion offense.

I do agree with Camron - if the screen was illegal and IMO the resulting contact created a disadvantage for the defender, even without displacement, I will call the foul.

Go ahead and quote me. I doubt I'll take up coaching any time soon. When my daughter played and I sat and criticized the refs, it led me into this endeavor here -- and a new level of humility. Reffing looked so easy, but woooo-hooo, it's not. Coaching has never looked easy, so I don't think I could even attempt to find out. I cannot imagine sitting on the sidelines watching kids do what they're not supposed to, and having no way to "fix" it. At least as a ref, I can retreat into "neutrality".

You can always fix it, just not always that day. That's what the practice court is for. If you teach them right, and over enough time with enough repitition, they will play well. If not, it's back to practice til you get it right.

The rule speaks for itself. They ask for displacement as one of the things that should be there and that is what I am looking for with most screens. I am sorry that you are fixated on this one word, but I am not calling a foul for when a player makes no attempt to go thru that screen and the screener did not allow the proper time and distance. If that confuses you, then you will be confused. But displacement is a big part of that for me. Again, we all do not have the same judgment. In my mind, it does not take a lot of contact to displace someone, but I am not calling a foul for a player that just gives up on the play. Sorry, I just am not.

Peace

jrut
I agree 100%, and I think that your posts were quite clear and appropriate on this subject. If the defedner tries to go through and the offensive player knocks him off his path, holds him, etc., you have a foul. If the defender just stops on slight contact, you have a defender who isn't working too hard to play defense.

Problem becomes when the defender works a bit too hard and knocks down the screener, getting called for the foul. This is why it's so important to get the kids to call out the screens loud and early.

What's a screen & seal?

Sounds like something I might put in my transmission.

Screen and seal
 

I don't think anyone answered the original question. TigerBBall asked "whether moving <b>after</b> contact is legal", and everyone is responding about whether or not movement before the screen is legal. If I can paraphrase, A1 sets screen. B2 makes contact. TigerBBall is telling his players that <b>after contact</b>, they should "pivot() and us(e) their backside to contact the defender"(B2). Is this legal?

To me, this is legal contact, the same as boxing out.

Re: Screen and seal
 

Actually, if you look back, I think that you'll find that both Camron and I did answer it. If the screener moves <b>into</b> the defender after contact, it's illegal contact on the screener's part. The defender is entitled to their spot on the floor, and can't be legally crowded out of that spot. The screener can stay as close to the defender as he can get, but the screener cannot move into the defender.

Jurassic,

Your first reply said ... "Coach, pivoting and then using their backsides is illegal. The screener has to hold their position on the "pick" part of a "pick 'n' roll" until they feel the contact, then roll. Or "roll" without contact. If they pivot and roll before the contact, it's usually an illegal screen. Whether it gets called or not is another story."

I think what TigerBBall is asking is after contact, can the screener maintain contact with the defender, by pivoting, and thus keep the defender from catching up with his original assignment. In other words, what can the screener do after the screening contact has been established legally? Obviously, the screener can roll away from the contact, but can the screener legally move while maintaining contact? IMHO, the screen has ended and determination of whether a foul has occurred now follows normal guidelines, i.e., displacement, unfair advantage, illegal use of hands, etc. Or is this blocking? If so, why is there a difference between this and boxing out for a rebound? And if I'm misunderstanding the whole discussion, I apologize.

This was asked and answered by several of us. Screen, contact, pivot before defender starts moving, seal defender (slight contact ok, no displacement) - legal. Pivot with no contact - clearly can't be a foul. Pivot into path of a defender who has changed directions or made contact and subsequently started to cut around screen - foul. Pivot into defender with displacement - foul. Pivot before contact, thus taking away defender's line of motion, subseqquent contact by defender - foul.

jrut further added that slight contact on any of these where the defender appears to quit on the play - no foul. Defnse has to be trying to go somewhere with offense obstructing them to get the foul. These are about all the variations I can think of on this, but I am sure there are more. What more are you looking for here?

Actually, I was looking for this particular statement to be verified by a referee. I thought that all who were saying this were coaches. I must have missed something. Thanks for your response.

Agree with the Coach's summary. Please note that the same principles outlined above also apply to players blocking an opponent out on a rebound.

Jurassic confirmed my summary. Jrutledge amplified on and confirmed my summary. If one of us coaches says something that the other refs don't think is right, they will be more than happy to make their opinion known. So at least two supported this opinion, no strong feelings against - consider it to be good.

Jim, from a further post of mine on P.2,- <i>"Finally, just as you said, I look at the screener to see if they roll into the defender. If so, and the contact gives them an advantage- illegal block"</i>. That statement applies for both cases - initial contact on the screen, and further contact after legal initial contact.

Just as an aside, Hawks Coach has a very good understanding of the rules and how they are applied, as do other coaches who post here also.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 5th, 2004 at 09:39 AM]

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.