Was watching a heated AAU game last night and observed some interesting post play. Although there's another thread about illegal screens in the pick & roll, this question is about screens off the ball. Here's the situation:

A1 is a very wide and somewhat large post player. B1 played behind the post on D. Every time ball went to wing or corner, A1 calls for the ball with one or both arms high, but was actually moving around making sure she maintained contact with B1, keeping B1 behind her in the paint, while the wing player A2 slashed in and pulled up for a short range jumper in front of A who was in effect "screening" the post defender. Play was run repeatedly and A1 never actually got the ball once. Jump shot after jump shot. Lots of jawboning by Coach of B but no calls were ever made.

Coach of B makes an adjustment having B1 front A1. Now the lob goes in to A1, and it's evident that A1 doesn't have any skill to finish well. The adjustment worked in this case because A1 couldn't finish, but it made me really think about the post play a bit more.

<b>Question: If A1 was calling for the ball but constantly moving around the blocks, pinning her defender (while moving) is this considered an illegal screen? Should this have been called? What are you as officials looking for in this case?</b>

Sorry for the long set-up of the question.

Don't apologize, it's a great question, and the board was looking a little sparse the last couple of days.

I've wondered about this too, with or without the calling for the ball. How much movement is the screener allowed AFTER contact? What kind of contact? Which directions?

I'm thinking in your case, if A1 wasn't actually displacing B1 (such as backing down, like Shaq does), but just "beating her to the spot," then I'm thinking it's pretty much legal. But I'd be interested in hearing any other opinions.

What was illegal?
 

I will ask you the same thing I ask coaches when they complain, what is wrong with the action? Did the defender make an effort to get around the A1?


No. If this is normal post play, I see nothing wrong with this. A player can move to hold their position. And I do not consider this a "regular" screen. And even if you use the screening principles here, B1 in your example is not making much of an effort to get around A1. I am not calling a foul because they are lazy.


Not sure I understand the question. Because what you are asking, I know I am not looking to call a foul on a screen.

Peace

Yes, I would have an illegal screen; although camoflauged(sp?) by A1's persistant request for the ball. I am looking for the defender B1, whom I feel is being placed at a disadvantage by being blocked from getting to the player with the ball by a moving A1.

[Edited by N_Stripes on Apr 3rd, 2004 at 11:45 AM]

BUT....

Is B1 making any attempt to get past A1 to defend the outside shot? Or is she still jockeying with A1 for post position?

From the stands (not a good officiating or coaching position - LOL) it looked as though A1 was sliding with B1, blocking B1's path to help, but was doing so with her arm up as though calling for the ball. Was it deliberate? Don't know, but I've gotta admit A1 was terrible with the ball, adding to my speculation that it just might have been planned that way.

Ahhh, that's just great!!
 

I get a nice mental picture of the play, post my reply, and you guys have to come in and give me a half dozen more different visuals.

I need a BC.

It seems legal to me.

Once A1 has LGP, she's allowed to move as long as she doesn't initiate contact. If this is simply a case of B1 isn't quick enough to get around the screen, then too bad for B1 - I'm not calling a foul for lack of ability.

If, however, B1 is trying to get around, and A1 steps into B1's path and there is substantial contact - that's when I have a foul.

Re: Ahhh, that's just great!!
 

I think we should get FOX Sports to contract with this website. When we ref, we can all wear something like the "ump-cam" they had for football. Then everyone will know exactly what play we're talking about (until the discussion about different angles, are you in position, etc. . . .)

Re: Re: Ahhh, that's just great!!
 

Great idea. Would it have audio, too? Parents might start to hear themselves? Would that help or hurt us?

Let's assume there was constant contact, from the time A1 locked in and posted up till the time A2 used A1 as a screen for her jumper. Again, I wasn't close enough to see, but I got the sense that A1 was maintaining contact (A1's butt to B1's trunk) throughout. It was tough to see if there was any hard pushing for displacement. Still legal? Why or why not?

Personally, I thought B1 could have done a better job of spinning off of A1 whenever she needed to step in on A2's drive to provide help, but I couldn't tell if she was being pushed around a bit anytime she tried. It was pretty physical and no there was no tape to review afterwards.

I think B1 has to make the effort to get around A1 and play at the ball in this case - then the amount of contact and how much it affects B1 will become apparent.

Seems to me that if A1 (the screener) has her arms up and is simply moving to keep her body between the defender and the shooter that this is perfectly legal. Isn't this exactly what "boxing out" on rebounding is? You have your arms up and you move your body to stay between your opponent and the ball. As long as A1 (the screener) does not extend an arm or leg to impede the defender from going around, there's no call to made here.

The way I read the post was that A1 was in front of B1 trying to get a pass from A2 which to me is legal. The responsibility in now on B1 to avoid contact as she is standing behind A1. I do not see any illegal screens here.

IMHO whether or not A1 has a hand up calling for the ball has absolutely no bearing on the legality of any contact. A1 has the right to move as long as she gets to the place she wants to be before the opponent does, and she dosen't make illegal contact doing so.

You can't really call this a screen, since A1 is really working against her own defender in the post. Unless and until B1 makes a definitive move to get around A1 & forces her to make illegal contact in the process, you've got nothing.

Excessively physical/rough play in the post is a separate issue...new topic anyone?

LGP only applies to defensive players. A1 can not, by definition, have LGP.

If B1 is attempting to get around A1 to contest A2 and A1 is serving as a screen and moving, I've got a block on A1. Screeners can not be moving to impede the defensive players progress...ever.

On rebounding, there is no longer offense and defense. Different rules apply (4-36 vs. 4-39).

In the rebounding rule, the rebounder is not required to be stationary, just be the first to the spot.

In the screening rule, the screener is reqire to be stationary in all but one narrow case.

No, no, no, no, no . . . . . .

The screener can do whatever he wants - there has to be illegal contact while the screener is moving illegally in order to have a foul.

Camron, I don't feel comfortable about this definition. Seems to me, if a screener sets and the defender slows down short of contact and then tries to get around, time and distance still apply for the screen, and the screen should be allowed to move to stay in the path of the defender, as long as they allow said defender time to change path again or stop. If the defender has slowed way down, that wouldn't necessarily need to be very much distance or very much time.

Also, I'm assuming you are assuming that there is contact. You don't call fouls for "moving" screens when there's no contact. Do you?

Yes, time and distance do apply. But when B1 is attempting to get around, A1 better stop moving or they haven't allowed any time or distance. If B1 is trying to slide by A1, then the only way A1 can stop them is to move sideways with contact.
Of course...contact required.

1. You're talking about after initial contact?

2. What if A1 stepped slightly backward and sideways, such that contact was broken, or only maintained by B1's forward motion?

Yep -NFHS:4-39-2-C "The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and same direction."

and further in 4-39-6 "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."

IMHO it's really a judgement call on our parts, and if we "referee the defense", I think it becomes a lot clearer. If B1 makes a definitive move to get around A1 and A1 reacts causing illegal contact - you've got a whistle and either a block or hold on A1, depending on the nature on the contact. Conversely, if B1 just dances around and never makes a legitimate attempt to get around A1, you've got nada.

1. No. It could be the initial contact. If B2 is attempting to get to A1 when there is contact, A2 better be stationary or moving directly away from B2 (and the point of contact). Any other movement by A2 is a block (illegal screen).

2. Still A2's foul, they were not moving in the same path/direction but obliquely away (a movement only allow by guards, not screeners)

Can't see this as a moving screen (this is a violation, not a foul) since A1 was calling for the ball and moving to receive it as part of norlmal post play. Doesn't sound like foul by either A1 or B1 in post play. My question is where is B2? Guarding A2 on jumper? Or are they in a zone? Why isnt team B playing tighter defense on the A2 wing jump shooter? Let's keep this simple.

You lost me. What is a violation here? A moving screen? :confused:

TravelinMan,
If you push the quote button, it's be easier for anyone to see which post you are referencing.
mick

Thanks Mick. Let me try it. Learning how to use features. Jurassic - yes, moving screen is violation. It is a foul only if there is contact. I believe some of the posts talked about contact in moving screen. Doesn't have to be contact.

Jurassic - yes, moving screen is violation. It is a foul only if there is contact. I believe some of the posts talked about contact in moving screen. Doesn't have to be contact.
[/QUOTE]T-Man, can you post a rules reference for calling a moving screen a violation? I've never heard of a moving screen without contact being a violation in either NCAA or NFHS rules.

1 Okay. A1 sets good position, holds, B2 comes in, makes contact, but doesn't foul. Now, is A1 required to just stand there while B2 goes around? No movement allowed?

2. So, again after contact, A1 steps back thus breaking contact, and slightly sideways, why isn't that a new legal screen? A1 could pull this maneuver and leave time and distance, since B2 isn't moving very fast, and not much time and distance is required. Why not?

Would anyone besides Camron and me have an opinion on this? Should we take a vote or something?

In Chicago, if you and Camron voted on something, the results would be 7-5. :)

My only comment is that A1 is given no additional rights just because s/he is calling for the ball. We've all seen A1 "hold" B1 to get (or try to get) the ball. The hold can be reaching back, extending the lower arm, moving illegally in front, ... We've probably all called (some of) this a foul.

Also, we've all seen A1 set an illegal screen on B1 so B1 cna't play help defense on a drive -- usually on the baseline. We've all called that.

So, watch B1 (referee the defense). If A1 is illegally stopping B1 from performing normal defensive actions, call the foul. IF B1 is content to play behind A1 and just stand there, there's nothing to call.

Gotta disagree with you, Traveling Man. A moving screen is not a violation. I agree that if there's illegal contact, it's a foul. If there's no contact, it's nutin'. ;)

Hoo boy.

The question is what is defined as "illegally stopping B1 from performing normal defensive actions," not just in PGCougar's situation, but in other cases, such as Camron and I have been disagreeing about.

Juulie, I think we have to referee the defense. If illegal contact is preventing the defender from going where she wants to go, call it. If B1 gives up and isn't even attempting to do anything, I've got nothing.

Also, I'm still waiting for the rule reference that says a moving screen without contact is violation. That would be a nightmare to officiate.

It depends. If B2 is trying to get to A2 (the shooter beyond A1), A1 can't be moving if B2 makes contact unless it is the same path and direction.

However, if B2 is simply trying to front or defend A1, probably no foul...just working for position. It all depends on where B2 is trying to go.

Could be a new legal screen. Time and distance apply. However, if there's any component of movement in the lateral direction at the time of contact, it's not a legal screen.

No zone - it was man-to-man. A2 was exceptionally gifted and had an excellent quick first step. She beat B2 every time on the dribble penetration from wing. The reason for my original question stemmed from the fact that B1 was really struggling to get around A1 who was posting up but then moving around blocking out B1's attempt to help on A2's drive and jumper once she had beaten B2.

Team B should have adjusted by providing help from up top or sagging B2 off A2 more, but that's another issue altogether.

Don't hold your breath!! ;)

Wish you would have told me sooner. :)

These answers are vey helpful, and I appreciate what you're saying.

Oops....Please disregard my earlier comments re moving screen. It must have been late and I must have been tired when I posted that! It is not a violation.

:D

Based on all the great comments and visuals (The BC helped), I still think we have an illegal screen. Especially now that PGCouger clarifies that B1 was struggling to get around A1 in an attempt to get to A2. But like I said, I think it's camoflauged(sp?) whether, intentional camo or not.