Screening Posture

[NateWalker]

Can anyone find any information concerning a prescribed "posture" when screening? Situation : Player (fairly large) goes into his frontcourt, sets up at the top of the key and bends over placing his hands on his knees. He keeps this posture until his teammates cross halfcourt. They use him as a screen as he maintains this posture and does not move at all to initiate any type of contact. The defense cries that he is impossible to get around in that "stance" and it should not be allowed. I have found no info in my rule-book as to the legality of his posture in setting this screen.

[Jurassic Referee]

Read NFHS rule 10-6-1, especially the part that says "a player shall not.... impede the progress of an opponent...by bending the body into any other than a normal position". In this case, if you feel that the screener is gaining an extra advantage by bending over and taking up more space than his normal screening stance would take, then call him on it if contact occurs. There's not really that much difference in the screener extending his butt backwards and his head/shoulders forwards instead of him extending an arm or leg sideways, is there? Contact outside the torso should still be called on the screener.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Read NFHS rule 10-6-1, especially the part that says "a player shall not.... impede the progress of an opponent...by bending the body into any other than a normal position". In this case, if you feel that the screener is gaining an extra advantage by bending over and taking up more space than his normal screening stance would take, then call him on it if contact occurs. There's not really that much difference in the screener extending his butt backwards and his head/shoulders forwards instead of him extending an arm or leg sideways, is there? Contact outside the torso should still be called on the screener.

That'd be a tough call for me, JR.
When the posturing player "does not move at all to initiate any type of contact", and if the contact is initiated by an opponent, what happens to a player's right to a place on the floor?
I don't think I can call a foul on a player merely because he has not achieved or maintained a legal guarding position.

[eg, if an opponent is rising from the floor in an awkward position, a player (making contact with that rising opponent) will be called for intiating sufficient contact.]

mick

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Read NFHS rule 10-6-1,."...by bending the body into any other than a normal position".

JR, I take this to mean that the "bend" motion occurs at time that the defender is attempting to pass by, the sitch states that the player was in the position for a considerable amount of time as if he was a fixture....should the timing of the motion be considered?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
what happens to a player's right to a place on the floor?

A player doesn't have a right to a spot on the floor simply because a part of his body is over that spot. If he did, then extending elbows, knees, etc would be legal screening tactics. A player is entitled to the space he takes up while in a normal stance. I've always interpreted "normal" to mean "upright" (or nearly so). Otherwise, why couldn't you stand on one foot and stick all your other limbs out to the side? That'd be quite a screen!

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

A player doesn't have a right to a spot on the floor simply because a part of his body is over that spot. If he did, then extending elbows, knees, etc would be legal screening tactics. A player is entitled to the space he takes up while in a normal stance. I've always interpreted "normal" to mean "upright" (or nearly so). Otherwise, why couldn't you stand on one foot and stick all your other limbs out to the side? That'd be quite a screen!

My 13-year old's normal stance is lying down on the couch. Now that would make a great screen.

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

A player doesn't have a right to a spot on the floor simply because a part of his body is over that spot. If he did, then extending elbows, knees, etc would be legal screening tactics. A player is entitled to the space he takes up while in a normal stance. I've always interpreted "normal" to mean "upright" (or nearly so). Otherwise, why couldn't you stand on one foot and stick all your other limbs out to the side? That'd be quite a screen!

You spent way too much time in New York.Yer talkin' funny.

Bent over. Hands on knees. Not moving.
Legal to thump him?
No.
Foul on the thumper.
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
Legal to thump him?
No.
Foul on the thumper.

Never legal to take an intentional shot at somebody. Apples and oranges.

But if that guy is bent over so that his butt is extended out of his vertical plane, and a defender is bumped off his coverage by said butt, isn't that a foul on the screener?

If you say no, then what would be illegal about my "standing on one foot" example?

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Never legal to take an intentional shot at somebody. Apples and oranges.

But if that guy is bent over so that his butt is extended out of his vertical plane, and a defender is bumped off his coverage by said butt, isn't that a foul on the screener?

If you say no, then what would be illegal about my "standing on one foot" example?

Chuck,
I did not say your ballerina was illegal.
How much time did you actually spend in NYC?

You say the defender was bumped.
Nay, not so. In the given sitch, the bent over player did not move and has a right to be there, not moving.
mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

A player doesn't have a right to a spot on the floor simply because a part of his body is over that spot. If he did, then extending elbows, knees, etc would be legal screening tactics. A player is entitled to the space he takes up while in a normal stance. I've always interpreted "normal" to mean "upright" (or nearly so). Otherwise, why couldn't you stand on one foot and stick all your other limbs out to the side? That'd be quite a screen!

Agree with Chuck. You certainly have the right to stand on the court- in a basketball way. Getting down into a 2-point football stance sure isn't a "normal position", as the rule states, on the basketball court. Would you let a player set a screen by getting down into a 3 or 4-point football stance too? And call a foul on the defender if he ran into the screener's stationary back leg? Would you let a player screen by laying on the court?

Imo, the screener is getting an unfair advantage in this play by extending his butt and head/shoulders into a space that is normally not taken up by the screener setting any type of a normal basketball screen. Iow, if contact occurs, it may be because he's illegally impeded the progress of his opponent by bending his body into other than a normal postion- just like R10-1-6 says. I think that that's the purpose and intent of that rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

You say the defender was bumped.
Nay, not so. In the given sitch, the bent over player did not move and has a right to be there, not moving.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree. There's no rule that says that the player can't stand like that. There's never a foul without contact wither. If contact does occur however, I agree with Chuck that the onus should be on the screener if that contact is on the extended butt. That's basically no different than contact with the extended arm or leg of a screener.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 20th, 2004 at 12:27 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
You say the defender was bumped.
Nay, not so. In the given sitch, the bent over player did not move

Poor choice of word on my part. True that the screener committed no overt act (i.e., did not move to cause the contact), but the contact caused the defender to move out of his path. And since the contact was on a part of the body that was outside the screener's verical plane, this is a foul on the screener. No? Vocabulary aside, do we really disagree?

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree with Chuck. You certainly have the right to stand on the court- in a basketball way. Getting down into a 2-point football stance sure isn't a "normal position", as the rule states, on the basketball court. Would you let a player set a screen by getting down into a 3 or 4-point football stance too? And call a foul on the defender if he ran into the screener's stationary back leg? Would you let a player screen by laying on the court?

Imo, the screener is getting an unfair advantage in this play by extending his butt and head/shoulders into a space that is normally not taken up by the screener setting any type of a normal basketball screen. Iow, if contact occurs, it may be because he's illegally impeded the progress of his opponent by bending his body into other than a normal postion- just like R10-1-6 says. I think that that's the purpose and intent of that rule.

Ballerinas.
Offensive linemen.
Bent over, hands on knees.
Gymnastics anyone?
mick

[DownTownTonyBrown]

How about an opponent running by in front of the screen and incidentally taking his head off?

I'm thinking no call on my part, and the guy/screener will likely staighten up for the rest of the game.

We don't allow that kind of stance in the post play; why should we allow it here?

Again, no foul until there is contact... then likely, "Illegal Screen."

[Rickref]

This looks to be heading toward the "Cone of Verticallity" zone. How about a little preventative officating, tell the big guy to have a better posture and call him on it if he doesn't listen. Make sure there is contact though if you are going to call it.