I think I love it most when you - and everyone else in the gym - see a player going to set a screen, and make an awkward lunge at the opposing player they are attempting to screen but they don't make any contact at all. The coaches scream "Illegal screen!!", but no contact has occured. Can't call anything (without making something up), but I can let the player know that if contact occurs, foul will be called.

DUH! That discusses the screener being displaced. Show us the rule reference where the player being screened has to be displaced before you will call a foul. After all, that is what you said.

TH,

I have shown you the rules that I feel illustrate why the term "moving screen" should not be used. If you feel it should be used, knock yourself out. When I look in 4-27, 4-40 and 10-6, for some odd reason I do not see the term "moving screen" used one time. I guess the rules makers are completely wrong. Maybe they should come up with a definition so that you can be right on this one. Until that time comes, we should not use the term. I have a right to that opinion as many others I know feel the same way. The term suggests that a screen is illegal because it was moving. A screen can be stationary and be illegal. You are not going to change my mind.

Peace

And I've shown you the rule that illustrates why the term "moving screen" is perfectly legitimate.

In the definition of "Screen", it describes a screen that is moving. Seems to me, that's a moving screen. If you don't feel it should be used, knock yourself out. Just don't try to convince us that moving screens are not defined in the rules. :)

I am not trying to convince you of anything. If you want to use the term use it. There is a reason why you live on the East Coast and Tony lives in North Carolina and I live in Midwest, specifically in a metropolitan area surrounding Chicago. In the associations I belong to, they do not use those terms for the very reason I stated earlier. Also in the mechanics book there is no such thing as "moving screen" when you report to the table what kind of foul you have called. So if you think there is no confusion with the term, why would I give a damn if that is what you use? This is one of these agree to disagree moments. ;)

Peace

Because none of you have any self respect??

I agree with JRutledge on this one.

Refering anything as a moving screen can only cause trouble. For an overwhelming majority of those that hear "moving screen" it means something completely different than the situation that Chuck is pointing out. It will be heard as the common meaning instead of the intended meaning.

Because none of us has any self respect. I may not have self respect, but I have a solid grasp of English grammar.

I beg to differ.

have: to use or exhibit in action.

None of you people exhibit self respect.

You might beg, and you might differ, but your grammar still stinks. :)

"None" is singular in number. "Exhibit" is plural in number. You should say, "None of you exhibits self respect." Just trying to help.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Nov 15th, 2005 at 07:59 AM]

"Exibit"? :) So much for Mr. Spelling Guy... :rolleyes:

Just trying to help. :D

LMAO. I typed it fast and then ran out to walk the dog. When I got back, I saw the mistake (twice, no less) and edited the post. Then when I submitted it, I saw your reply. Got me!! LOL

Ok fine, I'll agree.

None of you has any self respect.

(Of course, all but 1 of you can reach the back burner of his stove without standing on a chair...but I digress...)

I still wonder if LeBron James had an illegal contract when he was still in high school. Heck, none of my kids ever bought a Hummer!

Well, LeBron didn't either. His mom bought the Hummer. (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say <font size = +2>no</font> <font size = +4>more!</font>) Let's at least get our facts straight before we go around insinuating that a huge sneaker company might be unethical enough to give a 17-year-old millions of dollars under the table to secure his future services.