Moving screen (or not)

[SeanFitzRef]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Rule 10-6 says:

In cases with the screener and id the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact or moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

Rule 4-27-1 also says:

The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.


Rule 4-27-3 always says:

Similarly, contact which does not hinder normal the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
TH,

I have shown you the rules that I feel illustrate why the term "moving screen" should not be used. 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.

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

[/b]SECTION 39 SCREEN[/b]

ART. 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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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. [/B]

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge


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.

Because none of you have any self respect??

[Camron Rust]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Because none of you have any self respect??

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
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]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

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

"Exibit"? So much for Mr. Spelling Guy...

Just trying to help.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
So much for Mr. Spelling Guy...

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Chuck Elias

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 Chuck Elias on Nov 15th, 2005 at 07:59 AM]

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...)

[Forksref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

These are high school kids. Almost all of them are under 18; so there would be many illegal contracts.

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!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Forksref
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 no more!) 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.