Varsity girls scrimmage the other night. Had three illegal screen calls in the first quarter on the home team which had the coach a bit upset since he was obviously teaching this technique. As girls would move laterally in the front court, one of his girls would jumpstop in front of the moving defender. On occasion, the defender was able to avoid the screen, but in most cases the defender could not and would crash into the offensive player. I know this is a judgement call and can be a tough one to make, but in my opinion, the offensive player was not allowing the defender enough distance (1-2 steps/strides) to avoid the contact. Anyone else see this coaching teachnique in the girls game?

BTW, it stopped by the second quarter and the coach wanted to know why I wasn't allowing his kids to set picks. I told him if set properly, they can set all the picks they want, but these were not legal and better that they learn it now then during the season.

First of all there is really no such thing as a moving screen. The term has nothing to do with an illegal screen or not. You can have a still screener and the screen can be illegal. That is just a pet peeve of mine, ignore my comments. ;)

As a general philosophy I do not reward players being screened with fouls when they decide to not run thru the screen or stop and change direction. There has to be (in my way of thinking) some kind of displacement. If there is just "touching" I do not have a foul. I was not at your game to decide what really was illegal. If there was contact and you feel it was enough for a foul, then maybe you should have called it. That is after all why we get paid the big bucks.

Peace

Would only comment that many illegal screens never become a foul because the screened player runs around the moving or late screen and avoids contact or most contact. Remember, no contact, no foul, even though the screen is illegal.

SECTION 39 SCREEN
ART. 1 . . . A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 . . . To establish a legal screening position:

a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and the same direction.

ART. 3 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the

screener may be anywhere short of contact.

ART. 4 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.

ART. 5 . . . When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance need not be more than two strides.

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.


Sounds like you got it right to me. The coach needs to understand that his clever technique is illegal.

Agreed - that is why I passed on several before and after the actual calls. I have found this to be something you have to be aware of early in the game, especially in girls games. There can be some significant contact on these plays and kids can get hurt and your game can get off to a bad start if you don't stop it early.

Bad, bad, way to think about this...

There can be significant contact in basketball that is quite legal. Don't call fouls or "stop it early" on action that is legal because "kids can get hurt." Your job as an official is to follow the rules. If someone gets hurt on a legal play that is unfortunate, but a part of sports.

Rule 4
SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.
ART. 1 . . . 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.
ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.
ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

If there was no illegal contact, the screen was a legal screen. Only if there was illegal contract then the screen was illegal.

MTD, Sr.

Ok, we'll ignore the comments, because there really is such a thing as a moving screen and it can be legal, too!

I know you know this, and I know what you meant. ;) I just didn't want any newbies to take you literally.

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

The rulebook does not use the term "moving screen." There is not such definition as "moving screen" either. The point is the usage of the term "moving screen" does not tell anyone that the screen is legal or illegal. A screen can be moving or not moving and be completely illegal. A screen can be moving or not be moving and be completely legal. Using the term in my opinion clouds the actual rule. You do not have to agree, but there are many examples that a moving screen is shown to be legal. The Simplified and Illustrated book is a great example of that.

Peace

Reproduced directly and accurately from the 2001-02 <b>RULE BOOK</b>:

POE #4C-.Screens
.<b>Moving screens</b>
1. The screener must be stationary upon contact.
2. It is not a <b>moving screen</b> unless there is contact.

'Nuff said.

Maybe it's a regional thing. Rut's area might not acknowledge "moving screens." They may also have an assignor who won't give them games if they wear belted pants or use the term "moving screens." :D

Z

I certainly understand that there can be signficant contact that is legal and acceptable as part of the game. My only point is that when there is an opportunity to prevent it by making a few calls, you can and should prevent unnecessary contact which may result in injury. Just my opinion.

Nevada's point, which is completely correct btw, is that you have to have <b>illegal</b> contact in order to have a foul. Significant or unecessary or hard contact does <b>not</b> always equate to illegal contact. You should never try to inject yourself into a game by trying to prevent significant or unnecessary contact if that significant or unnecessary contact is not illegal contact.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 11th, 2005 at 05:24 PM]

I hear what you are saying and I agree - I guess I wasn't making my point clear. The calls I am referring to ARE in fact illegal contact and should be called to prevent futute unnecessary contact. I have seen some games get out of hand because officials are either unwilling or are ball watching and miss these type of fouls. That is the prevention I am referring to.

MPLAHE,
From what you wrote I have no foul here at all. the girl can jumpstop all day for all I care right before the girl hits her and this not be illegal. When a screener is in the visual parameters of the screenee, time and distance do not matter. I believe the rulebook says anything short of contact. I would say that this is just my opinion but it's not, it's the NFHS's, NCAA's, and NBA's.

For what it's worth I don't like to see kids get hurt because of stuff like this, but it happens. I'll give you two examples:

1) Kings and Mavericks at dallas: bibby taking the ball up the floor with the dallas rookie pg putting pressure on him in the backcourt. bibby starts to accelerate. right about that time the center for the kings turns around just in time and gets a firm position, the kid hits the center and is knocked out cold. danny crawford, the referee, deemed this to be legal contact. The kid who got screened had a concussion.

2)YBOA state tournament 9 and under:
Little girls falling down everywhere and parents getting upset of course, nothing illegal happening(working with a college official by the way)With about 5 seconds left in the game almost the same as above happened except the whole team was in a press, and the little girl went down and the coach/mom came onto the court with no whistle being sounded and just started to berate me, so I T her up calmly and told her to attend to the child, then all of sudden the asst. coach/dad comes onto the floor hootin and hollerin, and my partner comes from behind and had to toss him out of the gym.

All that just to reiterate what somebody said earlier, we are not out there to keep people from getting hurt, we are out there to call it by the rules, and from what it sounds like you know those pretty well and are confident in your skills, but you are like me when I first started reffing, you think if someone gets hurt it is your fault cause you didn't catch something sooner. Yes coaches and parents will blame you for it most of the time, but that comes with making the "big bucks". keep working hard to get those plays right.

tip: whether you are in two or three man crew, if you can get to the topside of these screens especially in pick n' roll plays it is like a whole new world.

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

The screening concept that you are trying to use applies only to a <b>stationary</b> opponent. Time and distance apply to screens set on a <b>moving</b> opponent. Different rules for different situations.

It might be a good idea to read and learn NFHS rule 10-6-3. Might keep you outa trouble some day.

Don't pontificate unless you really know what you're doing. It kinda makes you look a l'il silly when you're so badly wrong.

Had a varsity girls scrimmage the other night, and a similar play happened. A1 dribbling down the sideline in front of B's bench just across halfcourt, B1 defending and running along side A1. I see A2 in my field of vision come running up from the baseline to set a screen on B1. She jumpstops at the top of the key extended and waits for B1, and as A1 dribbles past the screen B1 gets totally wiped out. B's bench jumps up screaming for an illegal screen, but everything was legal. B1 took two steps before contact, A2 was set w/out high elbows or leaning. Just a tooth-rattling screen set legally. I saw it coming and knew there was a possibility for injury, but can't stop the game to say "Hey, WATCH OUT!!!" I would forfeit my stripes for life!

Just ref the rules, can't ref the potential for injury on every play. Preventative officiating goes a long way towards cleaning this up, but you can't protect or prevent evry injury from occuring.

NCAA 10-22-3 for your (...wait for it) SEC games.

How's the wheel btw?

Nuff said? Where does it say that the term or definition of a moving screen is illegal? Can you give a rule reference (actually in the rulebook) that uses the term "moving screen" as an illegal act? When I talk to a coach about this, I cannot tell that coach to go back almost 5 years ago and read what that rulebook said. He is going to want to be able to look up this year. Not that a coach is ever going to pick up a rulebook. I cannot show a newer official that reference either. They are not going to have that reference.

Once again, a screen can be moving and be completely legal. I personally do not like the term or accept the terminology as properly being used. If you want to use the term “moving screen” that is your prerogative to do so. Around here, it is not an accepted term because it is not a term the rulebook uses except for that POE. And when that POE came out, there was debate if they should have used the term at all. They also made it clear that all there principles of incidental contact still applied and you had to have the proper time and distance as stated in the rulebook.

Peace

I know my share of officials that wear belted pants and work games. They just do not seem to be the same officials that work a lot of playoffs or the best games. Not sure why that it, but it seems to be a trend that wearing a belt is an outdated trend.

In many official's opinions, you look like a clown wearing a belt on your pants. No differnet if you wear a collared shirt. Get with the times already.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Nov 14th, 2005 at 11:38 AM]

Often its taught also
 

Good point about contact. In our game the other night it was obvious that the coach had taught his defenders to "run through the screens" instead of the more correct way of moving over the screens etc, or switching.

Several times his girls got decked and the coach could not understand why we were letting them set so many illegal screens on his players.

Finally I simply told the coach, if your players want to run into the picks thats fine, but I'm not going to penalize the player that is setting a legal pick.

Now, later we had a couple of illegal screens that we did call and of course the coach let us know "about time you call that" - sigh!

Thanks
David

Oh my, I shouldn't let my fingers drive the typewriter when they are sober, LOL.

MTD, Sr.

Re: Often its taught also
 

Good point about contact. In our game the other night <font color = red>it was obvious that the coach had taught his defenders to "run through the screens" instead of the more correct way of moving over the screens etc, or switching</font>.

Finally I simply told the coach, if your players want to run into the picks thats fine, but <font color = red>I'm not going to penalize the player that is setting a legal pick.</font>




[/B][/QUOTE]No, but you shoulda been penalizing the player(s) that were running through the screens. That's an automatic foul. Any player who is screened in their visual field is supposed to at least make an attempt to run around the screen. They can't just go ahead and plow into the screener.

Rule 4-27-4. There's a case play or POE somewhere on this one too.

Went and looked for a reference:

NFHS 2002-03 Rule book:
<b>POE 3C</b>
MOVING SCREENS:
- The screener must be stationary on contact.
- It is not a moving screen unless there is contact.
- The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen.
- Excessive contact or <B>"pushing through the screen"</B> is illegal

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 14th, 2005 at 12:05 PM]

Moving screens are the best plays in basketball! If I was a coach, I would teach my team the art of the moving screen! I moving screen is legal until there is contact. Then it becomes an illegal screen!

If the defender moves around the screener while the screener is moving, I have nothing!

You made it perfectly clear. NV simply chose to take your statement out of the context in which you wrote it.

Don't worry about it, you're on target.

That is not necessarily true either. There must be contact that is not ruled incidental. All contact is not a foul. If a defender or screener never tries to "fight thru the screen," or gives up on the position, I am likely not calling a foul. Incidental contact still applies whether a screen is moving or not.

Peace

Can you give a rule reference that says displacement has to occur?

No, you cannot.

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

My bad, totally and utterly wrong. I know it when I see it just wrote it wrong. while I was writing this I was picturing a pick n roll play which in most cases is a stationary defender.

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.

So if the dribbler is going down court, can three of his team mates form a line alongside of him as screeners and keep the defense from getting to the dribbler as he goes in for a lay up? They are moving screens and there is no contact. Is that legal?

Yes. You can't have a personal foul without contact. With contact, you're into screening principles to make the correct call. Don't forget also that every player on the floor is legally allowed to establish a straight line path.