Illegal screens

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Feel free to respond. I wont; I don't know why I bothered in the first place anyway, but I'm done trying to talk sensibly with you- again. It never works and it's just a waste of time.

Come on, guys, group hug. Can't we all just get along?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
You don't see simultaneous lane-line free throw violations in the rule book either, do you? Or maybe a dribbler losing possession of the ball in the front court, falling into the backcourt and then coming back into the front court to legally touch the ball?

It seems that there's a whole buncha things that you can't see in the rule book, isn't there? Doesn't mean that they aren't in the rule book though- just that you can't see them.

So far, you're 0 for 3 in 3 different forums in the last day. You'll never admit to it though.

Feel free to respond. I wont; I don't know why I bothered in the first place anyway, but I'm done trying to talk sensibly with you- again. It never works and it's just a waste of time.

I was wrong and misunderstood the BC violation question. I do not think there is a simultaneous violation for lane line violations (but there are if one is a lane line violation and the other violation is not related to the lane line).

Either way it goes, the NF does not use the term "moving screen" in their literature at this time. They once did and went over backwards to try to make it clear that incidental contact and other aspects of the rule applied. Then we have not seen that terminology since. You are the only person that I know that even tries to pass that crap off as current interpretation or current thought on this issue. All the officials that I work with or talk to on a regular basis do not use the term "moving screen” as you have. Only rookie officials or not very respected officials I know use that term. Also, you are not from the place I am and I do not work for you. You can tell people whatever you like about what you think. If I told Harry Bohn that "Jurassic Referee said that there is such thing as moving screens” he might start laughing hysterically. If I said that people would say, "Who the hell is that?" Then they would start laughing hysterically harder than the first time when I told them you were a person on an internet discussion board. I realize you think all your posts have some official tone to them but they do not. You have even had the gall to tell people that their local IAABO interpreters were crazy because they do not agree with you. I might be 0-3, but you are 0-infinitity. I know you think you are the Czar of this board and everything you said holds water, but it does not. I cannot take a 3 to 4 year old rulebook and use it today when explaining.

I am still looking for just one person that is considered influential to side with your point of view on this topic. When I was at camp and someone used that term you would have thought they committed a crime using that terminology. Maybe you should debate with all the clinicians and state officials that hate that term. I guess they are crazy because they are not big and bad as you think you are.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Come on, guys, group hug. Can't we all just get along?

Get along for what? Who the hell is Jurassic Referee? There is no reason to get along or agree with some guy that lives hundreds of miles away and think the sun rises and sets on his opinion or interpretations only.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

This is one of Rut's blind spots, and it pops up every time this topic comes up. He likes to say that there is no such thing as a moving screen, and bases the claim on the fact the phrase "moving screen" doesn't appear verbatim in the rule book.

Nevertheless, the rule book tells us quite clearly that there are moving screens and that they can even be legal. 4-40-2c tells us that a screener must be stationary, "except when both are moving in the same path and the same direction". This clearly points out that the screener can move, in certain circumstances.

4-40-6 tells us that when a screener is moving in the same path and direction as his opponent, the opponent is responsible for the contact if the screener slows down or stops. So not only is it legal to move while screening, but in some cases, the player who is screened is responsible for any contact.

So yes, Virginia, there are moving screens. And next time the topic comes up, just pat Rut on the head and say, "It's a shame that 'moving screens' aren't defined in the book, isn't it?" You'll know better, but he'll feel better.

[JCrow]

Johnsatchmo,

I have to explain the Screening Rules every week to parents who Coach in our Y Rec League. In plain English:

1. The Screener cannot initiate the contact with the defender.

2. If the Defender is stationary and is screened from the side - the screener can get as close as desired w/o making contact. The screener has to have a "normal" body position. He can't extend arms and legs to prevent the defender's movement. Arms "X"'d at the chest are OK.

3. If the Defender is stationary and is screened from the back (blindside) - the screener must give him one stride's separation.

4. If the defender is moving, the screener must give him time & distance to avoid a trainwreck. Two strides is time & distance.

5. Even if the screener doesn't abide by 3 & 4 - it's not a FOUL until contact is made.

6. The screener can move in the same path & direction as the defender. If the defender runs him over, it's the defender's foul.

I find in Rec Ball that there are two Urban Screening Myths:

1. YOU CAN FIGHT THRU THE SCREEN - Some guys think it is manly to use their hands to shove screeners out of the way. Automatic foul. Defenders must try to avoid a visable screen. Incidental contact is OK.

2. MOVING SCREEN - A1 screens B1 who is stationary. No contact is made. B1 adjusts position. A1 adjusts position of screen. No contact is made.

Coaches call "Moving Screen" on this constantly. It's perfectly OK.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This is one of Rut's blind spots, and it pops up every time this topic comes up. He likes to say that there is no such thing as a moving screen, and bases the claim on the fact the phrase "moving screen" doesn't appear verbatim in the rule book.

Then I guess we should use the term "over the back" considering that we could say that the rule of verticality applies to that terminology in some kind of way.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Nevertheless, the rule book tells us quite clearly that there are moving screens and that they can even be legal. 4-40-2c tells us that a screener must be stationary, "except when both are moving in the same path and the same direction". This clearly points out that the screener can move, in certain circumstances.

The rulebook also says that you have to give the proper time and distance or you have a foul on the screener. The rule also says that if you do not give the proper time and distance on a blind screen, the contact is caused by the screener. I see very little in the rule that says the only foul we should call is based on movement. And in the NF own interpretations, they make it clear that a screen can be moving and very legal. Simplified and Illustrated has an example of this a "legal moving screen" on page 86.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
So yes, Virginia, there are moving screens. And next time the topic comes up, just pat Rut on the head and say, "It's a shame that 'moving screens' aren't defined in the book, isn't it?" You'll know better, but he'll feel better.

Please do not attempt patronize me with that BS. The reality is that you, JR or Tony are not official interpreters for the NF or the NCAA. I know it makes you feel big and bad because some people like the things you say on this site, but you are just like me talking about something from an opinion point of view. Nothing we are saying here is based on anything other than what you think or the way we personally interpret something. I was at the meeting that Struckoff addressed all the IHSA Association Delegates and she cleared up a lot of issues that things JR and you have been trying to tell people here for years that was not at all true. I asked Struckoff a question myself just to clear something up that I read here all the she confirmed what I have been saying for years. But when I read certain posts, you would think these are official words coming from NF Committee members.

Good day.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Then I guess we should use the term "over the back" considering that we could say that the rule of verticality applies to that terminology in some kind of way.

Actually, Jeff, I do use the words "over the back" when it's appropriate. Here's an example:

Coach: She's over the back! Look she's clear over the back!

Me: Coach, over the back isn't illegal.

Coach: Yes it is. It's in the rulebook!

Me: Show it to me, and then I'll start calling it.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Then I guess we should use the term "over the back" considering that we could say that the rule of verticality applies to that terminology in some kind of way.

No, we shouldn't. Because there is no infraction for going over someone's back. When ignorant people say "over the back", they think it should be a foul. That's why we don't use the phrase.

However, when you say that there are no moving screens, that is simply false. There are moving screens, as I pointed out above.

The rulebook also says that you have to give the proper time and distance or you have a foul on the screener.

Irrelevant. That is referring to a screen that is set on a player who is NOT moving the same direction as the screener. All you've told us is that that particular scenario is not a legal moving screen. But that's utterly beside the point.

Please do not attempt patronize me with that BS.

Too late. Go have a cookie. You'll feel better. Really.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


However, when you say that there are no moving screens, that is simply false. There are moving screens, as I pointed out above.

Well this is where I am going to disagree. Not because you believe it. Because you are on the internet saying it and no one I work for approves of that terminology. Now if you want to go on using the term, go right ahead. I am not going to use the term and the rulebook does not use the term. You can find the term moving screen in the rulebook is the same place you can find "over the back." When I call an illegal screen, I call it when rules are violated, not because there is a snappy term.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
That is referring to a screen that is set on a player who is NOT moving the same direction as the screener. All you've told us is that that particular scenario is not a legal moving screen. But that's utterly beside the point.

No it is not. You cannot say one think is the point than dismiss something else without other proof. Also there was an article written in Referee Magazine that talked about "Rules Myths" and the article was repeated. The term that was included in the article was "Moving screen." Then they gave the reasons the term was used. I guess we just are not going to agree.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker


Actually, Jeff, I do use the words "over the back" when it's appropriate. Here's an example:

Coach: She's over the back! Look she's clear over the back!

Me: Coach, over the back isn't illegal.

Coach: Yes it is. It's in the rulebook!

Me: Show it to me, and then I'll start calling it.

Why bother going to all that trouble?

When a coach tells me "over the back" I simply tell him there was no contact.

I understand what he wants, he understands why he didn't get it. Might not agree...but that's another thread. Same deal when a coach asks for a moving screen, or a reach. Who cares if it's in the damn book or not? If you don't know what the coach is asking for when he uses these terms then find another way to spend your free time.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Really eh?

You may want to pass that along to the people who write the NFHS rules book. Apparently they haven't learned that yet.

From both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 Rule Books:
POE 4C SCREENS:
Moving Screens:
1) The screener must be stationary upon contact.
2) It is not a moving screen unless there is contact.

There are moving screens. Whether they may be illegal or not is determined by other rules dependant upon the circumstances involved.




[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:07 PM]

If there is no contact it is obstruction and the offended team receives an indirect free kick. OOPS! Wrong sport.

MTD, Sr.

[eventnyc]

I find that most coaches are looking for a "moving screen" (which I too believe doesn't exist)when an offensive player is moving in the same direction as the dribbler creating what "they believe" is a moving screen. What I believe they fail to realize, is that any player is permitted to move or occupy any space on the floor inbounds (with limitations). The key here is CONTACT. No contact = no foul.

A similar situation exists when they are looking for "over the back" (another non-existant term). Whenever they observe a player out rebounding a smaller opponent, without making contact, they're looking for the call. I'm not calling it!

[JRutledge]

I agree with Dan completely. It really does not matter what others think or what the rulebook says. It is clear to me when a coach uses the term they want something called when no contact is present or no advantage is gained so they can get an advantage. They think complaining is going to work so they complain until they realize call something in their favor. Nothing that we discussed here is going to change anyone's mind on this topic nor should it. I just know I cannot talk to new official about year old POEs that I am not going not going to show them. There is a reason they make new rulebooks ever year.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by eventnyc
I find that most coaches are looking for a "moving screen" (which I too believe doesn't exist)when an offensive player is moving in the same direction as the dribbler creating what "they believe" is a moving screen.

That's exactly what a legal moving screen is. It's when a player prevents an opponent from getting to a spot by moving in the same path and direction as the opponent. You say you don't believe moving screens exist and then you give a very good description of one!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
It really does not matter what others think or what the rulebook says.

So they do exist, but it doesn't matter that it's in the rulebook. Got it.

It is clear to me when a coach uses the term they want something called when no contact is present

I agree. But that doesn't mean that there are no legal moving screens. It just means that the coach -- SURPRISE! -- doesn't understand the relevant rule.