I do the scoreboard for a local rec league. We have certified officials and every so often some team will be yelling about illegal screens and moving picks but the refs rarely acknowledge them. I was just wondering was is the ruling about these? Just so I can be in the know next time.
|
What do you want to know? I am not sure I understand the question.
Also understand that teams cry for a lot of things that do not go along with the rules. If the officials did not call anything, they probably did not feel there was any reason to. ;) Peace |
Quote:
Welcome to the forum. RE: Illegal screens and moving picks - The number one thing you must know is that for a foul to be called <U>contact is required</U>. mick Note - It's also okay to be here if your are a coach, player, or fan. |
johnsatchmo,
The thing to keep in mind about illegal screens and moving picks is that 99% of the people yelling for them probably don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. You'll find the same thing with 3 seconds and all kinds of other things. I'd suggest that in an upcoming game you find one of the officials that you feel comfortable with and ask them to explain it. It would be much easier than describing it on this forum because he/she could actually walk you through it on the court. Keep asking questions. Knowledgeable fans are great to have in the stands and at the table! |
UGG I hate it when fans scream moving screen. Really their is not such thing as one. As mentioned before contact must be made, and it must be some other kind of foul. Moving screens are not a foul or a violation.
|
Quote:
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: <b>Moving Screens:</b> <i>1) The screener must be stationary upon contact. 2) It is not a <b>moving screen</b> unless there is contact.</i> There <b>are</b> 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] |
Quote:
|
My bad thanks for clarifying
|
Quote:
The best book description and explanation on what to look for in screens is in rule 10-6-3. I was hoping that some nice guy would come along and paste that into this thread- for johnsatchmo and others. It's kinda long just to type out. |
Quote:
Peace |
Here ya go
Quote:
a. When he/she is outside the visual field of a stationary opponent, take a position closer than a normal step from the opponent. b. When he/she assumes a position at the side or in front of a stationary opponent, make contact with that opponent. It the screen is set within the visual field of a stationary opponent, the screener may be as close to the opponent as the screener desires, short of contact. c. Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. This position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent. d. After assuming his/her legal screening position, move to maintain it, unless he/she moves in the same direction and path of the opponent. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent. If the screener violates any of these provisions and contact results, he/she has committed a personal foul. A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if 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 and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball. A player may not use the arms, hands, hips or shoulders to force his/her way through a screen or to hold the screener and then push the screener aside in order to maintain a guarding position on an opponent. NOTE: When a guard moves into the path of a dribbler and contact occurs, either player may be responsible for the contact, but the greater responsibility is that of the dribbler if the guard conforms to the following principles, which officials use in reaching a decision. The guard is assumed to have obtained a guarding position if he/she is in the dribbler's path facing him/her. If he/she jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position. No specific stance or distance is required. It is assumed the guard may shift to maintain his/her position in the path of the dribbler, provided he/she does not charge into the dribbler nor otherwise cause contact, as outlined in |
Thanks, BITS.
|
Quote:
|
Funny, I do not see the term "moving screen" in any of those words which is directly in the rulebook. ;)
I guess when we all talk to our evaluators and assignors we can say some guy named "Jurassic Referee" told us to do it that way and they will not give us a pass. I know the people I work for care a lot about what people on the internet say.:D Peace |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
I am looking for just one other person to use the same term.
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
Peace |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Good day. Peace |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
However, when you say that there are no moving screens, that is simply false. There are moving screens, as I pointed out above. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
If there is no contact it is obstruction and the offended team receives an indirect free kick. OOPS! Wrong sport. MTD, Sr. |
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! |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The way I see this going is by the description given, movement is legal, any contact initiated by the screener while moving = illegal screen or a block. (terminaology may be the hang up) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I totally understand your point, and I agree that it's not a foul and coaches misuse the phrase. But moving screens are described in the rulebook. That's my only point. And I'll stop annoying you now. :) |
Wow, so we wasted all of that energy to get to the point that we all actually agree?? And here I thought popcorn was in order.
Movement while setting the screen is legal, insofar as the screener doesn't initiate contact. The term "moving screen" does not exist in the section on violations or fouls, since it is perfectly legal to move while setting a screen. Once the contact occurs, then there is an "illegal screen" which I have seen called as a block or push. The rulebook does refer to a moving screen, but only in terms of what was posted previously. No matter what terminology you use or what you call it, CALL IT RIGHT!! |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11am. |