|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 03:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am hearing a fair amount of debate recently, and a number of refs calling differently, what is a legal picking stance. The debate isn't about their feet or hips, it is arm placement. some say the arms have to be down at their sides. Others allow the picker's fists up ON their chest, elbows extended (looks like a football blocking stance), still others allow the blocking position with hands a bit extended from the chest. IF the player did not move their feet during the pick, which of the above 3 positions would cause you to call a foul for an illegaly set pick? And what about "leaning into" the pick (which can be construed as bracing for impact or gaining advantage).
__________________
All of us learn to write in the second grade. Most of us go on to greater things. 
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 05:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-6-1 Extending the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is not legal.
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 06:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
therefore
having your fists in your chest (not extended) but elbows out to the side is considered legal, correct? Or, must the pickers arms but down at his/her side? As a coach, esp with girls, we taught them to have their hands/fists up in the middle of their chests (which brings the elbows up, makes your bigger). We've taught the boys to have their hands in a "protective posture," if you know what I mean. I am seeing a number of refs not allowing how we've taught our girls to pick. I allow it in the games I ref.
__________________
All of us learn to write in the second grade. Most of us go on to greater things.
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 07:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the elbows are outside the frame of the body and that is where the contact occurs, the screen would not be legal and a foul could be called if it was deemed to have caused the defender a disadvantage (or was simply too rough). However, if the arms were in the same position but the contact is in the middle of the torso, the position of the arms is not an issue.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 08:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Remember that anything is "legal", if there's no contact. The defined legal position is with the arms either at the side, or straight up. The screener, guarder, picker, is allowed to put the arms across the body to protect from "impending contact". What I've mostly seen is that girls do this by hugging across the chest, boys with the hands clasped "down in front".
Occasionally, I"ll see someone with the arms crossed but out a little from the body. If this is used only as a brace, and not to push in any way, I'll allow it. With the hands in front and the elbows out, contact on the arms is illegal, as with the arms out to the sides. Arms also can't be extended in front of the body, even to meet an "incoming" screenee. Refs are often confused about the rules, because of what they see on TV, and what they've heard others say. If you call these plays by the rules, the better teams will adjust to your way of calling, and the lousy ones will get more and more upset. If two players are setting a side-by-side screen, they do not need to be touching each other to have legal position. If there's less than a "reasonable amount of space" between them, then the dribbler (or whoever is trying to get through) is responsible if there's contact, UNLESS THE SCREENERS SHIFT INWARD, which they often do. Their arms still can't be out to the side, and can't swing down as the dribbler tries to squeeze through. Whoooo -- hoooo!! That was an essay. I should copy it onto the paid side, and pick up some bucks.
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 10:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
One of the causes of illegal screens is the way the play is run. I RARELY see a screen (pick) set where the player being screened for gets close enough to the screener to prevent the B player from getting through the screen. When I coached, I'd tell my players to "take some skin." In other words bump the shoulder of the person setting the screen for you so the defender can't get through. When that person doesn't get close to the screener, the screener tries to adjust by moving laterally, either the hips, legs or even the arms as mentioned above. In many cases, the coaches haven't taught a proper screen. It's one of those fundamental details that is overlooked.
|
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006, 11:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006, 12:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If coaches would just teach two things we'd have less problems with illegal screens.
1. Remind the players that screening is a passive act and contact does not have to happen for the screen to work. 2. Tell them once they are set up, don't make yourself bigger, just remember #1.
|
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006, 12:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
FEWER problems, FEWER problems Mr. Grammar Guy is away right now, so I'm just helping out.
|
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006, 12:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006, 02:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
RULE 4
SECTION 24 HANDS AND ARMS, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL USE ... ART. 3 . . . It is legal to hold the hands and arms in front of the face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent charge by an opponent. This same protective use of the arms and hands occurs when a player who has set a screen outside the opponent's visual field is about to be run into by the player being screened. The action, however, should be a recoil action rather than a pushing action. ... ART. 6 . . . It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used. So you have to judge which action is taking place. One is legal the other is not.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
