Just don't interlock. The flying wedge was outlawed a hundred years ago.

But "the screener" is moving, right? So wouldn't this be a "moving screen"? And you're saying it's legal, right?

I just want to be clear. Rut is acknowledging that there are moving screens, and that they are legal! This is a momentous occasion!! :D

While it is only a technical point it must be said that moving screens are legal - as long as there is no contact and then the call is a block.

One of the problems we run into is the wrong terminology being used by both referees and civilians - that creates half of the crap we have to listen to.

This kind of post is the reason that I choose to mostly ignore what you write. I have always said that screens can move and be legal. The problem is people say "moving screen" and they think there is something illegal about it. I have never heard a coach say “that’s a moving screen” and claim the action was legal. A screen is either legal or it illegal. Moving or not is has nothing to do with legality the issue. If I get in the way of a defender and I do not give the proper time and distance, I have committed a foul if the contact is not ruled incidental. How is any of this new?

Peace

What you have always said is that there is no such thing as a "moving screen". You like to say this because the exact words "moving screen" do not appear in the rulebook. So now I get to rib you, b/c you are talking about moving screens. Ignore it or not. I couldn't care less.

Well, it has something to do with the issue; b/c if you're moving, then there are very strict guidelines on how you can screen. But I agree with your point. A screen can be legal, even if it is moving.

What you have always said is that there is no such thing as a "moving screen". You like to say this because the exact words "moving screen" do not appear in the rulebook. So now I get to rib you, b/c you are talking about moving screens. Ignore it or not. I couldn't care less.[/B][/QUOTE]

The term "moving screen" does not appear in the rulebook. There is no definition that says a "moving screen" is an illegal act. The rules state how a screen can be set and how they cannot be set.

If I set a blind screen and I do not give a normal step it does not matter if I am completely still or moving, it is a foul on the screener. I have yet to ever hear a coach one time call for a foul or accept the explanation of a foul on a set screen when the screen is a blind screen. This might seem like semantics, but that is why the term "moving screen" should not be used by officials. It completely clouds the rules. Screens are not illegal just because they are moving or not. And the rules do not use the term at all. I believe we should stay away from it as well. Not much different than a "reach" or "over the back" when those terms do not accurately describe the reason a foul is called. Oh well, do what you see fit.

Peace