study guide question written late at night?

[just another ref]

In setting a stationary screen, team A has four players get down on all fours as in a football stance. Official rules that this is not a legal position in setting a screen. The ruling is correct.


That's it. That is the whole question. I don't know what they are asking. No B player was clipped. No B player stepped on one of these "screening players" head. (as far as I can tell) The act of getting down on all fours, in and of itself, is not against any rule that I am aware of. Someone enlighten me please.

[BktBallRef]

A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

[Nevadaref]

Justaref,
The statement is true. It does not state that the official calls a foul on the play, merely that he rules the position an illegal one for setting a screen. Tony gave the rules reason why that is so.

Don't over-read it.

[just another ref]

But his "ruling" consists of what? If the question had read: Officials think to themselves, "not a legal screening position," I would have immediately said true. But without reference to contact, I see this question as written to be meaningless.

[BillyMac]

In setting a stationary screen, team A has four players get down on all fours as in a football stance. Official rules that this is not a legal position in setting a screen. The ruling is correct.

This play is almost word for word from the 2005 IAABO Refresher Exam. The citation given is Rule 4, Section 39 and Rule 10, Section 6, Article 3.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This play is almost word for word from the 2005 IAABO Refresher Exam. [/COLOR][/B]

Billy, I'm sure that's why the question was asked here. Somebody gave out the '05 Refresher as a study guide (we do the same thing here). Unfortunately, there are several ambiguous and/or poorly worded questions on the Refresher every year. It's usually not as well-written as the official "Written Examination".