Illegal Screens

[riden]

I coach and ref a jr high league, NCAA rules.

First problem, too many coaches are reffing and I think this is the root of the problem.

We have a coach with a very competitive team (girls) who has taught players to screen in this manner:

legs slightly bent, arms locked (hand on elbows and biceps) and out in front of the body for protection but not out past the toes.

Some refs are calling this illegal, citing they are out of thier cylinder. To be clear, players are not leaning forward, they are leaning back, with knees bent. The call is not because they are reaching for players, but that the technique creates an illegal situation.


Any comments on the legitimacy of this argument??

[blindzebra]

They are not allowed to extend their arms, so yes I can see that getting called, because it's a natural reaction to lean into someone that is about to run into you.

Why coaches teach that or the hands at the throat, elbows out is beyond me.

Here's a tip: Feet shoulder width apart, arms slightly in front of the body, straight, with hands clasped covering the groin.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Here's a tip: Feet shoulder width apart, arms slightly in front of the body, straight, with hands clasped covering the groin.

That's the boys' technique, girls like to protect themselves a little higher.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's the boys' technique, girls like to protect themselves a little higher.

Then I suggest arms crossed, hands on opposite shoulder, because, every alternative I've seen leads to either the lean in push or the chickenwing chuck.

[riden]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Then I suggest arms crossed, hands on opposite shoulder, because, every alternative I've seen leads to either the lean in push or the chickenwing chuck.

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by riden

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

They are not allowed to extend their arms, so what is being taught is illegal.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by riden

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

The way I envision it as long as they don't overtly extend their elbows out beyond their shoulders or use their elbows to chuck the other player this stance is perfectly legal.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The way I envision it as long as they don't overtly extend their elbows out beyond their shoulders or use their elbows to chuck the other player this stance is perfectly legal.

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

[riden]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

Maybe you see them extending their upper arms & elbows out in an exaggerated stance. If that's what it is then I agree it could be illegal. What I envision is they are in a natural stance - their arms do not have to be held as flat as possible against their chests to be legal.

As long as they don't chuck the player coming at them or the player running by them they are fine.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

The first contact with the defender is with extended arms, I could further argue that this doesn't meet the natural position part of the rules either.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

That works as a guideline, assuming they are in a natural position. I think your screeners are legal.

[JRutledge]

I agree that a screener cannot use their arms, lean over or move into the screened player. I usually call this based on what the "screenee" does. If the player being screened just gives up position, I will likely pass on any foul. I will liken my philosophy on screens to what my philosophy on holding in football. The violated players need to do something to get a consistent call.

Now some will say, "You cannot have a philosophy like that; it does not fit the rules." Whatever my philosophy is, I tend to call by far many more illegal screens than anyone. I even had an official in a pre-game say, "I have never called a team control foul and do not see myself calling one."

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I even had an official in a pre-game say, "I have never called a team control foul and do not see myself calling one."

Peace

My goodness.

If he told me that I would have an illegal screen in his area within the first 2 minutes of the game.

geeze.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

I have seen this used. As long as the arms give when contact occurrs I would allow it as long as the arms where flexed very little. I would have to watch specifically for it to be sure, but I suspect the arms flex out some as part of absorbing the contact when the arms are initially kept against the body. However I have noticed a subsequent action that I wouldn't allow. When contact does occurr, hands are relleased, with the elbows staying extended. That creates a bit of a "|V|" shape where the defender is between the elbows. The defender is then placed at an illegal disadvantage IMO when that happens.