Rule 4-40 - Screen [and forum searches?]
 

Apparently when the FAQ says you can search for words it actually excludes strings like "4-40"... (or 4-39, which is what the definition for Screen used to be) Why doesn't it just allow a pure character string search?
Anyway, one of the rules I wanted to review over the summer is 4-40, screening. There are no case book examples in the rule books I have and the rule seems clear enough. For discussion, though, the rule does not always require contact before a screen is considered illegal. For example, what is seen frequently is A1 screening from the backside and he/she (usually she, it seems) does not stop short of contact with B1... however, if A1 does stop short of contact with B1's backside I would normally not call the illegal screen unless B1 subsequently collides with the screener. In contrast, if A1 sets a screen on a moving B1 without giving the required time/distance and B1 avoids contact... well, here I would tend to call the illegal screen even without appreciable contact.

If A1's screen is set too close and B1 turns to navigate around A1 without significant contact, would most of you consider this a no call? The illegal screen actually happens before B1 makes any move and the screen may easily alter the path taken, so I'm thinking this is something I should call tighter - i.e. call the backside, non-contact, illegal screen once it is set, without waiting for any subsequent contact because any evasive maneuver B1 has to make is an advantage team A gains from the illegal screen.

Anyone have older [pre 2003-04] rule books which include Case references for screens? Am I overlooking an POE?

While what you describe may be an "illegal screen," in order to have a foul here, you must have CONTACT.

I would love to hear the forums thoughts on this topic as it came up during a JC pregame earlier this year.

My thoughts, for they are worth, follow the no-contact/no-foul thought process. However, I can see where the book is coming from, slightly. I just can't bring myself to calling a screen, to where the other individual makes a choice to avoid contact. And that is what I told my lead, I could not bring myself to mirroring his call if that happened. I would think calling an illegal screen without contact, would just be asking for a coach to go nuts. As officials we already have to make enough judgement calls with advantage/disadvantage situations.

Chime in people..

I disagree. The rule defines an illegal screen from behind as something which depends on giving ample opportunity to avoid contact - by definition, such a screen may be illegal with or without contact.
4-40-4: When screening a station opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact. ...in other words, the screen is illegal if it does not allow one normal step backward - without a case play demonstrating that contact is required, I say the screen is illegal simply based on how it is set up.

jkjenning; where do the rules prescribe a penalty for an "illegal screen?"
You can search rule 9 all day long, and you won't find a penalty for a violation called "illegal screen." In rule 10, you find it.
10-6-3 tells what a screener cannot do, and the proceeds to say, "If the screener violates any of these provisions and contact results, he/she has committed a personal foul."

Bottom line, contact is necessary for a personal foul, and we don't need a case play or POE from the Fed.

There are in the ones I have. See case book plays 10.6.3SitA, SitB, SitC, & SitD.

Are you serious? You sureasheck can't have an illegal screen <b>without</b> contact. You can't have <b>ANY</b> personal foul without contact. The very definition of a personal foul in rule 4-19-1 says that illegal contact <b>MUST</b> be present. That's an absolute rules basic. Your statement above is completely wrong.

The thing to remember is an illegal screen may be illegal without contact, but it can't be penalized until contact occurs.
Similarly, illegal contact doesn't become a foul until there's an advantage or displacement. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't, by itself, mean it's a foul.

Wrong language imo. Any screen is <b>nothing</b> until contact occurs. At the point of contact, you then determine whether the screen is legal or not. No contact---->legal screen.

Read rule 4-19-1. You can't have <b>ANY</b> personal foul without contact. That is an absolute rules basic, jk. Aamof, they put it down in the rule book as <b>being</b> a <b>basic</b>. Look on p.74--<u>Basketball Rules Fundamentals</u>. Fundamental #10 says "Personal fouls <b>ALWAYS</b> involve <b>ILLEGAL CONTACT</b> and occur during a live ball, except a common foul by or on an airborne shooter".

The rule is saying that if a player sets such a screen and IF there is contact, the screener is responsible for any illegal contact. NO contact, NO foul.

MTD, Sr.

What is the hand and arm signal for an illegal screen without contact? :confused:

Thanks for setting me straight with all the replies - all very appreciated. Since 4-40 defines a legal screen, any screen violating that definition is illegal, so a screen from the backside without contact would be illegal.

This means that players should really be aware of the need to make contact with an illegal screener rather than worm their way around them... I guess that's similar to a shooter who contorts to shoot around a defender whose arms are extended over the shooter's space - the shooter should be aware of the foul opportunity and make sure to create contact on the shot.

That is the only way they are going to get a foul IF the official knows the rules.

That's completely <b>wrong</b> again. <b>Any</b> screen from the backside <b>without</b> contact is a <b>legal</b> screen. That's not semantics either. That's the <b>rules</b>!

Using the same logic as the original poster, if a defender swats at a shooter's arm but misses, it's a personal foul.

I'm seeing this a little differently now. I think we need to think about it this way, unless there's contact, it's not really a "screen." It's just players occupying space on the court. The screening rules are what make allowances for contact in certain situations and dictate who bears the greater responsibility. Without the contact, it can't be an illegal screen.

How often do we hear "That's a moving screen!"... So what...

The rules tell you what a screen is and what makes it illegal. There are legal moving screens even if there is contact if done correctly. (Trailer on a fast break that just slows down)

As has been posted before go back to the fundamentals of basketball. Stop making this so difficult.

By the way if you referee the defense the illegal screens are easier to call because on the screens you know ho many steps the player has taken...

From what I observe in my areas there are a lot of less experienced officials who get too focused on the ball and not what play is coming next or widening their view and trying to anticpate waht is going to happen. Everybody know where the ball handler and ball ought to be going...

I think the point being made to me on this thread is that the rules define a legal screen and do not define an illegal screen, therefore without contact you cannot have an illegal screen. :confused: We each relearn what others have learned so that we can "make it our own" and this forum is intended to be a place where an honest inquiry can be posted - once you know anything it is never difficult, but reviewing rules can always make you rethink what you thought you knew.
It would be nice if the searches for this forum were simple text-based searches because I did want to try and find the answer without putting anyone through a post about something which clearly would have been discussed, but oh well. As you seem to be suggesting, I will search for "fundamentals of basketball" - thanks.

Illegal screen without contact? You could have a team technical foul if two teammates lock arms in an effort to restrict the movement of an opponent. I still don't believe I would call that if there wasn't contact.

Apparently not. The note I'm making to myself is to drop the term "illegal screen" and replace it with "not a legal screen" or "not legal screening position", because I'm beginning to understand that the rules only address "legal screen" and do not support using the 'other' term. Note that I say beginning to understand because I'm sure I have read this on the forum before but it did not sink in clearly - too preprogrammed to believe that "illegal screens" exist.