oh no, another screen question (NBA rules not helpful)

[davidrmoran]

I myself know from both coaching and playing (and reading your guys!) that there must be contact for a personal foul to be called, and illegal, i.e. advantage-conveying contact at that.

But many players (and maybe even some refs) will call "moving screen" when an offensive player is "running interference" ahead of his teammate with the ball, even when no contact has been made or is about to be made.

One such person who made this "call" cited this, from the NBA rules:

"A player who sets a screen shall not … move laterally or toward an opponent being screened, after having assumed a legal position."

Nothing about contact, anywhere. Why and how do you suppose this got written this way?
Elsewhere screens fall under "Contact Situations", but not here.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12...av=ArticleList

(sec III)

thanks, guys; you are great!

-- David

[BktBallRef]

The rule simply means that if this occurs and there's contact, the foul is on the screener.

[Mark Padgett]

As BktBallRef implied, when put into context of the entire paragraph, this just indicates that if contact occurs, the foul is called on the screener. It's stated within the same context in other parts of the same section.

BTW - you said he quoted NBA rules. Were you playing in an NBA game?

[davidrmoran]

Thanks, both of you.

>> Were you playing in an NBA game?

Ha! No, this is strictly geezerball, though not without skill.

I saw that the context all had to do with contact, but situation (4) seemed to imply a distinction that this case was somehow different. I wondered why it was written as it was, if that meant something. Thank you for confirming that my past understanding was still correct. I guess this text needs some revising!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by davidrmoran

I guess this text needs some revising!

There are many places in NFHS rules, too, where "a little learning/knowledge is a dangerous thing." One or two sentences can be drastically mis-quoted to appear to mean the exact opposite of what was actually intended. If someone just picks up a rule book and reads just a sentence or two, it can be a huge problem. Your friend shows a very clear example of that!

[davidrmoran]

Thanks, Rainmaker. As someone who's edited and written for a living for a great many years, chiefly instructional and technical materials, I know that what you say is only too true, and that communication is indeed a miracle. Still, I figured that NBA rules, actually written down (and in this case posted) for use, would be ultra-precise and careful about just about everything.