Illegal screen - lack of contact

[drinkeii]

I had a play that occurred a number of times in a game I just reffed that I was looking for opinions on how it should have been handled. A1 is dribbling around, and then stops to look for a place to pass. A2 is moving into position to receive the pass, but first, clearly interferes with B1's movements by moving around in front of them, and then turns to receive the pass. There was little to no contact during this.

The screen A2 set was clearly illegal, because she was moving around in the path of B1, causing her to pull up short and have to change directions, or be cut off from going where whe was going before A2 started moving around in front of her. A2 clearly benefited from the movements, because it put her in position to receive a pass which led to an easy layup.

The lack of actual contact is where I have my question. Can/Should you call an illegal screen without contact?

I'll reserve my calls (or no-calls) for after the opinions have been posted. Thanks!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Can/Should you call an illegal screen without contact?

No, you can't!
There is no foul without contact. Never. Period.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

No, you can't!
There is no foul without contact. Never. Period.

Geeze, no reason to shout.

Maybe you're just hungry and thinking about a fish dinner?...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Geeze, no reason to shout.

Maybe you're just hungry and thinking about a fish dinner?...

With some dead rat for dessert.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

With some dead rat for dessert.

Does it have to be dead?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Does it have to be dead?

She wouldn't want to be accused of playing with her food.

[Back In The Saddle]

From NFHS 4-40: ART. 1 . . . A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

One of the absolutes in judging the legality of a screen is that there must be contact for it to be illegal (however, contact does not automatically make a screen illegal). From your description, A2 set a perfectly legal (but horribly executed) screen.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

No, you can't!
There is no personal foul without contact. Never. Period.

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

No, you can't!
There is no foul without contact. Never. Period.

_________________________________

Juulie,
You have to learn to stop holding back... go ahead and express yourself... but you might have made a little mistake with this answer.

[M&M Guy]

I'll answer your question by asking a question (my wife hates when I do this, btw): What's the definition of a personal foul?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

There was little to no contact during this.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The screen A2 set was clearly illegal, because she was moving around in the path of B1, causing her to pull up short and have to change directions, or be cut off from going where whe was going before A2 started moving around in front of her. A2 clearly benefited from the movements, because it put her in position to receive a pass which led to an easy layup.?

Both of these quotes effectively contradict each other. If there was no contact, the screen A2 set cannot be "clearly illegal". If A2 got to the spot first, and caused B1 to have to stop and go around, that's actually called "a good play".

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The lack of actual contact is where I have my question. Can/Should you call an illegal screen without contact?

Although I alluded to it, and rainmaker and BITS pretty much spelled it out - the answer to this question is no. Both the definition of a personal foul, 4-19-1, and the definition of a screen, 4-30-1, include the word "contact".

[Adam]

Add to this that while you might be able to get away with calling a screen "illegal" even without contact, you can't blow your whistle because:
1. There cannot be a personal foul without contact.
2. There cannot be a violation called because there isn't a violation for "illegal screen" in the rule book.
Bottom line, there's nothing to call. If the coach asks/tells you to call "illegal screen," just say, "Well, that's a funny name, but is she cute?"

[drinkeii]

Ok - thanks!

BTW, I screwed this one up... I did call it. Being in a camp (player, not official), no one really complained. But I learned something. Thanks!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The screen A2 set was clearly illegal, because she was moving around in the path of B1, causing her to pull up short and have to change directions, or be cut off from going where whe was going before A2 started moving around in front of her.

That's kinda the point of a screen. Just remember - sometimes it can be done legally.

A2 clearly benefited from the movements, because it put her in position to receive a pass which led to an easy layup.

See above.

That said, I have to reiterate what everyone else has said in regards to having to have contact to have a personal foul.

[blindzebra]

As others have said, no contact no foul...but if it's something you keep seeing, have your radar up, and get it when the contact is there.

What will happen is the defender will either wise up and start running into the illegal screen...likely since her coach will be pointing out that moving screen, to which you will say no contact, no foul...or will get frustrated and start blowing up the screener or start hand fighting around it.