Ok, saw this recently, pretty typical sitch. Three player fast break, A1 on right w/ ball, A2 in middle, B1 on left, all spaced about 5 ft apart. Layup goes in but whistled off "moving screen"(might be better called as an illegal screen or illegal moving screen). Seems like the correct call. But here's the rub. B1 made absolutely no attempt to play the ball. B1 and A2 ran parallel paths all the way to the hoop. Does it matter? What if the spacing was larger? Does time and/or distance matter? Is this an advantage/judgement call or is it black and white. I've always taught/coached my players to set stationary screens and they can't move to block the defender. It's up to the screener's teammate to move to use the screen correctly. The screener must also keep all parts of his body within his defensive box. So, for this moving sitch, it seems I should coach my guys, when A2, to pull up and follow the play as a trail, etc., to avoid the call.
EG

Was there contact?

The key to illegal/moving screens is that there is no foul until non-incidental contact occurs.

No contact. So, are you saying that an illegal moving screen, is only whistled on the non-incidental contact and not on the "act" itself? In other words, it's legal for an offensive player to actively move to deny a defensive player access to the ball as long as not contact occurs?
EG

You got it.

A personal foul is a contact foul. While standing in someone's path may be an illegal position, there is NO foul unless/until contact is made.

I'm not quite sure you meant to word it that way, but I get
your drift (I think).

Yeah - I couldn't think of the precise wording, but I think this was fine.

Yikes!! I'm gonna git in trouble again
 

So, for the above play, with no contact, the basket should have counted and no whistle!?!?
EG

Re: Yikes!! I'm gonna git in trouble again
 

Unless there was some weird occurrance you didn't see, yes.

If you get this ref again, you might want to just quietly suggest he take another look at 4-19-1 and 10.6.3A (which is very much like your play).

Thanks Mark. Another coach and I were watching in the stands for this one, but if it comes up in one of my games I'll now know enough to ask if there was contact.
EG

Good approach coach. Don't quote a rule number to the official to look up, because he may then consider you a know-it-all who is trying to show you up. The place for quoting rule numbers is off the court over some refreshing beverages, not in the heat of battle.

I think I'm havng trouble seeng how standing in someone's
path could be an illegal position? It's a nit, but it's
not the position that is illegal, it's whatever contact
results from having not attained legal guarding position.
But you've already made this point..

It comes from the fact that standing is not the illegal act.

Let me attempt to re-write this:

B1 is in (or will be in) a position such that, if there were contact with A1, B1 would be charged with a foul. If A1 changes his path and there is no contact, there is no foul on B1 for forcing A1 to change his path.

Let me take a shot at this.I'd like to get at least one right this week.:DThe concepts involved are(1)no contact=no foul(2)all 3 players can establish and maintain a legal straight-line path to the basket.It says above that the players are parallel,so the determining factor is who gets there first.Usually,if contact is made in a case like this,it is the fault of the player behind or from the side,not the player in front.So in this case,if A2 got in front of B1,the foul is on B1.Usually you ignore this call because you'd probably be taking away A1's basket on contact that didn't really affect the play.If B1 gets in front of A2,then,if contact is made,you could call a block on A2.Again,you have to consider whether B1 had a shot at getting to A1 to block his shot.If not,and the contact wasn't severe,I'd probably pass on this call also.If,as you say above,B1 was making absolutely no attempt to play the ball,I'd probably pass on any call for contact.That's just incidental contact that doesn't affect the play.
I think that this is the nit that Dan was picking.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

B1 is in (or will be in) a position such that, if there were contact with A1, B1 would be charged with a foul. If A1 changes his path and there is no contact, there is no foul on B1 for forcing A1 to change his path.

Are you studying contract law? :eek:

How about this: "While standing in someone's path may be an illegal position, there is NO foul unless/until contact is made." :p

I just wanted to add to Jurassic Referee's post:

If A2 gets ahead of B1, he may slow up and set a legal moving screen.

However, if A2 is ahead of B1 and then A2 changes path (cuts into B1's path), then A2 may still be guilty of a foul if contact occurs.

Also, if B1 were able to get ahead of A1, and then match paths (a legal "moving screen"), then B1 could slow up to try to hinder A1's drive to the basket.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter Quote: B1 is in (or will be in) a position such that, if there were contact with A1, B1 would be charged with a foul. If A1 changes his path and there is no contact, there is no foul on B1 for forcing A1 to change his path. Are you studying contract law? :eek: How about this: "While standing in someone's path may be an illegal position, there is NO foul unless/until contact is made." :p

No - I think that's my problem. I'll stop by the law school on Monday to see how this should be worded :).

Re: Yikes!! I'm gonna git in trouble again
 

Coach, to have a personal foul, you must have contact. I had some knucklehead in the stands tonight yelling "Illegal screen! Illegal screen!" I replied, "Did you see any contact!?!" Guess what? No response.

The same thing happens when a taller player jumps, reaches over a shorter player and takes a rebound. "Over the back! Over the back!" Besides the fact that there's no such thing s "Over the back!", it's not a foul is there's no contact. Even if there is contact, it can be incidental, if no one is displaced.

I'm on a roll now so I'll add... :)

Early in the thrid qtr. each of my partners calls a foul on the visiting team for undercutting an opponent who went up for a rebound. In both cases, the fouler was backing up. Know what the coach said? Yep! "He's blocking out!" "Coach, when he's displacing the player behind him, he's not blocking out. He's backing him out and it's a foul." :(

I'm off my soapbox now. :p

my two cents.

1) there is no such thing as a moving screen.. It's either illegal or not.

2) Can a player set a screen? still be moving? and there be contact and not a foul? I believe the anser is yes!

A1 is in transition to the baket. A2 is about a two steps behind A1, and B1 is just behind A2. A2 slows her running down that causes B1 to bump into A2, and A1 makes an easy uncontested layup. This is a good play A1 is entitiled to the spot, and did not change path, direction etc. just slowed down. I have heard coaches yell that's a moving screen.... Oh well

Classic play from 10-3-6d. If the guy in front slows down, contact is the responsibility of the guy following.

FYI
 

Here's another NF rules reference to support this thread.
4.C.2 in Points of Emphasis:
"It is not a moving screen unless there is contact"
FYI,
EG