preventing the opponent from saving the ball?
 

Hi to all the old and new friends. Hope you can help me again as you did before.

It bothers me that when some one blocks the opponent who is trying to save the ball that is going OOB.

Somehow I think the block becomes illegal, when the blocker moves with the opponent, as in moving screen case. But I can not find any support from the rulebook.

Before I give up and convince myself it is legal, I want to get the bless from you guys. Do you consider it legal? if not, what is the rule basis to say it is illegal.

Thanks.

ysong

If B1 is in front, then he's obtained the positioned first and is entitled to it. He can't extend his arms/legs or otherwise move into A1's path if he's beside him.

You are not going to find anything illegal, because based on what you have described there is nothing illegal. The purpose of a screen is to get in someone's way. But if you are talking about players going for the ball and one player stops, I do not see how that would be illegal. It is not technically a screen and the ball is loose.

Please stop using the term “moving screen.” The legality of the screen has nothing to do with if it is moving or not. You can have a stationary screen and still be illegal. Maybe that is why you are having a problem with the situation.

Peace

Thanks for the quick response!

It bothers me only when B1 moves with A1 (after initial contact occurs) when A1 is trying to go arround him to save the ball.

So you believe it is legal even in that case, right? regardless whoes front court it occurs, right?

Thanks.

ysong

Thanks for your prompt response too!

Please see my reply to BktBallRef, thanks.

ysong

What if B1 is in front and moves his leg and A1 trips and ends up falling? :D

Then it must be a foul.
 

You are so bad. :D

Peace

We'd have to send that one to a committee as well as check the replay. ;)

That, my friend, would be traveling since the shot never actually cleared the bottom of the net and the player that caught it after it bounced out took several steps. :p

And that is the case even though it was really basket interference that happened so quickly the trail couldn't see it. :D

Monta Ellis on the warriors got a Tech after this happened.

The balls was loose and Jaric on the grizzlies got in the path of Ellis and bumped him. I thought the foul was going to be on Jaric but no call. I've had this before when the contact was unintentional so no call but in this case Ellis was going for the loose ball and while Jaric was in front he made sure to bump Ellis off his path.

Is there contact? If so, it could be an illegal screen.

First, front court has nothing to do with it. No idea why you brought that into the question.

If B1 is in front and both player are moving in the same direction, then A1 is required to avoid the contact.

4-40-6
When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent.

Ok, here is the scenario in a thought experiment:

B1 steps into A1's path when A1 is trying to save the ball and minor contact occurs. then A1 tries to go around B1, but B1 moves side way with A1 while still in contact with A1, keeps blocking A1's path.

Legal or not? if not legal, what is the rule basis?

Thanks.

To me this is not much different than boxing out on a rebound. It could be based on how the ball started to go out of bounds. If the players are not displacing each other, personally I do not see anything illegal. This is not in the tradition of a screen and we do not consider a box out to be illegal even when there is contact.

Peace

Legal. The contact is incidental unless it actually physically prevents A1 from getting to where he wants to go.

I don't need a rule to show you it's legal. You need a rule to show it's illegal.

B*stard. :D

So the mere fact that B1 moves with A1 while keeps body contact and blocks A1's path does not make the block illegal.

I think I am stuck because I'd like B1 to play the ball instead of the player's body for the loose ball in this case.

Thanks to all who responded. I am all set with this one. Have a good weekend!

ysong

But isn't A1 also moving with B1 after making contact?

I'd like both teams to keep shooting 3 point shots and make them so I don't have to call any fouls. Ref what they do, not what you would prefer they do.

Partner, I don't know what you're looking for. I addressed this situation earlier.

"He can't extend his arms/legs or otherwise move into A1's path if he's beside him. "


Adam, the kid said "...but B1 moves side way with A1 while still in contact with A1, keeps blocking A1's path." When you maintain contact and continue blocking someone's path, you're keeping him "from getting to where he wants to go."

Guess you have to see it. You're right, if the contact is preventing A1 from getting past, then it's a foul.

Oops!

Glad I am not alone wanting to call it a foul. But what is the rule basis for calling it illegal? (Like I said, I failed to find any support from the rulebook.)

Thanks.

And if it prevents A1 from getting the ball.

That said, all the benefit goes to team B (by officiating standard).

Illegal screen

Oh well, I thought screen did not apply in this case, since it was the defense side who was doing the moving and blocking...

Then what is the difference between this play and the defense boxing out the offense?

Thanks.

careful about this call
 

Girls AAU game yesterday. Pretty standard situation basically what the op is about. Shot goes up and is an air ball, a1 boxing b1 as ball bounces inbounds and is heading out of bounds. b1 tries to go around a1 and a1 stays with box out. ref calls holding foul on a1 doing the box out. a1's coach goes ballistic gets 1 T then keeps up his yelling and gets T number 2 and gets tossed. Fans are now all mad and giving the ref hard time. Ref explains to fans that player a1 had arms behind and was holding. Fans and coach(before he was tossed) who do not know rules say 'that's how we coach them to box out!!'.

Long story but my point is.... Ref probably made correct call. Definitely made correct decisions after whistle with T's. But... If he does not blow whistle nobody on either team will be upset. This play happens all the time and is normally not called. Probably a lot easier to let it go and move on with the game. But of course that is why we get paid the big buck$!!!

Thanks for the response.

It sounds like the ref called it because the arms were involved. Are you implying that if no arms, no twisting or bending body involved, the ref would not have called it a foul? In other words, do you believe a *defense* player is entiled by the rules to move with the opponent while keeps body contact and blocks the opponent's path?

Thanks!

It's exactly the same.

Bull, this needs to be called, especially if she's reaching behind and holding. Don't take the chicken sh1t way out.

So you do NOT believe a *defense* player is entiled by the rules to move with the opponent while keeps body contact and blocks the opponent's path, do I understand you correctly?

Also, I assume you believe "illegal screen" applys equally to both defense side and offense side, correct? (somehow I thought it only applied to offense side.)

Then, it seems very hard for a defense player to *keep* boxing out an opponent without committing a foul.

Thanks.

The rules need to be applied both as they are literally written and as they are commonly interpreted.

If A1 is making a concerted effort to get around B1, and B1 is preventing this by moving and making illegal contact, then it's a foul.

This happens relatively rarely.

The words offense and defense do not appear in the definition of screen.

Please allow me to rephase your statement. You are saying:

"If A1 is making a concerted effort to get around B1, and B1 is preventing this by moving and making contact, then it's a foul", correct?

No, not correct.

Listening...

It was exactly as Bob said. Contact alone is not illegal.


If B1's arms are extended into A1's path AND A1 has a reasonable chance to actually save the ball, it could be a foul.

If B1 is throwing a hip into A1 AND A1 has a reasonable chance to actually save the ball, it could be a foul.

If B1 is moving into/towards A1 AND A1 has a reasonable chance to actually save the ball, it could be a foul.

If B1 is moving towards the ball keeping their torso in A1's path and is doing so in a way that makes it difficult for A1 to get to the ball, it will likely not be a foul. B1 earned the better position and is not required to yield it to A1 just because A1 wants the ball. B1 is not required to actually save the ball in order to realize the advantage of the position.

Imagine if B1 were, instead, going for the ball and A1 made the same contact, would it be a foul on B1, no. In fact, you could have a foul on A1 for coming through B1 (pushing). Now, if B1 just goes for it a little less enthusiasticaly...a bit slower....does that give A1 the right to come through B1? No. A1 has to go around B1...but B1 doesn't have to permit it.

All of this assumes A1 and B1 start from positions that are near each other....A1 is NOT running full speed towards the ball. If A1 was running full speed, B1 would be required to be in A1's path a little sooner...as guarding principles on a moving opponent without the ball require that B1 is in the path allowing time/distance for A1 to adjust.

Hi Camron, thanks for your explainations.

But, my understanding is, Bob is saying the ensuing contact alone *in this particular (screen) case described in OP* is sufficient to make B1's move illegal, even without any illegal use of arms, hip, etc.

Correct, Bob?

Thanks.

I kind of skimmed the 3 pages of responses so if my point has already been discussed, I apologize. I wanted to bring up the fact that how the ball becomes loose has some bearing on this play. If it is on a try, there is no team control, thus it would be very difficult to call this an illegal screen. I tend to look at plays like this in the same manner that I address rebounding. Who has the position on the floor, how did they get there, and what are they doing to keep that position? If they are doing these things in a legal manner, I have nothing (which is generally the case on this play).