moving screens

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by stripes


A coach knowing that "over the back" and "moving screen" do not really exist is never a problem.

I definitely will not speak for any other official or any other area. But this is a huge problem in my parts. And using these terms do nothing but perpetuate further ignorance amongs coaches.

Just an opinion.

Peace

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I definitely will not speak for any other official or any other area. But this is a huge problem in my parts. And using these terms do nothing but perpetuate further ignorance amongs coaches.

Just an opinion.

Peace

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

We all have to ref to the level we are working, and this includes coaches. I think we know most coaches well enough as to what to say and not say. Personal experience goes a long way.

[JRutledge]

Amen Brian. You got the point.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by stripes

Great. You should do it just the way you like. I like my way. I've never had a problem with it. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The 2002/2003 POE's for NFHS again specifically refer to "moving screens".If someone wants to discuss them,the easiest thing to say is "that's an illegal moving screen" or "that's a legal moving screen".Covers all situations.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 27th, 2002 at 05:05 AM]

[theboys]

A couple of things:

This discussion is a prime example why every league, particularly rec-type leagues, where the coaches are generally volunteers with less experience, needs to have a formal meeting between the coaches and refs prior to the start of the season. Not only could rules and terminology be clarified, but a better rapport could be established between "adversaries".

To the point of the "moving screen" - is the screen where the screener keeps moving to get in front of the player he's trying to screen, in effect, shielding the ball handler from the defender, illegal? From the discussion I've read, I'm not sure, and I couldn't find anything in the 2001-2002 case book that covers it (don't have my rule book with me).

[PAULK1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by theboys
[B]A couple of things:

is the screen where the screener keeps moving to get in front of the player he's trying to screen, in effect, shielding the ball handler from the defender, illegal?


This is an illegal screen (if contact is made).

A legal screen where the screener is moving would be
when the players are moving in the same path and direction
the player in front(screener) slows up forcing the player in back (screenie) to slow up or go around.

There are situations where the screener may move to maintain his position, but in the case of screening a moving opponent without the ball movement by the screener must cease within the guidelines set forth in 4-39 (time and distance). While in the case of screening a stationary
opponent the screener could run circles around the player
short of contact.

There are two types of screens, Legal and illegal.
You can have Legal moving or staionary screens and
illegal moving or stationary screens. Why make it harder than it is?

[JRutledge]

PaulK,

That is why I hate this terminology. Everytime someone moves during a screen, uneducated coaches will complain about "moving screens" and expect officials to call it that way. Despite what Jurrassic showed us, they still did not change the wording of the rule. And if I were to take a test with that terminology, I would be wrong.

Peace

[PAULK1]

The biggest problems we face with this are:

1. Officials not using the proper terminology

2. Coaches not learning the terminology

3. Officials not communicating the terminology outside of the offciating community.

1 and 3 we can do something about.

We need to not only teach the proper terminology
but to teach how to communicate this to the coaches
(game management). It takes just as long to say
there is no such thing as a moving screen as it does to say
if there is no contact there is no foul. Which one seems less confrontational(is that a real word).

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by theboys

To the point of the "moving screen" - is the screen where the screener keeps moving to get in front of the player he's trying to screen, in effect, shielding the ball handler from the defender, illegal? From the discussion I've read, I'm not sure, and I couldn't find anything in the 2001-2002 case book that covers it (don't have my rule book with me).

Was contact made? Is the screener stationary at the time of contact (even if "moving" while getting in the way, but before contact)? Was time and distance given (if needed)? Were they moving in the same path and direction?

If it doesn't violate some part of 4-39, it's probably legal.

[JRutledge]

Not only does their have to be contact, there has to be displacement. Basketball is a contact sport and if all we require is contact, we might be calling something that does not even constatue a foul.

How many times do we see a defender, hold up or slow up before they run into a screener? And when that screener just gets in the way, the defender never tries to go thru that screen? Now if the defender keeps moving and basically is blocked out of the way, I have no problem with a foul call. But most of the time I see a player just give up his position and decides not to move because the screen is in front of him. To me that is never a foul. Or at least not a good one.

Now that terminology was in the POE last year.

Peace

[theboys]

All right, and I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand, because the following situation happens a lot with younger players:

B1 is defending the ball carrier, A1. A2 jumps out to screen B1, but A1 moves to a point where B1 will get by A2 if A2 doesn't move. So, A2 moves some more. The end result is A2 and B1 do a little dance with A2 trying to get in B1's way, and B1 trying to avoid contact with A2 so he doesn't called for a foul.

Do you have a call on this? If not, I'll keep my howler monkey mouth closed in the future, but hope the rule changes down the road.

And, yes, confrontational is a word - I'd say a $5 one, at least!

[PAULK1]

If there is no contact there is no foul....

if there is contact you have an illegal screen (a block)

in your case A2 is not in compliance with the screening principles in 4-39 so any contact is illegal.

[PAULK1]

Let me add that the contact must be sufficent for team A
to have gained an advantage(B delayed in picking up A1)

[mick]

Originally posted by theboys
B1 is defending the ball carrier, A1. A2 jumps out to screen B1, but A1 moves to a point where B1 will get by A2 if A2 doesn't move.

Coach,
I've got traveling!
A1 is moving while carrying the ball!
mick

---

There is no substitute for good communication.

[theboys]

Hey, mick!

There may be not a substitute for good communication, but good typing skills runs a close second!