moving screens

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by 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!

First, A2 that screened a player B1 (you did not say that B1 was running or walking BTW) by just getting in his way. B1 is not displaced, there is not contact by either player and in the process. How can you call anything but say "good job A2?"

1. No displacement (4-27-3)
2. No contact (10-6-3)
3. You were not clear if B1 is running or just walking. Both are major factors in determining how many steps are to given if contact occurs.
4. Finally I can ascertain that A2 tried to set a screen in B2 field of vision, which puts some burden of contact on B2 if contact is made.

I do not see how you can call anything. Yes A2 was moving, but B2 decided not to go thru the screen.

Peace

[mick]

Originally posted by theboys
Hey, mick!

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

Did I screw up?
I often "stub" one of my two typing fingers.
mick

[pank]

PaulK1 says:

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


That's just the point I was getting at when I initially started this thread--there's too much ambiguity surrounding the "moving screen."

In my opinion, there is no such violation as a "moving screen." If there's an infraction, it's in the form of a foul. I agree with the theory--no contact, no foul. Time and distance is also a key factor.

Interestingly enough, the whining I've been exposed to about the "moving screen" is coming from high school coaches, not rec league coaches. How many coaches actually read and/or understood the rule book? Or for that matter, how many fans? Oh well, guess it just goes with the striped shirt territory.

Thanks everyone for your input on this thread.

Pank

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by pank
I agree with the theory--no contact, no foul.

That's not a theory my man, it's the rule.

BTW, welcome to the board!

[ScottParks]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

That's not a theory my man, it's the rule.

BTW, welcome to the board!

That's EXACTLY what went through my mind when I read this.

[theboys]

Hey, mick.

No, it was my bad. I used the wrong terms in describing the play.

Thanks for the info everyone. Just another lesson learned.

I'm telling you, if you're not screaming at your association heads to educate coaches, players and fans in preseason meetings, you're missing a big opportunity. I've learned tons on this site.

[pank]

Originally posted by pank
I agree with the theory--no contact, no foul. .

Pank

Theory--Just a play on words. Rule is a much better way of stating that. Thanks.

BTW, enjoying the board a bunch and learning too. It's nice to see some coaches roaming the posts too for another perspective.

[Jay R]

I had an interesting sitch last year. I called an illegal screen on a player and when I reported it to the table, I said:"Blue 10, block". At half time my partner, who is much more experienced than me, suggested I use the term "moving screen" instead of "block" so that it would be clearer for the coaches. I thought that was interesting considering what I read on this board.

BTW, I did not take his advice.

Jay

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jay R
I had an interesting sitch last year. I called an illegal screen on a player and when I reported it to the table, I said:"Blue 10, block". At half time my partner, who is much more experienced than me, suggested I use the term "moving screen" instead of "block" so that it would be clearer for the coaches. I thought that was interesting considering what I read on this board.

BTW, I did not take his advice.

Jay

I personally think that you are better off saying nothing at the table, just give the signal that is appropriate. But that is just my opinion.

Peace

[mick]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I personally think that you are better off saying nothing at the table, just give the signal that is appropriate. But that is just my opinion.

Peace

Rut,
Saying nothing is probably safer than saying block on a moving screen. If we use rule book terminology, some coaches say , "Huh?" and then you get gigged for poor mechanics (in Michigan) for not giving the moving screen side-step, the Grizzly Bear arm stretch or the hokey-pokey kick-step.
mick

[JRutledge]

I was always taught to say abosolutely nothing at the table, but the number and maybe "out of bounds" or "shooting two" of example. Saying "hack" or "block" or "push" can give a coach more ammo to say somthing like, "no he did not!!"

I really do not even say anything at the spot of the foul (I am sorry it is football season) when I make the call for the most part. I might only do so if I have a block or I need to wave off a shot. Then I might only say "no shot" or something that indicates the situation. But saying little or nothing is best.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

it don't happen often but when it does...

I have to agree. Nothing good can come from desrcibing the foul at the table. Give the color, the number, number of shots, if any, and get the hellouttathere!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I really do not even say anything at the spot of the foul (I am sorry it is football season) when I make the call for the most part.

Just make sure you put the penalty markers away come time for basketball. :-D