Please share your interpretation of a moving screen.

Does there have to be contact for a moving screen to be called-and then what we're really calling is the foul for contact, not a moving screen. Right?

As long as there is no contact with a defender, doesn't an offensive player have the right to mirror his teammate?

Often, coaches scream for a moving screen call, yet in reality, there is no actual violation or signal (NFHS) for a moving screen, is there? Or am I missing something somwehere?

looking for some input.

No matter what anyone is going to tell you, there is no such terminology in the rulebook called a "moving screen." A screen can be stationary and under the right situations can be called a foul. Basically the only time you can call a foul on a screen when you have not allowed a certain number of steps or you lean and use your arms to "block" if you will a player from getting around or to a spot. The term "moving screen" basically comes from ignorance of coaches, thinking that this is illegal. Referee Magazine a few years ago had an article about the "12 Major Myths of Basketball" (I believe that was the title) and "moving screen was on the list as well as having to be "set to get a player-control foul."

A screen can always move as long as the screener gives a player some time and distance as it states in the rules before contact occurs. That is of course paraphrasing the issue, but you should get the idea. This is all covered in the NF 10-6-3. Basketball is a contact sport, so it takes a lot more than just contact to warrant a foul by rule.

Peace

Moving screen is the laymans term for illegal screen. If the player is moving AND there is contact, this could be an illegal screen.

pank,
Welcome to the forum.
Sounds like you have the "moving screen" figured out.

My signal for such illegal contact will generally be the block, or the push, and sometimes the hold.
mick

There you go again, mick. Padding those posts with a nice double, no wonder you have over 2000.

Stop!
 

...pickin' on the elderly.
...pickin' on the elderly.
...pickin' on the elderly.

Fast as fast can be, he'll never catch me! http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/WBSpeedy.gif

pank, you can't have a personal foul without contact.

Sure.

He also has the right to mirror an opponent, a coach, or even a ref as long as there is no contact. (Although the last two may warrant a technical foul.)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

No matter what anyone is going to tell you, there is no such terminology in the rulebook called a "moving screen."

Actually Rut, the fed, in all their wisdom, did use the term "moving screen" either in a POE, or some other bulletin ( I forget where it was, I was so floored to see it) we got here in OH. A coach graciously (sp?) shared it with me after a game :)

2001-02 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
4. Hand-Checking, Rough Play
C. Screens

• Moving screens
1. The screener must be stationary upon contact.
2. It is not a moving screen unless there is contact.

• The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. Excessive contact or "pushing through" the screen is illegal.
• Principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply!

Very true.
 

Everything you say is true, but where is the terminology in the actual rule?

Under 10-6-3, which talks about what a screener can and cannot do, there is no such terminology. All the information under Article 3 even makes it clear that a screener can move under certain situations and shall not be called for anything. So yes the POE used the term, but they did not back it up with what the rule states. And if when they make a new POE this year and not include screens in it, this terminology will not be there and we will be left with what was there before last year. And according to the actual wording of 10-6-3b and c, you could be stationary or moving in certain situations and be called for a foul depending on "time and distance" of the player being screened.

The term "moving screen" is used often when no or very little contact has occured. Most of the time I hear a coach complaining about a "moving screen" and the screener did not even come close to making any contact or the defender being screened ran around the screen to avoid all contact. I understand what they were trying to say, but I would have said to a coach, "where is the terminology in the actual rule?" I think the writers of the POE did not really examine the rule at all when they decided to use the terminology. Either they need to change the rule by making an "editorial change" or emphisis the actual wording in the rule. The NCAA rulebook uses very similar wording in their rule and they do not use "moving screen" in their terminology at all to constitute a foul.

I am sure there will be folks that will disagree, but I see the NF using that term very inconsistent with their current wording of the rule.

Peace

<u> We </u> know it is not in the rule, but the coaches are not going to get past the POE's outlines in the state meetings.

I think for th younger guys on this board, it would be unwise to go down that path with a coach.

Even for veteran guys, I think it is slippery to say to a coach "where in the rule is it"?

Obviously the fed uses the term in its interpretations (which take precedence over rule), so we we have to be even more careful in how we explain things.

I see where you are coming from but.......
 

Do you remember what was the POE two years ago? Better yet, do you remember what it was before last year?

Unless the NF changes the language of the rule, we will be right back where we were before 2001-02 POE. And if I am not mistaken, screens are not apart of the POE for this coming season. So a coach trying to say "but it was in last years rulebook," would not be much different than a coach or official refering to rules in past rulebooks that have since changed.

I still feel confident in telling coaches that "it is not illegal because a player moves during a screen." Because as I stated before, most of the time a coach is complaining with little or no contact present. I bet most coaches never look up 4-27 that goes into "displacement" and contact not affecting "normal offensive and defensive movement" as the POE refers to. So a coach can complain all day if they want to, does not mean they are right. Remember these are individuals that still call for "over the backs" and "travels" without understanding which foot the pivot foot is or without knowledge of a jump stop and what they can do after. If you are a rules guy, I really do not see how you could see it any other way. ;)

Just my thoughts.

Peace

"No contact, no foul, coach."

and if appropriate... "please tell those parents that"

How is the use of a commonly understood term like "moving screen" different than one like "over the back?" While I understand that "moving screen" appears in the books in places and "over the back" does not, why is it bad to use these common terms? People understand what they are and what we are talking about. IMO, when we choose to get into semantic discusions, i.e. "there is no such thing as over the back..." we appear combative and unapproachable. I understand that terminology is important, but I have never understood why this is such a big deal.

The reason it is important..
 

I do feel the right terminolgy is important and here is why.

First "over the back", commonly misunderstood. Easy to explain, "Coach it is not over the back it is on the back", can't penalize for being taller or jumping higher. It is the contact of being on the back that is a foul.

Second, moving screen, better explained as an illegal screen. It is illegal if contact is present while moving. The fact of moving does not make it illegal, there must be contact. And all contact is not illegal.....

These type of terms I feel are important and with the right attitude and communication skills can be explained and understood by coaches. If you do it right, it is in no way compative, and more than often appreciated.

It all comes down to your communication skills. That is why I reccomend everyone should work hard to improve them.

[Edited by Self on Aug 26th, 2002 at 12:59 PM]

Self, you're correct and it's unfortunate that the NFHS didn't choose more wisely when they wrote the POE. The term "moving screen" should be used to describe a screen that is moving and nothing else. As has already been pointed out, a moving screen is not illegal. Illegal contact when a screenr is moving is a foul.

There are many terms that are not found in the rule book. As long as they accurately describe what has happened, that's fine. But a term such as "over the back," does not accurately describe a pushing foul from behind. Nor does moving screen describe illegal contact during a screen.

Stripes,

I think the reason refs get their dander up isn't over the semantics, it's what the coaches think the rule is based on the poorly chosen phrases "over the back" and "moving screen." When a coach yells for "over the back," there is often no contact and he/she thinks it's a violation (or foul..never sure what they want called) by the mere act of reaching or jumping over the opponent (without contact) and retrieving the ball. If the term was "<b>on</b> the back," it would imply that there had been some contact. Coaches (and fans) hear the word <b>"over" </b> and think that it must be illegal to be "over" a player on a rebound as if players own the space above them.

Similarly on the term "moving screen," coaches and fans think that a screen is illegal just because the screener wasn't stationary, even if there is no contact. As you know, it can be frustrating to ref a game for a coach that doesn't know the rules. How many times per game does a coach want a "moving screen" called on off-ball play when the defender completely avoids contact? Quite often in my games.

I do agree that telling the coach that "there is no such thing as over the back" or "there is no such thing as a moving screen" is poor communication by the ref and just makes things worse. Just saying, "there was no contact coach" is probably much better.

Z

I see a large protion of our jobs is to be communicators. We will communicate more effectively if we use words that are understood. Any ref worth his salt will know the differences in what we coomonly see and are begged for and what actually constitutes a foul. Too often, at the HS level, I see refs who just dismiss the term as non-existant and lose the chance to inform the coaches like Self and Zebraman have stated. My problem is not that we can't explain the terms or use it as a teashing moment, but that we dismiss the conversation right away because we (in our infinite wisdom) know that there is no such thing. We even go so far as to take off on newbies when they are looking for information (not in this particular thread, but in others) about the fact that "reach in" doesn't exist. I'm sure that I'm in the minority on this one, but I hoestly do not believe that the terms are bad, as long as we understand how they are used and that the fouls are called correctly.

stripes,
It has been my observation that people understand the following:
<li>Over the back: a non-contact foul when a player reaches into an opponents vertical space.
<LI>Moving screen: a non-contact foul when a screener shifts his weight or moves.

mick

Its what they believe.....
 

What I would add to this and why I feel it is important is what they believe matters a great deal. Our credability is at stake in explaining the rules & terms properly, if coaches believe moving screeens are illegal and we use the terminology we are contributing to the problem. If we say "over the back" is a foul we are not only contributing to the problem, we are wrong. Part of what we do is educating, would you have wanted one of your teachers to have taught you incorrectly?........

As I run across coaches over and over again. I communicate to them correctly and explain the importance. If we all did this wouldn't that make life easier? Take the time to educate.

"People forget how fast you did a job-
but they remember how well you did it" (Howard W. Newton)

So...are you agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Maybe my point wasn't clear. If the fed is going to use the term, I think we should at least acknowledge it and use it to our advantage.

I think it is terrible they used the term, but we have to play with the hand dealt.

I run away from the term "over the back, because it is not proper, but if they put "over the back" in as a POE this year, then I would try explain the proper call in that context as well. I would not ignore it just because there is no a foul listed as "over the back".

I don't think you need to have a 5 minute conversation on these things, but I also think anytime you immediately dismiss a coach, and tell him to only address things by rule, you set your self up for issues later in the game.

Every now and then we have some coaches come in a give us their "expectations" of officials (one of the only useful meetings we have). One of the top issues are refs who ignore or won't professionally respond to their questions. Again, each situation is different and you have to do this in moderation, but they feel a professional courtesy should be extended to explain things when they need it, whether they cite the correct rule or not. In their opinion, they cannot tell their kid to stop doing something, when they (the coach) doesn't know what they are doing wrong. I know I/we all fall into the us vs. them trap at times, but there are cases where they really are just trying to coach. This is tough to do when they are performing their Booby Knight act, but I think we all know when is and is not a good time to discuss things with a coach. With three man becoming more popular it make it easier for us to do that.

The only problem with using comon termonology that is not in the rule book is that it doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. When you tell a coach there was no "over the back" because there was no contact you leave the coach with the impression that there is an over the back call to be made when there is contact. This just make it worse for the
next crew behind you, now the coach expects all contact on rebounds to be over the back. When he is told ther is no over the back by this crew, he now says the offcials have no consistency.

Paul is correct. Many coaches, fans and players think they jumped for a rebound from behind an opponent is a foul. That's when they yell "over the back!" But this isn't a foul. This is similar to the "moving screen" term. That's why it's inappropriate for us to use this term.

Communication.
 

Communication is very important. True you should not make one statement that dismisses these terms without some explaination, but I also feel you should not use them either. Many officials use these terms to describe fouls and that is what I feel is mostly wrong. Just because a coach says "moving screen" does not mean that I am even going to comment on it. At least I will not say anything until I have an opportunity to explain "why" this does not apply. I also feel that it is not our job to get screamed at either. Sometimes officials will not talk to coaches that do not come to us in the proper spirit. Especially if they officials feels that a coach is just screaming at the top of his/her lungs and will not listen to what we have to say. If that is the case, I would never consider any official for being unprofessional for not acknowledging every complaint from a coach.

Peace

I am doing some of both. ;)

As I said, I believe I am in the minority on this one, but I have used these terms with coaches for years and will probably continue to do it. I don't feel like I am doing any future crews a disservice by doing it, either. Using terms that they are familiar with to explain calls/non calls makes everyone's life easy. Coaches that understand why "over the back" fouls are called (or not called) have never brought it up with me again and I haven't heard them do it with others.


This has not been my experience. Coaches that I deal with already understand that no contact = no foul.

Maybe you have time to hold lengthy discussions with coaches on this subject (somehow I have never found this time :cool: ), but I disagree with this. I don't believe we are teaching them incorrectly. If they understand what a rebounding foul is after we let them know why an "over the back" foul is called, have they been taught incorrectly? Not in my book. We go to great lengths to use our signals correctly, but how many coaches could replicate them or give their proper names? Very few. Have they been taught correctly? Absolutely, but I highly doubt any of them really care what the referees terms or mechanics are. They are going to "learn" from us only what they want to. I don't see the problem in using terms they know.

Please don't get the impression that this is the only set of terms that I use with coaches. More often than not, I use the word "foul" in my discussions with them--they use the terms like "over the back". I never correct them about the words they use--that is the original problem I brought up--we appear to be aloof and all-knowing.

I know that I am unlikely to swing anyone over to the "dark side", but conversely, I will not be swung either. We'll have to agree to disagree.

It leave too much for interpretation.
 

Stripes, "over the back" is no more a foul than "over the side" or "over the front." The rules do not not pick the back only and say "any contact with a player's back shall be called a foul." What if you have to players make contact with each other facing each other (which happens quite often sometimes), "over the front?"

I am obviously not serious in my question, but if "over the back" discribes all rebounding fouls, then I guess the other types of contact should be ignored. Better yet, if "moving screen" is to be used, then I guess not giving a player a reasonable step is not illegal on a stationary screen (which the rulebook states is illegal). Too much gray area or interpretation. I would rather go with what the "actual" rule states, not just a POE that uses a term that you will not find in the POE or any interpretation this year and years to come.

To me that is just too inconsistent and leaves to much interpretation to the individual that uses it.

Peace

Re: It leave too much for interpretation.
 

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.

That goes without saying.
 

Always that, I just want to show how inconsistent that sounds. As I have always said, officiating is ultimately individual. You have to decide what works for you and only you. But if you are the official following me, you will have to reconcile with the fact that a coach is going to think from my game that "moving screen" and "over the back" do not exsist how they knew it.

Peace

Re: That goes without saying.
 

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

Re: Re: That goes without saying.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: That goes without saying.
 

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.

Exactly.
 

Amen Brian. You got the point.

Peace

Re: Re: It leave too much for interpretation.
 

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]

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).

[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?

They will still expect us to call that.
 

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

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).

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.

Displacement.
 

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

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!

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.

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

Trick sitch.
 

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

<hr>
There is no substitute for good communication.

Hey, mick!

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

I will use the actual rule.
 

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

Did I screw up?
I often "stub" one of my <u>two</u> typing fingers. ;)
mick

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Just the way I was taught.
 

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

Hot d@mn!
 

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

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!

Re: Just the way I was taught.
 

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