moving screens

[pank]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by pank
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

[Self]

Originally posted by pank
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?

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

[mick]

Originally posted by pank
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.

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

[devdog69]

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

[mick]

Originally posted by devdog69
There you go again, mick. Padding those posts with a nice double, no wonder you have over 2000.

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by devdog69
There you go again, mick. Padding those posts with a nice double, no wonder you have over 2000.

Fast as fast can be, he'll never catch me!

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

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by pank

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

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.)

[Brian Watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

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

[BktBallRef]

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!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Brian Watson


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

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

[Brian Watson]

We 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Brian Watson
We 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.

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

[rainmaker]

"No contact, no foul, coach."

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

[stripes]

Originally posted by Brian Watson
We 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.

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.