Illegal Screen or Not? I'm Thinking Yes...

[mcdanrd]

Originally Posted by Red_Killian

"Boxing out" as you describe it is displacement. Displacement is a foul whether it's on a rebound or not. B2 has a right to his/her spot on the floor. I've got a foul on A2, team control - push or block take your pick.

However, A2 also has a right to his/her spot on the floor. If it's a legal "box out" with no displacement, I've got nothing. It always amazes me when I call a foul on a player for displacement on a "box out" that the coach will complain and say "he/she was just boxing out."

[Red_Killian]

Originally Posted by mcdanrd

However, A2 also has a right to his/her spot on the floor. If it's a legal "box out" with no displacement, I've got nothing. It always amazes me when I call a foul on a player for displacement on a "box out" that the coach will complain and say "he/she was just boxing out."

True but the OP says A2 was backing B2 away from the lane, so in this case it's pretty clear there was displacement.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Red_Killian

True but the OP says A2 was backing B2 away from the lane, so in this case it's pretty clear there was displacement.

Sometimes when backing out or boxing out a player, the other player gives ground without really any contact. This is usually at the lower skill levels, but it still happens. If the contact causes them to move you have a foul, but if the player gives ground on his/her own do to incidental contact then you have nothing. The player should plant his/her feet and make the contact displace them. Then you have a foul!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Sometimes when backing out or boxing out a player, the other player gives ground without really any contact. This is usually at the lower skill levels, but it still happens. If the contact causes them to move you have a foul, but if the player gives ground on his/her own do to incidental contact then you have nothing. The player should plant his/her feet and make the contact displace them. Then you have a foul!

Stepping backwards to prevent yourself from falling is not giving ground. I just want to clarify that a player does not need to plant the feet and fall down in order to draw a foul here.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Stepping backwards to prevent yourself from falling is not giving ground. I just want to clarify that a player does not need to plant the feet and fall down in order to draw a foul here.

However, if they plant their feet and are displaced it is definitely a foul. If a player gives ground on their own with little contact, I've got nothing. Remember, not all contact is a foul.

We have to judge advantage/disadvantage. If the defender chooses to move when there is incidental contact, then I've got nothing. I see this more frequently at the lower level where the offensive player moves backwards and the defender moves her feet with them. Very little if any contact. The contact didn't displace the player. The defender chose to move backwards on their own. I didn't mean to imply that they have to plant their feet to get the foul, just that if they are moving backward it now becomes a judgement call whether the contact was incidental or not. But that's what we get paid for.

[Adam]

Agreed, it's the same as a "moving screen." If the screener is moving, but the defender voluntarily gets out of the way or moves wider to go around it, it's nothing.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed, it's the same as a "moving screen." If the screener is moving, but the defender voluntarily gets out of the way or moves wider to go around it, it's nothing.

Could this physical act being discussed also be same/similar to the commom scenario of player A1 "sealing" player B1 from a loose ball that is traveling towards OOB?