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

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DLH17

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?

Exactly. If the "sealing" player gets to the spot first, it's legal. If they create contact while moving and displace or impede the opponent, it's a foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly. If the "sealing" player gets to the spot first, it's legal. If they create contact while moving and displace or impede the opponent, it's a foul.

Unless, of course, they are moving in the same path and direction -- which is what I judge 99% of the time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Unless, of course, they are moving in the same path and direction -- which is what I judge 99% of the time.

Good point, I was thinking of lateral movement by the "sealer." Normally, however, the sealer is either moving slowly with the opponent or gets to the spot in time.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly. If the "sealing" player gets to the spot first, it's legal. If they create contact while moving and displace or impede the opponent, it's a foul.

This is the key word I was looking for in the OP. If A2 is impeding B1 from coming to play defense on A1, we would have a foul. Did I interpret that right?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bas2456

This is the key word I was looking for in the OP. If A2 is impeding B1 from coming to play defense on A1, we would have a foul. Did I interpret that right?

Yes, if the impediment is caused by illegal contact for which A2 is responsible.