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

A1 is driving down the lane. A2 wants to prevent help defense from coming over, and "boxes out" the girl who's guarding her so that she can't help on defense.

I don't think 4-40-6 applies here, hence I can't think of any reason this isn't an illegal screen.

What say you?

You haven't provided enough information. Was there contact? Did A2 get to each particular spot on the floor before the defender?

A2 was backing B2 away from the lane.

Yes there was contact, think of it as A2 boxing B2 away from the lane, but A1 hadn't even shot the ball yet.

If contact is made while A2 is moving in this particular play, it's a foul. If she moves and gets to the spot first, it's nothing.

...while also accounting for time and distance that may be required in getting to the spot due to the speed of B2.

You're using 'boxing out' as if you were a coach. Any contact that moves a player off her spot is a foul. If there was team control at the time of the foul, it's a team control foul (when committed by a member of that team); otherwise, it's a common foul.

And was B2 trying to make a defensive play on A1?

You're right that the screening rules apply -- just make sure the criteria for a foul are met.

"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."

I agree. If A2 displaces B2 as described, it's a foul.

"Boxing out" falls under screening rules, every time. That's what it is. There are no "box out" rules; well, maybe in hockey, but that's another thread.

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

Do you mean A2 was displacing B2?

Not necessarily
 

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.

I agree
 

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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