Coach's Nightmare - Officials Making Up Rules

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Just looking for some feedback.

Our middle school leagues are discussing some rule adjustments. Currently the only major deviations from FIBA rules is the length of quarters (7.5 min) and a no zone rule. (The no zone rule is to be called as a plugging the key call so you can zone press.)

One of the latest rule changes they are discussing is to eliminate ball screens. They have asked officials if we were to try and remove ball screens from the game how would we call it. Would we want it to be a foul, violation, etc. Since we would enforce it how would we want it called? Then we get into screens that act as ball screens (dribble attacking at a cutter, hand offs, etc>)

Just for fun and so I can get some perspective if the rules changed to get rid of balls screens at developmental levels, how would you like the rule worded/structured?

PantherDreams:

I have never heard the term: "ball screen". Please describe it. It sounds to me like this is something that should be encouraged not discouraged.

While I have always been a propenent of players learning how to play man-to-man defense before they learn how to play zone, I really do not like rules that prohibit the use of zones; the rule is just too dificult to enforce.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

PantherDreams:

I have never heard the term: "ball screen". Please describe it. It sounds to me like this is something that should be encouraged not discouraged.

MTD, Sr.

Simply a screen set for the player with the ball.

I agree that it should not be discouraged. It is a fundamental offensive play. Can you imagine basketball without the pick-and-roll? I know coaches that go crazy getting their younger players to learn the concept of screening then rolling. Why would anyone want to disallow it?

[bainsey]

Any time you want to modify a rule, you should always ask what the intended goal of that change is. I'm having a hard time seeing the goal here.

There is never anything wrong with screening, as it's defined. Too many have confused this term with something else, though, and I find it unwise to install a rule against a perfectly legal act.

Screening, as defined by NFHS rules, an act where the screener doesn't cause contact. (See 4-40-1.) While contact may occur when the "screenee" bumps into the screener, that contact is typically incidental, which is legal. Why lobby for a rule against a legal act?

If a foul takes place during an attempted screen, call the foul. It's the fouls that should be discouraged, not the screens.

Teaching kids to screen properly is good basketball. I'd like to know more about the point of such a proposed rule change.

[Judtech]

I have been known to make up a rule or two in my time!! Recently as a matter of fact.....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I have been known to make up a rule or two in my time!! Recently as a matter of fact.....

[JRutledge]

I hate it when leagues try to come up with cute ways to outlaw things that are legal in other parts of the game. All you get is confusion and inconsistent application. Leave the rules alone. Just play basketball for God's sake.

Peace

[just another ref]

Games involving players below jr. high, particularly participation leagues, (everybody plays regardless of talent level) need some adjustments from ordinary rules. If everyone knows and understands these adjustments, it shouldn't be a problem.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I hate it when leagues try to come up with cute ways to outlaw things that are legal in other parts of the game. All you get is confusion and inconsistent application. Leave the rules alone. Just play basketball for God's sake.

Peace

AMEN!!! It's always amazing that parents expect that these kids are supposed to recognize these things they can't do when they don't even know what the thing they can't do even is! If that makes sense...lol...which is why you'll never see me on any of these courts!