Pick and Roll Rule

[ATXCoach]

I vaguely remember reading on here or hearing somewhere that it was a POE for officials to call a foul when the screener rolls into the defense attempting to go around the screen.

Had a call against me today where the official stated that the screener couldn't roll in the same motion as the screen. I disagreed with the call as the defense simply switched the screen, so the roller in no way impeded the defense from guarding the ball.

Can someone give me a brief summary of the rule so that I can better understand?

Thanks in advance

[26 Year Gap]

Illegal contact on a screen or pick is a foul. Screens can move without contact and not be illegal. If the screener steps into the path of the defender and there is contact, it is a foul. Rolling, hopping, skipping or stepping matters not.

[JRutledge]

There is no pick and roll rule. The screening rules allow for a screen to be basically set at the time of contact with allowances for some time and distance. It is also not illegal to go in the same direction of the person being screened. Really hard to say if the call was correct in your game. The issue would be did the screen roll towards the screened player and cause illegal contact or did the roll happen away. You can move on a screen, just have to do it legally.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ATXCoach

I vaguely remember reading on here or hearing somewhere that it was a POE for officials to call a foul when the screener rolls into the defense attempting to go around the screen.

Had a call against me today where the official stated that the screener couldn't roll in the same motion as the screen. I disagreed with the call as the defense simply switched the screen, so the roller in no way impeded the defense from guarding the ball.

Can someone give me a brief summary of the rule so that I can better understand?

Thanks in advance

If your screener rolled and created contact while moving, the official has to judge whether that contact impeded the defender. They may well have been switching, but if an illegal screen forces a switch the defense didn't want, it should be a foul.

[bainsey]

I've always had a hard time with that phrase "illegal screen." I doubt there really is such a thing.

A screen is basically defined as guarding "without causing contact." (NFHS 4-40-1) So, the instant the intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. It's either a foul (usually blocking, in this case) or incidental contact.

I'd like to put this theory to the test. If anyone can give an example of a true screen that's illegal (aside from eye shielding), I'd love to hear it.

[JRutledge]

Well considering that screens are defined and when certain movement takes place that is not considered legal as it relates to screens than you have an illegal screen. I know the casebook and the Illustrated book uses the term "Illegal Screen." Not sure why this would be much of an issue as these are all semantics at the end of the day.


Peace

[Judtech]

IMO, this type of play is a "had to see". If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door' pivot and rolls to the basket I would be inclined to not call a foul. To me the key is what the screener is doing. IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental. If they are 'faking' a roll to the basket and the contact is obstructing the defender then I would be inclined to put a whistle on it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

What if there is a defender standing directly in the path which leads straight to the basket?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

Huh?

So the screener is standing on the FT line. The dribbler goes around the screener, driving to the basket. The defender is screened by the screener who then rolls to the basker preventing the defender from getting around him and to the dribbler he was guarding.

Yep, that's a basketball play. It's also a foul. The rules don't make an exception for the screener to continue blocking the defender just because he moves toward the basket.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

Unfortunately your opinion does not match the way that the play is called by rule, as BktBallRef pointed out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door' pivot and rolls to the basket I would be inclined to not call a foul. To me the key is what the screener is doing. IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental. If they are 'faking' a roll to the basket and the contact is obstructing the defender then I would be inclined to put a whistle on it.

If you never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was always incidental, then somebody must have hacked in and used your name to make the post above.

If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door pivot' and rolls to the basket, that player is now governed by NFHS rule 4-23. ANY contact is now decided by R4-23 and you could have a block, a charge or a no-call for incidental contact as I previously writ. What you can NEVER have by rule is contact that is ALWAYS incidental, as you are trying to assert above.

Your statement above is false, erroneous, misleading and completely wrong. And that's exactly what BktBallRef was trying to point out to you also.

A little clearer...and more helpful now?

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IMO, this type of play is a "had to see". If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door' pivot and rolls to the basket I would be inclined to not call a foul. To me the key is what the screener is doing. IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental. If they are 'faking' a roll to the basket and the contact is obstructing the defender then I would be inclined to put a whistle on it.

JURASSIC - Above is my direct quote, what you did was highlight parts of my quote that you felt helped your point. I have put in bold the parts I think were being left out when quoted. What is being missed is the fact I said when I would be inclined to put a whistle on it and when not to put a whistle on it. I guess I can see where people would focus on the word ANY. However, it seems clear to me that since I stated where I would put a whistle on the play, the fact I used the word ANY would apply only to the first instance. If you would combine the words 'inclined' with the word 'any' you would get a better understanding of the posts intent. I'm sorry if my writing style is a bit to obtuse for some. And I do appreciate your attempt to combine the semantic and vernacular, now if we could just work on your quotation skills!

SNAQ I used the phrase 'basketball play' to infer that after the screen the cutter did nothing illegal. I can see how it can be taken as a non sequitor and apologize for any confusion. I can concede when I have misspoken, but I do not think that is the case here. Misunderstood, sure, misquoted absolutely, Ms America....welll...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

To repeat myself for the last time, the statement made by you above IN context is completely wrong. No matter how you want to try and explain it away, that statement is a piled-high steaming heap of doo-doo rules-wise.

If a screener rolls straight to the basket, ANY contact on or by that screener is adjudicated by the appropriate contact rules already cited many times in this thread. It may be incidental contact but it sureashell is NEVER always incidental contact under the rules. Imo the statement above shows a decided lack of understanding of some very basic rules.

No smileys.

And for the record, that blue font nonsense should also be stuck back in the dark, warm place that it came from.

Feel free to carry on with your bafflegab. I've wasted enough time playing. Hopefully the newbies reading this will understand what the other respondants to you are talking about.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

To me the key is what the screener is doing. IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental. If they are 'faking' a roll to the basket and the contact is obstructing the defender then I would be inclined to put a whistle on it.

What is the difference between "rolling straight to the basket" and "faking a roll to the basket" if, while doing so, contact is made which obstructs the defender?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I've always had a hard time with that phrase "illegal screen." I doubt there really is such a thing.

A screen is basically defined as guarding "without causing contact." (NFHS 4-40-1) So, the instant the intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. It's either a foul (usually blocking, in this case) or incidental contact.

I'd like to put this theory to the test. If anyone can give an example of a true screen that's illegal (aside from eye shielding), I'd love to hear it.

Omigod......

Did you even bother to read all of NFHS rule 4-40? If so, you sureasheck didn't understand what you read.

Any screen that doesn't meet the criteria outlined in R4-40 is obviously an illegal screen. There's all kinds of case plays also if you take the time to look them up. There's been several POE's recently explaining illegal screens, including POE 4A from the 2007-08 NFHS rule book which gave an excellent explanation.

I'd love to see you do a little research to back up your statements above. You just might discover how ridiculous they really are.


Lah me......