Yeah, I saw the smiley. That's why I used a smiley also. Just wanted to make a point though. I'm not looking things up and posting them to crap on anybody, and neither are the other guys contributing either. I may be a l'il blunt sometime but I'm certainly not doing it just to piss people off. That's just a side effect/added benefit. :D

Point taken.

And, I'm getting more and more used to the styles of posters here. Not so sure others are getting used to me. ;)

I think some of you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying you can't commit a foul while intending to screen. (Of course you can.) I'm saying that, as soon as an intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. At that instant, it becomes something else other than a screen.

Take another look at 4-40-1, BBR. A screen is always defined a "legal action." Dribbling can be illegal. Touching can be illegal. Screening cannot.

In the three examples you provide, BBR, the intended screener caused the contact. Yes, these are fouls and undoubtedly should be called, but they're not screens anymore, because the caused contact no longer meets the definition of screen. If anything, it's an illegal attempted screen.

I understand it fine, JR. Rule 4-40 clearly spells out when intended screeners and screenees can and can't do. I don't see where any of that trumps the fact that, as soon as the intended screener causes contact, the definition of the screen is lost. This isn't about what contact is and isn't legal; this is about the venecular we apply to these situations.

It may be less an issue of opinion then talking about two different plays. My point of reference was what happens after the screen. The key question to ask, and I am open to seeing a rule on this, is when a screen is over? Let me explain: B1 contacts A2's legal screen. B1 breaks contact and tries to go underneath the screen. When contact is broken and A1 comes around the screen, A2 rolls/cuts to the basket. This is where the last red inked comment comes into play. Is A2 now a screener or a cutter? This is where I pointed out the "fake" roll that we sometimes see. IMO, if contact is broken and the defender gets caught behind a letgitmate cutter they just got pinned similar to a post player. And that is not even taking into account what the status of the defender is when there is a "switch" on the ball screen!
Therefore, the OPINION, comes into play when you decide A) When a screen ends B) who is making a basketball play and/or C) who is faking a play to set an illegal screen.

Are you talking about the screen or the roll? A good legal screen is designed to prevent, or at least make it really difficult, for the defender to get around. That is why I asked earlier when does the screen end? Also, let's throw this into the cookie jar. As A2 goes to set a ball screen, B1 takes a path to go under the screen and there is no contact with A2. As A1 brushes off the screen, A2 begins to roll, in the process of rolling to the basket B1 gets stuck behind A2 as they roll to the basket. Is that a foul? Is A2 still considered a screener or are they now a cutter?

Then let's put it this way....

Forget screens.

Your opinion that ANY contact now caused by a screener rolling to the basket should be ruled incidental is contrary to the guarding principles as outlined under NFHS rule 4-23. If the defender had established and maintained LGP on the "roller", there is no way in hell you can call the ensuing contact as always being incidental contact, as you are asserting. It could be a charge if a LGP was established and maintained. It could be a block if there wasn't a LGP at the time of impact. It could also be incidental contact. You have 3 options to consider, not the one(incidental contact) that you are opining.

Rules rulz!

I thought we were discussing the pick and roll? You are changing the subject. I never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was incidental, YOU were the one who 'asserted' it. Obviously, if there is a defender in LGP who gets displaced by a cutter there would be a foul. LGP is sort of the trump card for everything.
Now, if you want to discuss when a screener is no longer a screener but a cutter, then that would be more helpful.

And the vernacular commonly used is an illegal screen. Maybe it should be called a "block" to be technically accurate. But the basic point that screens are either legal or illegal is accepted everywhere afaik.

Soooooo......does the point that you're trying to make really add anything but confusion to the topic being discussed?

Note that I'm not being miserable again either. :) I'm responding to what the "vernacular" usually is in my experience.

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? :)

Why? What sorts of rights or priveleges do cutters have? Where is "cutter" defined?
they're all screeners, IMO. And LGP is not required for a screen, nor is it required for the defender to be protected from an illegal screen. LGP is a red herring, IMO.

yes thank you it is clearer. Let me be clear.

1. If a player makes a revolving door screen properly, then contact is going to be deemed incidental.
2. If the screen is performed improperly, then there is a possibility of illegal contact.
3. I said I would be inclined to not call a foul, but it was dependent on what the cutter is doing. The first example would be for the properly performed revolving door ball screen. The second was an example of a non basketball play.
4. I can not recall a situation where B1 was able to get well enough below A2's ball screen to be legal and thus initiate a charge from the cutter. Most players either try to fight over the top of a screen, switch or B2 hedges A1 while B1 goes under the screen then bumps B2 off of A1 back to A2.
5. I firmly believe that it is important to know what the screener and screenie (just made that word up) are doing on this play. I am not sure how that is " false, erroneous, misleading and completely wrong" If an official knows what the players involved are doing, it makes it easier to call.
6. I read BBRef's post to mean that another player became involved. Say B3 slides over to draw a charge on A2. That is not the play being discussed. If I read that post wrong then I refer to point #4

I don't think I agree with this. If A2 sets a screen then rolls towards the basket, he takes a very real risk of cutting off B1 trying to stay with A1. If he steps into B1's path, he must give time and distance to B1; not likely if both players are moving at contact. If he prevents B1 from maintaining his position with regard to A1 and did not give time and distance, it's a foul on the screener; regardless of whether A2 is cutting to the basket for a pass. He's still a screener.

In a pick and roll play, the player who sets the pick can then become the cutter after the initial contact is broken. If a cutter is moving to the basket and the defender is attempting to get around them and are not being displaced or held then there would be incidental contact. If a screener makes contact with a defender, mantains contacts and "rolls" then you have the makings of an illegal screen. My point was that once contact is broken on the initial screen, contact between the defender and cutter is not an automatic foul on the cutter, and I would be inclined not to call a blocking foul on the cutter based on the reasons I stated.
As to LGP If another player, or the person who was being originally screened, slides over in the path of the cutter, regardless of on a pick and roll or garden variety cuttery, establishes LGP and gets displaced then we have a foul. To me it seemed that there were 2 seperate plays being discussed. I agree that in the original play LGP is a Red Herring, even though I am allergic to seafood!

I think the answers to these questions are the crux of the discussion:
When is a screener no longer a screener?
Does a cutter have to give time and distance?

Assuming there is no displacement or holding by the screener:

If both players are moving with A2 cutting to the basket when B1 makes contact trying to get around A2 does A2 have to let B1 through? If so why?
A2 cuts to the basket and makes contact with B1 would this be a foul? If so, why?
If B1 and B2 switch and A2 rolls to the basket and B1 cant get around A2 is that a foul? If so, why?

That's the problem. When something is that self-contradictory, aren't we foolish to simply accept it?