Pick and Roll Rule

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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?

Yes, it is a foul. It doesn't matter if A2 is intended to screen or not. It is the actions that matter. If B1 goes under and A2 rolls into B1 as B1 tries to defend B1, you have the makings of a foul. Not automatic, but it must be watched. If A2's roll is quick and B1 hesitates and only runs into A2 after A2 has taken off and left the main path to A1 open, I'm not going to have that foul. At that point, I'm going to consider that B1 is guarding A2.

[Jurassic Referee]

On any given "pick & roll"....
1) The "pick" or screen part of the play is covered under the screening principles outlined in NFHS rule 4-40.
2) The "roll" part of the play that comes immediately after the pick/screen ended is covered by the guarding principles outlined in NFHS rule 4-23.
3) For contact occuring during both the "pick" and the "roll", you also have to know the principles for illegal & legal use of hands as defined under NFHS rule 4-24, the principles used to determine if any contact is incidental or not-as defined in NFHS rule 4-27, and the contact principles outlined in NFHS rule 10-6.

Rules rulz!

THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO FREAKING KNOW!!!

The rest is just details.

Time for my afternoon nappy now....

Carry on carrying on.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Assuming there is no displacement or holding by the screener:

1. 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?
2. A2 cuts to the basket and makes contact with B1 would this be a foul? If so, why?
3. If B1 and B2 switch and A2 rolls to the basket and B1 cant get around A2 is that a foul? If so, why?

You seem to be attached to "displacement" and "holding" as if they were the only or primary instances of fouls during screens. Blocking and pushing (the genus of which "displacement" is a species) are just as common if not more so.

1. It depends. If B1 gets to a spot first and A2 bumps him, that's a foul.
2. It depends. It might be a block on B1 if he's late, a push (TC) on A2, or nothing. The fact that A2 is "cutting to the basket" is totally irrelevant.
3. Probably. If A2 is screening while moving, that's an illegal screen.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO FREAKING KNOW!!!

Pardon me, did you say something?

/wiping spittle off cheeks and forehead

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

In a pick and roll play, the player who sets the pick can then become the cutter after the initial contact is broken.

No such thing ruleswise.

If the player effectively sets a screen by preventing a defender from defending their player it was a screen and must meets all of the requirements of legal screen. What the player wanted to do is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Judtech

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 it prevents them from defending their opponent, it is a screen...and is subject to screening rules. Nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by Judtech

If a screener makes contact with a defender, maintains 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.

What does that have to do with anything?

The screen doesn't have to be legal only for one contact, it must be legal as long as it is preventing the opponent from reaching a desired position.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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?

There is no definition of a cutter, that's the crux of the issue. There's guarding, and there's screening. Those two rules tell us who is responsible for contact. The incidental contact definition tells us how to determine if that contact is a foul.
This is where "referee the defense" comes into play. If B1 is trying to guard A1 and is phyisically impeded from doing so by a moving A2, you have to consider a foul on A2 regardless of whether A2 is a "cutter." He may be trying to cut for a pass, but if the result is an illegal screen, it's a foul.
If, however, they have switched and B1 is now guarding A2, judge the play accordingly.

[Judtech]

SNAQ we are in agreement when you say "A1 and is phyisically impeded from doing so by a moving A2, you have to consider a foul on A2 regardless of whether A2 is a "cutter. He may be trying to cut for a pass." and about refereening the defense. One of the big ideas behind running a screen and roll is for the screener to get a pass from the ball handler. If the defense can't get around a cutter, I will determine why and whistle accordingly.
JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them


RUST I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing so bear with me:


Why can't the screener become a cutter? If all legal requirements of a screen are met, then after the screen why cant they cut?

If it prevents them from defending their opponent, it is a screen...and is subject to screening rules. Nothing else matters

If you are refering to this play then I agree.

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.

What does that have to do with anything?

The screen doesn't have to be legal only for one contact, it must be legal as long as it is preventing the opponent from reaching a desired
One has a whole lot to do with the other. It goes back to when is a screener no longer a screener. If the screener has the inability to become a cutter then basically, a screener must stand in one place until the entire play is finished. Because if they move and contact the person originally screened it is a moving screen. As Jurassic said, if they are setting a screen they are governed by the screening rules. If they are a cutter they are goverened by the rules for a cutter.

Again, when is a screener no longer a screener? That is the key action. When that has been determined is when you determine if they rules regarding a cutter or screener come into play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Since I'm interested in talking basketball and you're WAAAAAAY too wrapped up in semantics, there's really no need in me wasting any more time trying to help you.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Since I'm interested in talking basketball and you're WAAAAAAY too wrapped up in semantics, there's really no need in me wasting any more time trying to help you.

Then perhaps, I can help you. Basketball and semantics are not mutually exclusive.

Take a look at the other posts. A good portion of this discussion is related to semantics ("cutter", et al). In fact, many of these threads significantly have to do with semantics.

Last time I checked, that's partially why we're here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Then perhaps, I can help you. Basketball and semantics are not mutually exclusive.

Take a look at the other posts. A good portion of this discussion is related to semantics ("cutter", et al). In fact, many of these threads significantly have to do with semantics.

The problem is that you also have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the semantics. And that's what's screwing up Judtech. And maybe you.

The simplest solution is to take a hammer...in Judtech's case, a sledgehammer....and whacketh thyself on the melon until you forget ALL about screeners, cutters, pickers, rollers, etc., etc., freaking etc to freaking infinity, and replace all of those terms with offensive players and defensive players. You then learn, comprehend and understand how to apply the appropriate rule needed to properly adjudicate the play. And you do that using the rules that I've already cited...and that numerous other respondents in this thread have also been citing. Iow the rules governing contact during screening and guarding situations.

The usage of supposedly correct semantics ain't worth a damn imo if that usage is doing nuthin' but confusing the person that's trying to use those semantics. Please note that statement basically also just mirrors what BktBallRef said in his last post above.

KIFSS! I added the "F" just for this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them

Good try but it won't work. I quoted you verbatim on your stoopid assertation that any contact on an offensive player rolling to the basket should be ruled as incidental contact. That statement as cited by yourself is nuthin' but a heapin' load of steaming doo-doo, rules-wise. That's why I disagreed with you.

Please note that for your personal convenience, I sincerely tried to use both semantics and the vernacular above in their proper context as an aid to your understanding that statement. I'm a caring kinda guy that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them

It's at this point where it may be best to cut your losses and concede that you misspoke when you wrote the following:

Originally Posted by Judtech

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.

Other than the points I've made with which you seem to agree, I'll add that being a basketball play does not make it incidental. That's a complete and total non sequitur.

[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.

[Judtech]

Jurassic, your ability to understand the world outside your preconceived ideas and notions is what is really a pile of steaming doo doo. You seem to get so bent out of shape if someone doesn't word something the way you feel it should be worded. You show that again you put words and meaning into the my post that were not there. And if you don't understand an explaination, then you immediately attack the poster on their competency and rules knowledge.
Obviously my approach is different. I value everyone's input and garner knowledge from how my fellow officials approach different situations and how they go about explaining them. Everyone comes from different backgrounds and approaches, berating someone b/c their way is not your way is not, IMO, very useful.