Pick and Roll Rule

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 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.

I quoted your exact statement verbatim. That statement was completely wrong and erroneous as per both of the NFHS & NCAA rulesets. Don't you get bent out of shape when somebody points out your very obvious lack of basic rule knowledge in this particular situation. That ain't attacking anybody. That's pointing out a fact. And that's the whole idea of this forum.

And if you do happen to still think that your statement is correct, may I suggest that you try and dig up some rules citations to back up your premise. Good luck with that.

Love, JR.

[just another ref]

This may not help, but I'll take a shot. 10.6.7 Comment. Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent..........

Now, we never think of a dribbler as setting a screen, but the principles still apply in certain situations. The same would be true of the guy who thinks he's through setting his screen and is now a "cutter."

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I quoted your exact statement verbatim. That statement was completely wrong and erroneous as per both of the NFHS & NCAA rulesets. Don't you get bent out of shape when somebody points out your very obvious lack of basic rule knowledge in this particular situation. That ain't attacking anybody. That's pointing out a fact. And that's the whole idea of this forum.

And if you do happen to still think that your statement is correct, may I suggest that you try and dig up some rules citations to back up your premise. Good luck with that.

Love, JR.

No, you didn't. You focused on one sentence and one word. Granted by using the word "any" I was speaking in a generality regarding the immediate action involved. You took it to mean ALL contact regardless of any other factor. I can understand the reasons this would confuse some.
I only get bent out of shape when you jump to conclusions before you have all of the information clarified. Instead of indicting someone's rules knowledge and ability, it might be a good idea to ask that person to expand or be more specific on the certain words or phrase that are causing concern.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This may not help, but I'll take a shot. 10.6.7 Comment. Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent..........

Now, we never think of a dribbler as setting a screen, but the principles still apply in certain situations. The same would be true of the guy who thinks he's through setting his screen and is now a "cutter."

What!?!? I think you are just trying to make this a longer thread than the "52 years old...." thread

[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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Judtech

If they are a cutter they are goverened by the rules for a cutter.

Serious question...which rules are you referring to? You're losing me on this one.

[just another ref]

Apparently every detail needs to be covered.

Note the definition of a screen. .....legal action by a player who, without causing contact delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Note that intent is not a part of the definition. It is not uncommon for a player to use a teammate as a screen without it being a designed play, sometimes without the teammate even being aware of what is transpiring.

BUT, the other side of the definition is there as well. If the same player causes contact which prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position, it is an illegal screen, (foul) even if said player had no intention of setting/continuing a screen in the first place.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Serious question...which rules are you referring to? You're losing me on this one.

I think those rules were from some type of butcher's training manual.

Or perhaps this... Cutter

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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...

Let's try this quotation thing again so I can pinpoint for you where I think you misspoke.

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.

Each sentence here is wrong, IMO.
It doesn't matter what the screener's intent is; only what the result is.

I'm not sure of any other way to read the word "any" hear than the way we have. With the word "inclined" (that I cut out), it seems to us you are alluding to your final sentence, where you'd have a whislte only if you think he was "faking a roll to the basket." Our point is, regardless of whether he was rolling to the basket or not, if he obstructs the defender without meeting the requirements of a legal screen, it's a foul.

Again, it doesn't matter what he's trying to do or if he's just faking it. Even if he's rolling to the basket, if he illegally gets into B1's path and physically prevents B1 from getting to his desired spot, it's a foul. He's not a "cutter," there's no such animal in the rules, he's a screener and must do it legally.

Had I been the only one to misread your post, or had Jurassic been the only one to misread your post, or had jar been the only one to misread your post, or had Camron been the only one to misread your post..... See the pattern? These are people who do not agree all the time on details, yet they all read you the same.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Very well. Here's simple...

Screening = legal. (NFHS 4-40-1)
Illegal ≠ legal. (Well known antonyms)
Therefore, an illegal screen doesn't exist.

I'm completely with you regarding the "cutter, picker, roller" argument, as those words tend to cloud what could be a simpler analysis. I'm talking solely about a term that many people accept, but probably never considered is non-existent.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well. Here's simple...

Screening = legal. (NFHS 4-40-1)
Illegal ≠ legal. (Well known antonyms)
Therefore, an illegal screen doesn't exist.

I'm completely with you regarding the "cutter, picker, roller" argument, as those words tend to cloud what could be a simpler analysis. I'm talking solely about a term that many people accept, but probably never considered is non-existent.

Sorry, your logic is flawed. Screens are legal until they're illegal. Just as contact is legal until it's illegal, and dribbling is legal until it's illegal, and guarding is legal until it's illegal.

The fact that the rules define the term 'screen' does not imply that all screening is legal, but that SOME screening is legal.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Screens are legal until they're illegal. Just as contact is legal until it's illegal, and dribbling is legal until it's illegal, and guarding is legal until it's illegal.

The fact that the rules define the term 'screen' does not imply that all screening is legal, but that SOME screening is legal.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

Dribbling, guarding, and contact aren't defined as being legal. Screening is. The rule book points out where illegal dribbling, guarding, and contact exist. Screening is only defined as legal. There's the difference.

Once the intended screener causes contact, it cannot be a screen anymore. And just so we're clear, none of this changes the way we enforce screening/blocking/illegal contact rules. This is only about that term.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Dribbling, guarding, and contact aren't defined as being legal.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Indeed so. Thanks, jar.

That may explain why we've never use "illegal guard."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Once the intended screener causes contact, it cannot be a screen anymore.

Why not? If it is not a screen, what is it?