The thing is, the commonly used term "illegal screen" defines something based on what the player is attempting to do. It may be coach-speak, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. It's not like "on the floor" or other such terms that lead to misconceptions, so your crusade here seems pointless.

Agree. "Illegal screen" is probably a pretty good response to a coach asking you what the foul on his player was. Of course, it will probably lead to the obvious follow-up question of why the screen was illegal, but that question can also be answered quickly and succintly also.

When everybody understands the verbiage that is commonly being used, it makes no sense at all to come up with new but nonsensical reasons to use some other verbiage.

I accept that. I can see that I used some terms and verbage that may be confusing and that is obviously not my intent. "Fake a screen" "Revolving Door pivot" "any v all" and a few others are terms I have been taught and I use, so I wasn't trying to be overly clever. This is a type of play that, at least to me, is more easily demonstrated on the court than typed on a forum. Thank you for pointing out what is causing confusion and why. I will try to strip away most of the verbosity and simply ask questions that will help with my need for clarification.

When is a screener no longer a screener? I think this might be where there could be some differences opinion. I am not asking what is a legal screen and what isn't.

To me, obstruction is a vague term. It may not be for others and that is fine. There can be legal or illegal obstructions. Which leads my thought process to look at a play like this and determine if the defender can't "get to his spot" because of poor defense on their part or because of an illegal obstruction on the offenses part.

If a player is not a screener then what word would be better to describe them? I use the word cutter b/c the player is now cutting to the basket.

If an offensive player is not a screener, wouldn't they have the same right to a spot on the floor as the defensive player on a "first come first served" basis?

Ok, so it was like 3 1/2 questions with one comment! Thanks for the help

Even a screener has the same rights to a spot on the floor. Any player getting in the path of an opponent is either a screener or a guard. If his team has the ball, he can't be a guard.
So, after the initial screen, when the screener cuts to the basket, he may become a screener again if his movement places him in the path of a defender.
I'm not there to judge poor defense or poor offense, so even if the defender is a bit slow, it doesn't matter.

The problem is, the pick and roll is often taught as a seal off type move, where the screen rolls in such a way as to seal off the defender by moving into and obstructing his path. That's typically a foul, and just because the screener has his hands up looking for a pass doesn't mean he isn't guilty of an illegal screen.

Yeah, we agree on the second part, which is what I meant be 'faking a roll'. Although some players just do it on their own without being taught!!

The first part is where we may disagree. This is where it may get complicated to explain via typing. If the 'former screener' is going north and south in their cut to the basket, and the person defending the ball is going east to west (or probably northeast to southswest) their paths are most likely going to cross. I would interpret that point to go to whoever gets there first as opposed to a illegal/moving screen.

And I apprecitate your concern for those defenders who are a little slow. If only some of my coaches had been so understanding. However, speed has a lot of bearing in this type of play, because the defensive player has to be quick enough to get around the screen and recover. And/or they would have to beat the offensive player 'to the spot'. This is why I often just yelled "Switch"!!:D

We've got a local team who likes to run and gun so any offensive stuff in the 1/2 court tends to be of the hot potatoe variety trying to get a quick shot. In these situations they will constanly run what their coach calls "blur" action. It is basically a foot ball like crossing pattern with two players on diagonal routes which at some point leads too: two offensive players bumping or two defensive players bumping or 1 of the defensive players going under in order to create space for the other to move through. As soon as one defender changes his run or is caught up this player immediately dives at the ball while the other continues on their line to exit.

Ivariably you see recovering players needing to run around their own teammate or the offensive cutter to recover and occaisionally run into one or both of these people in the attempt. I was of the opinion when I first started wathcing it that their had to be an illegal screen/block/ something in there that wasn't right.

9 times out of ten though it is the potential contact or contact that is simply incidental that seems worse then it is because of poor decision making or communication by the defense leading to the situation. Not anythign illegal occuuring. In the time where the are holding or pushing I'm calling an offensive foul, but if their is nothing more then a regular player recovering through a mess then normal its play on. When I have someone complain I'll often tell them that their needs to be contact impeding them to make a call not just them caught standing there going "thats illegal".

While I agree with you that the coach will typically ask what made the contact illegal (calling it anything you want), if anything is nonsensical, it's the term in question. I infer from your statement that it's okay to say it, because everyone else is saying it. I'm certainly all for being on the same page, but when something doesn't add up, I think it's wrong not to question it.

Crusade? LOL I'm simply testing a hypothesis. Still, I think "coach-speak" is a correct classification of "illegal screen," because it indeed fits in with "baseline," "on the floor," "time line," and numerous other phrases we're asked to avoid.

Either incidental contact or a foul.

103.4% of all of the officials that I have ever known disagree with you. They just don't worry about inconsequential crap like this and they'd rather get the game going again asap than waste time giving an explanation that just makes the coach say "WTF?" anyway. There sureashell are bigger windmills out there we can tilt at.

Soooooo.....I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Mr. Quixote. :)

Some coach-speak is innocuous, such as "baseline," "timeline" (do you actually hear this one still?), "paint"/"key", or "over and back." Others, such as "on the floor," "reach," or "over the back," perpetuate myths that make our lives more difficult.

Is there something about the use of "illegal screen" which perpetuates a myth making your games more difficult?

Probably Several Thousand ...
 

So, if you know 1000 officials, then all of them disagree with bainsey, and there are an additional 34 officials who you don't know who also disagree with bainsey? That number sounds way too low. I'm sure that there are a lot more than 34 officials, who you don't know, who disagree with bainsey. Man, this "new math" gives me a headache. I need to get my slide rule out of the desk drawer.

Or perhaps an abacus?

Hey guys, it's bainsey, not BRAINsey. He just doesn't get it. Neither does Jedtech. You fellas should have quit when I did, on page 3.

First of all, what's to disagree with? I made a hypothesis, backed it up with the rules, and asked for hard evidence to the contrary. I expected discussion, not emotion.

More importantly, who said anything about slowing down a game with such a discussion? This kind of discussion belongs outside the game, and over a meeting of minds, like an officials' forum. Don't you think?

Snaqwells, review your post. Do you find "over the back" to be innocuous or problematic? (You had both.) I believe it to be #1 in the problematic department. As for "illegal screen," it would be in my top ten, though barely.

And yes, I heard "timeline" recently. It surprised me, too.

Yet here you are on page 5. Could you just not stay away or did it take you that long to come up with the clever nicknames?

It just ain't worth "discussion". And you're not getting "emotion" either. You're getting "reality".