Pick and Roll Rule

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Sorry, I consider it a problem, like "reaching in." It perpetuates a myth that creates problems. Let me rephrase my question, since you really didn't answer what I meant to ask.

What, exactly, is the problem you find with using the term? What myth does it perpetuate?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What, exactly, is the problem you find with using the term? What myth does it perpetuate?

The only problem I have with it is that it's an oxymoron. The only myth it perpetuates is that you can indeed screen illegally. Of course, as 4-40-1 reads, you can't. Does it create issues as much as "over the back," "reaching," and other myths? No, not even close. But, it's still there.

So, I put it out here to the test. When we debate whether something is legal/illegal/improper/whatever, we always say to go back to the book. I asked if anyone could come up with an example of an illegal screen that stays within the definition of the rule book. No-one did, yet.

I'd have no hard feelings if someone could do so, as that would be just another learning lesson. Instead, a few others displayed hard feelings from something I pointed out. That's too bad, as I expected something more rational here.

If it isn't worth the discussion, then I don't see the point in responding.

[Adam]

My point is you may well be right, by rule, but the "myth" you're concerned about isn't a problem. I've never had a coach above the YMCA level ask for a foul call on a moving screen when there isn't contact, so this myth isn't a problem. The benefits of using the phrase outweigh any semantic issues some may have with it. The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

I'm done.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is you may well be right, by rule, but the "myth" you're concerned about isn't a problem. I've never had a coach above the YMCA level ask for a foul call on a moving screen when there isn't contact, so this myth isn't a problem. The benefits of using the phrase outweigh any semantic issues some may have with it. The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

I'm done.

Man, I need to come out and work where you do!! I have heard that several times at higher levels. And NO I do not want to get into the perpetuating a myth debate. It would take away witty comebacks I have when I am in the bleechers heckling fans "It is legal to reach in you know. It is that whole holding part that is illegal". I've gotten some priceless looks from that one. Or "Hey they are over the back" "Yes they actually were over the back, good thing they were not on the back b/c then it would probably be a push and there would have been a foul". Just one of the perverse joys I get on rare occasions!!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Rules that no one has found in any rule book. Which rule defines when a screener is no longer a screener but is a cutter? And what rule covers the rights and restrictions of a cutter when that cutter blocks an opponents path?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Instead, a few others displayed hard feelings from something I pointed out. That's too bad, as I expected something more rational here.

If it isn't worth the discussion, then I don't see the point in responding.

I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood. You are the ONLY person that I have ever met or heard of that has a problem with it. And that takes in a lot of "persons" over the year. And that's why it isn't worth the very lengthy discussion that we've had about it so far imo. And that's why I'm done discussing it. If others want to indulge you, hey, y'all knock yourselves out.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rules that no one has found in any rule book. Which rule defines when a screener is no longer a screener but is a cutter?

I said nothing about cutters or the like, Cam. Where'd you get that?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

No sir. The fact is, it's a FOUL, usually blocking or illegal contact. The coach doesn't need more than that.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage [sic] of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood.

Glad to hear you're not bitter, JR. And you're absolutely right. It is common, and it is understood. And like some other "terms" mentioned here, it's still wrong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

No sir. The fact is, it's a FOUL, usually blocking or illegal contact. The coach doesn't need more than that.

An illegal screen is a foul. You have a problem with that.

Read the definition of pivot.

An illegal pivot can be traveling. Is this a problem for you?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

An illegal pivot can be traveling. Is this a problem for you?

Not at all. There's one key word that's in the definition of screen that's not in the definition of pivot. Check it out.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I said nothing about cutters or the like, Cam. Where'd you get that?

Forgive me, I attributed that statement to the wrong person. It was said, just not by you.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not at all. There's one key word that's in the definition of screen that's not in the definition of pivot. Check it out.

Okay, check the definitions of block and charge. They contain the word illegal.
There is no legal block. There is no legal charge. They are merely fouls, and if they were legal, they wouldn't be fouls.

So, is a screen is illegal, by definition it is no longer a screen, but merely a foul.

You're right.

You win.

Next question:

So what?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So what?

So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

(Aside to Cam: No prob.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

(Aside to Cam: No prob.)

Look, put this in the category of "baseline," "in the key," "call timeout," etc. Technically incorrect terms that still get the point across and don't cause any undue heartaches except for the particularly anal semanticists amongst us.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

You need the change the "we're" above to "I'm". You seem to be about the only respondent so far to really give a damn. However, don't let that stop your never-ending quest for correct vernacular(as YOU see it), even if the regular ol' vernacular was, is and will still be commonly used by 103.4% of the rest of us.

ver-nac-u-lar- using plain everyday, ordinary language

In basketball officialspeak, the term "illegal screen" is our vernacular.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Look, put this in the category of "baseline," "in the key," "call timeout," etc.

Fine with me. I think that's a fair classification.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You need the change the "we're" above to "I'm".

I thought you were done discussing this. Anyway, very well. If the only point you have is, "it's perfectly okay, as long as everyone does it," then I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Personally, I believe officials should care more about what's right than what's popular.