Pick and Roll Rule

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

While the rule book does not contain the term "illegal screen," a screen is either legal or illegal, just as a dribble is either legal or illegal or touching the ball is legal or illegal. An illegal screen is any screen that doesn't meet the definition of a legal screen.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you even bother to read all of NFHS rule 4-40? If so, you sureasheck didn't understand what you read.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This isn't about what contact is and isn't legal; this is about the venecular we apply to these situations.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[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.