Pick and Roll Rule

[ATXCoach]

I vaguely remember reading on here or hearing somewhere that it was a POE for officials to call a foul when the screener rolls into the defense attempting to go around the screen.

Had a call against me today where the official stated that the screener couldn't roll in the same motion as the screen. I disagreed with the call as the defense simply switched the screen, so the roller in no way impeded the defense from guarding the ball.

Can someone give me a brief summary of the rule so that I can better understand?

Thanks in advance

[26 Year Gap]

Illegal contact on a screen or pick is a foul. Screens can move without contact and not be illegal. If the screener steps into the path of the defender and there is contact, it is a foul. Rolling, hopping, skipping or stepping matters not.

[JRutledge]

There is no pick and roll rule. The screening rules allow for a screen to be basically set at the time of contact with allowances for some time and distance. It is also not illegal to go in the same direction of the person being screened. Really hard to say if the call was correct in your game. The issue would be did the screen roll towards the screened player and cause illegal contact or did the roll happen away. You can move on a screen, just have to do it legally.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ATXCoach

I vaguely remember reading on here or hearing somewhere that it was a POE for officials to call a foul when the screener rolls into the defense attempting to go around the screen.

Had a call against me today where the official stated that the screener couldn't roll in the same motion as the screen. I disagreed with the call as the defense simply switched the screen, so the roller in no way impeded the defense from guarding the ball.

Can someone give me a brief summary of the rule so that I can better understand?

Thanks in advance

If your screener rolled and created contact while moving, the official has to judge whether that contact impeded the defender. They may well have been switching, but if an illegal screen forces a switch the defense didn't want, it should be a foul.

[bainsey]

I've always had a hard time with that phrase "illegal screen." I doubt there really is such a thing.

A screen is basically defined as guarding "without causing contact." (NFHS 4-40-1) So, the instant the intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. It's either a foul (usually blocking, in this case) or incidental contact.

I'd like to put this theory to the test. If anyone can give an example of a true screen that's illegal (aside from eye shielding), I'd love to hear it.

[JRutledge]

Well considering that screens are defined and when certain movement takes place that is not considered legal as it relates to screens than you have an illegal screen. I know the casebook and the Illustrated book uses the term "Illegal Screen." Not sure why this would be much of an issue as these are all semantics at the end of the day.


Peace

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

What if there is a defender standing directly in the path which leads straight to the basket?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IF the screener rolls straight to the basket, this, IMO, is a basketball play and any contact would be incidental.

Huh?

So the screener is standing on the FT line. The dribbler goes around the screener, driving to the basket. The defender is screened by the screener who then rolls to the basker preventing the defender from getting around him and to the dribbler he was guarding.

Yep, that's a basketball play. It's also a foul. The rules don't make an exception for the screener to continue blocking the defender just because he moves toward the basket.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I've always had a hard time with that phrase "illegal screen." I doubt there really is such a thing.

A screen is basically defined as guarding "without causing contact." (NFHS 4-40-1) So, the instant the intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. It's either a foul (usually blocking, in this case) or incidental contact.

I'd like to put this theory to the test. If anyone can give an example of a true screen that's illegal (aside from eye shielding), I'd love to hear it.

Omigod......

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

Any screen that doesn't meet the criteria outlined in R4-40 is obviously an illegal screen. There's all kinds of case plays also if you take the time to look them up. There's been several POE's recently explaining illegal screens, including POE 4A from the 2007-08 NFHS rule book which gave an excellent explanation.

I'd love to see you do a little research to back up your statements above. You just might discover how ridiculous they really are.


Lah me......

[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.

Unfortunately your opinion does not match the way that the play is called by rule, as BktBallRef pointed out.

[DLH17]

this thread has the makings of another epic pizzing match

[Jurassic Referee]

POE 4A from the 2007-08 NFHS Rule Book:

SCREENING: A legal screener must be stationary prior to contact within his/her vertical plane(hands, arms, legs and feet no more than shoulder width apart). When these two requirements are not met, and when there is sufficient contact delivered by the screener to bump, slow or dispace, it is a foul on the screener. When a screen is blind, outside the visual field or a rear screen, it is only legal when the screened player is permitted a normal step backward. The screened player must then make a legitimate attempt to get around a legal screen without forcing rough or "displacing" contact. This type of contact must result in a foul on the screened player. When a screener is illegally moving in an attempt to set a screen, but no contact occurs with the opponent, no foul has been committed.

Note that contrary to Judtech's opinion, the red-highlighted sentences above apply to a pick-and-roll play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DLH17

this thread has the makings of another epic pizzing match

It also might explain to some people what to look for and how to call illegal screens. Obviously, there are people out there who are confused.

If you think that some of us using our time to look up citations, POE's, etc. to try and help out and maybe educate a little is pissing on someone, methinks you're maybe a tetch too thin-skinned for this officiating avocation.

JMO.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It also might explain to some people what to look for and how to call illegal screens. Obviously, there are people out there who are confused.

If you think that some of us using our time to look up citations, POE's, etc. to try and help out and maybe educate a little is pissing on someone, methinks you're maybe a tetch too thin-skinned for this officiating avocation.

JMO.

I agree, JR. It's been beneficial to me. I've read every post...good discussion. Just injecting some gratuitous silliness.