Pick and Roll Rule

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

Are you talking about the screen or the roll? A good legal screen is designed to prevent, or at least make it really difficult, for the defender to get around. That is why I asked earlier when does the screen end? Also, let's throw this into the cookie jar. As A2 goes to set a ball screen, B1 takes a path to go under the screen and there is no contact with A2. As A1 brushes off the screen, A2 begins to roll, in the process of rolling to the basket B1 gets stuck behind A2 as they roll to the basket. Is that a foul? Is A2 still considered a screener or are they now a cutter?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Are you talking about the screen or the roll? A good legal screen is designed to prevent, or at least make it really difficult, for the defender to get around. That is why I asked earlier when does the screen end? Also, let's throw this into the cookie jar. As A2 goes to set a ball screen, B1 takes a path to go under the screen and there is no contact with A2. As A1 brushes off the screen, A2 begins to roll, in the process of rolling to the basket B1 gets stuck behind A2 as they roll to the basket. Is that a foul? Is A2 still considered a screener or are they now a cutter?

Yes, it is a foul. It doesn't matter if A2 is intended to screen or not. It is the actions that matter. If B1 goes under and A2 rolls into B1 as B1 tries to defend B1, you have the makings of a foul. Not automatic, but it must be watched. If A2's roll is quick and B1 hesitates and only runs into A2 after A2 has taken off and left the main path to A1 open, I'm not going to have that foul. At that point, I'm going to consider that B1 is guarding A2.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by 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.

It may be less an issue of opinion then talking about two different plays. My point of reference was what happens after the screen. The key question to ask, and I am open to seeing a rule on this, is when a screen is over? Let me explain: B1 contacts A2's legal screen. B1 breaks contact and tries to go underneath the screen. When contact is broken and A1 comes around the screen, A2 rolls/cuts to the basket. This is where the last red inked comment comes into play. Is A2 now a screener or a cutter? This is where I pointed out the "fake" roll that we sometimes see. IMO, if contact is broken and the defender gets caught behind a letgitmate cutter they just got pinned similar to a post player. And that is not even taking into account what the status of the defender is when there is a "switch" on the ball screen!
Therefore, the OPINION, comes into play when you decide A) When a screen ends B) who is making a basketball play and/or C) who is faking a play to set an illegal screen.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

It may be less an issue of opinion then talking about two different plays. My point of reference was what happens after the screen. The key question to ask, and I am open to seeing a rule on this, is when a screen is over? Let me explain: B1 contacts A2's legal screen. B1 breaks contact and tries to go underneath the screen. When contact is broken and A1 comes around the screen, A2 rolls/cuts to the basket. This is where the last red inked comment comes into play. Is A2 now a screener or a cutter? This is where I pointed out the "fake" roll that we sometimes see. IMO, if contact is broken and the defender gets caught behind a letgitmate cutter they just got pinned similar to a post player. And that is not even taking into account what the status of the defender is when there is a "switch" on the ball screen!
Therefore, the OPINION, comes into play when you decide A) When a screen ends B) who is making a basketball play and/or C) who is faking a play to set an illegal screen.

Then let's put it this way....

Forget screens.

Your opinion that ANY contact now caused by a screener rolling to the basket should be ruled incidental is contrary to the guarding principles as outlined under NFHS rule 4-23. If the defender had established and maintained LGP on the "roller", there is no way in hell you can call the ensuing contact as always being incidental contact, as you are asserting. It could be a charge if a LGP was established and maintained. It could be a block if there wasn't a LGP at the time of impact. It could also be incidental contact. You have 3 options to consider, not the one(incidental contact) that you are opining.

Rules rulz!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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.

If you never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was always incidental, then somebody must have hacked in and used your name to make the post above.

If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door pivot' and rolls to the basket, that player is now governed by NFHS rule 4-23. ANY contact is now decided by R4-23 and you could have a block, a charge or a no-call for incidental contact as I previously writ. What you can NEVER have by rule is contact that is ALWAYS incidental, as you are trying to assert above.

Your statement above is false, erroneous, misleading and completely wrong. And that's exactly what BktBallRef was trying to point out to you also.

A little clearer...and more helpful now?