Pick and Roll Rule

[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!

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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!

I thought we were discussing the pick and roll? You are changing the subject. I never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was incidental, YOU were the one who 'asserted' it. Obviously, if there is a defender in LGP who gets displaced by a cutter there would be a foul. LGP is sort of the trump card for everything.
Now, if you want to discuss when a screener is no longer a screener but a cutter, then that would be more helpful.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I thought we were discussing the pick and roll? You are changing the subject. I never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was incidental, YOU were the one who 'asserted' it. Obviously, if there is a defender in LGP who gets displaced by a cutter there would be a foul. LGP is sort of the trump card for everything.
Now, if you want to discuss when a screener is no longer a screener but a cutter, then that would be more helpful.

Why? What sorts of rights or priveleges do cutters have? Where is "cutter" defined?
they're all screeners, IMO. And LGP is not required for a screen, nor is it required for the defender to be protected from an illegal screen. LGP is a red herring, IMO.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why? What sorts of rights or priveleges do cutters have? Where is "cutter" defined?
they're all screeners, IMO. And LGP is not required for a screen, nor is it required for the defender to be protected from an illegal screen. LGP is a red herring, IMO.

In a pick and roll play, the player who sets the pick can then become the cutter after the initial contact is broken. If a cutter is moving to the basket and the defender is attempting to get around them and are not being displaced or held then there would be incidental contact. If a screener makes contact with a defender, mantains contacts and "rolls" then you have the makings of an illegal screen. My point was that once contact is broken on the initial screen, contact between the defender and cutter is not an automatic foul on the cutter, and I would be inclined not to call a blocking foul on the cutter based on the reasons I stated.
As to LGP If another player, or the person who was being originally screened, slides over in the path of the cutter, regardless of on a pick and roll or garden variety cuttery, establishes LGP and gets displaced then we have a foul. To me it seemed that there were 2 seperate plays being discussed. I agree that in the original play LGP is a Red Herring, even though I am allergic to seafood!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

In a pick and roll play, the player who sets the pick can then become the cutter after the initial contact is broken.

No such thing ruleswise.

If the player effectively sets a screen by preventing a defender from defending their player it was a screen and must meets all of the requirements of legal screen. What the player wanted to do is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Judtech

If a cutter is moving to the basket and the defender is attempting to get around them and are not being displaced or held then there would be incidental contact.

If it prevents them from defending their opponent, it is a screen...and is subject to screening rules. Nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by Judtech

If a screener makes contact with a defender, maintains contacts and "rolls" then you have the makings of an illegal screen. My point was that once contact is broken on the initial screen, contact between the defender and cutter is not an automatic foul on the cutter, and I would be inclined not to call a blocking foul on the cutter based on the reasons I stated.

What does that have to do with anything?

The screen doesn't have to be legal only for one contact, it must be legal as long as it is preventing the opponent from reaching a desired position.