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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

The problem is that you also have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the semantics. And that's what's screwing up Judtech. And maybe you.

The simplest solution is to take a hammer...in Judtech's case, a sledgehammer....and whacketh thyself on the melon until you forget ALL about screeners, cutters, pickers, rollers, etc., etc., freaking etc to freaking infinity, and replace all of those terms with offensive players and defensive players. You then learn, comprehend and understand how to apply the appropriate rule needed to properly adjudicate the play. And you do that using the rules that I've already cited...and that numerous other respondents in this thread have also been citing. Iow the rules governing contact during screening and guarding situations.

The usage of supposedly correct semantics ain't worth a damn imo if that usage is doing nuthin' but confusing the person that's trying to use those semantics. Please note that statement basically also just mirrors what BktBallRef said in his last post above.

KIFSS! I added the "F" just for this thread.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

KIFSS! I added the "F" just for this thread.

Very well. Here's simple...

Screening = legal. (NFHS 4-40-1)
Illegal ≠ legal. (Well known antonyms)
Therefore, an illegal screen doesn't exist.

I'm completely with you regarding the "cutter, picker, roller" argument, as those words tend to cloud what could be a simpler analysis. I'm talking solely about a term that many people accept, but probably never considered is non-existent.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well. Here's simple...

Screening = legal. (NFHS 4-40-1)
Illegal ≠ legal. (Well known antonyms)
Therefore, an illegal screen doesn't exist.

I'm completely with you regarding the "cutter, picker, roller" argument, as those words tend to cloud what could be a simpler analysis. I'm talking solely about a term that many people accept, but probably never considered is non-existent.

Sorry, your logic is flawed. Screens are legal until they're illegal. Just as contact is legal until it's illegal, and dribbling is legal until it's illegal, and guarding is legal until it's illegal.

The fact that the rules define the term 'screen' does not imply that all screening is legal, but that SOME screening is legal.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Screens are legal until they're illegal. Just as contact is legal until it's illegal, and dribbling is legal until it's illegal, and guarding is legal until it's illegal.

The fact that the rules define the term 'screen' does not imply that all screening is legal, but that SOME screening is legal.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

Dribbling, guarding, and contact aren't defined as being legal. Screening is. The rule book points out where illegal dribbling, guarding, and contact exist. Screening is only defined as legal. There's the difference.

Once the intended screener causes contact, it cannot be a screen anymore. And just so we're clear, none of this changes the way we enforce screening/blocking/illegal contact rules. This is only about that term.