Pick and Roll Rule

[Judtech]

SNAQ we are in agreement when you say "A1 and is phyisically impeded from doing so by a moving A2, you have to consider a foul on A2 regardless of whether A2 is a "cutter. He may be trying to cut for a pass." and about refereening the defense. One of the big ideas behind running a screen and roll is for the screener to get a pass from the ball handler. If the defense can't get around a cutter, I will determine why and whistle accordingly.
JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them


RUST I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing so bear with me:


Why can't the screener become a cutter? If all legal requirements of a screen are met, then after the screen why cant they cut?

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

If you are refering to this play then I agree.

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
One has a whole lot to do with the other. It goes back to when is a screener no longer a screener. If the screener has the inability to become a cutter then basically, a screener must stand in one place until the entire play is finished. Because if they move and contact the person originally screened it is a moving screen. As Jurassic said, if they are setting a screen they are governed by the screening rules. If they are a cutter they are goverened by the rules for a cutter.

Again, when is a screener no longer a screener? That is the key action. When that has been determined is when you determine if they rules regarding a cutter or screener come into play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them

Good try but it won't work. I quoted you verbatim on your stoopid assertation that any contact on an offensive player rolling to the basket should be ruled as incidental contact. That statement as cited by yourself is nuthin' but a heapin' load of steaming doo-doo, rules-wise. That's why I disagreed with you.

Please note that for your personal convenience, I sincerely tried to use both semantics and the vernacular above in their proper context as an aid to your understanding that statement. I'm a caring kinda guy that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JURASSIC the only thing we seem to disagree on is you stating I asserted something I did not. And you know what happens when you assert? Sort of the same thing as assuming but different. Sometimes I thnk you just like to disagree with of my posts simply b/c I posted them

It's at this point where it may be best to cut your losses and concede that you misspoke when you wrote the following:

Originally Posted by Judtech

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.

Other than the points I've made with which you seem to agree, I'll add that being a basketball play does not make it incidental. That's a complete and total non sequitur.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Judtech

If they are a cutter they are goverened by the rules for a cutter.

Serious question...which rules are you referring to? You're losing me on this one.

[just another ref]

Apparently every detail needs to be covered.

Note the definition of a screen. .....legal action by a player who, without causing contact delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Note that intent is not a part of the definition. It is not uncommon for a player to use a teammate as a screen without it being a designed play, sometimes without the teammate even being aware of what is transpiring.

BUT, the other side of the definition is there as well. If the same player causes contact which prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position, it is an illegal screen, (foul) even if said player had no intention of setting/continuing a screen in the first place.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Serious question...which rules are you referring to? You're losing me on this one.

I think those rules were from some type of butcher's training manual.

Or perhaps this... Cutter