Pick and Roll Rule

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Dribbling, guarding, and contact aren't defined as being legal.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Indeed so. Thanks, jar.

That may explain why we've never use "illegal guard."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Indeed so. Thanks, jar.

That may explain why we've never use "illegal guard."

The thing is, the commonly used term "illegal screen" defines something based on what the player is attempting to do. It may be coach-speak, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. It's not like "on the floor" or other such terms that lead to misconceptions, so your crusade here seems pointless.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The thing is, the commonly used term "illegal screen" defines something based on what the player is attempting to do. It may be coach-speak, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. It's not like "on the floor" or other such terms that lead to misconceptions, so your crusade here seems pointless.

Agree. "Illegal screen" is probably a pretty good response to a coach asking you what the foul on his player was. Of course, it will probably lead to the obvious follow-up question of why the screen was illegal, but that question can also be answered quickly and succintly also.

When everybody understands the verbiage that is commonly being used, it makes no sense at all to come up with new but nonsensical reasons to use some other verbiage.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When everybody understands the verbiage that is commonly being used, it makes no sense at all to come up with new but nonsensical reasons to use some other verbiage.

While I agree with you that the coach will typically ask what made the contact illegal (calling it anything you want), if anything is nonsensical, it's the term in question. I infer from your statement that it's okay to say it, because everyone else is saying it. I'm certainly all for being on the same page, but when something doesn't add up, I think it's wrong not to question it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It may be coach-speak, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. It's not like "on the floor" or other such terms that lead to misconceptions, so your crusade here seems pointless.

Crusade? LOL I'm simply testing a hypothesis. Still, I think "coach-speak" is a correct classification of "illegal screen," because it indeed fits in with "baseline," "on the floor," "time line," and numerous other phrases we're asked to avoid.

Originally Posted by M&MGuy

(After the intended screener causes contact,) If it is not a screen, what is it?

Either incidental contact or a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

While I agree with you that the coach will typically ask what made the contact illegal (calling it anything you want), if anything is nonsensical, it's the term in question. I infer from your statement that it's okay to say it, because everyone else is saying it. I'm certainly all for being on the same page, but when something doesn't add up, I think it's wrong not to question it.

103.4% of all of the officials that I have ever known disagree with you. They just don't worry about inconsequential crap like this and they'd rather get the game going again asap than waste time giving an explanation that just makes the coach say "WTF?" anyway. There sureashell are bigger windmills out there we can tilt at.

Soooooo.....I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Mr. Quixote.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Crusade? LOL I'm simply testing a hypothesis. Still, I think "coach-speak" is a correct classification of "illegal screen," because it indeed fits in with "baseline," "on the floor," "time line," and numerous other phrases we're asked to avoid.

Some coach-speak is innocuous, such as "baseline," "timeline" (do you actually hear this one still?), "paint"/"key", or "over and back." Others, such as "on the floor," "reach," or "over the back," perpetuate myths that make our lives more difficult.

Is there something about the use of "illegal screen" which perpetuates a myth making your games more difficult?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Once the intended screener causes contact, it cannot be a screen anymore.

Why not? If it is not a screen, what is it?