Pick and Roll Rule

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

103.4% of all of the officials that I have ever known disagree with you.

So, if you know 1000 officials, then all of them disagree with bainsey, and there are an additional 34 officials who you don't know who also disagree with bainsey? That number sounds way too low. I'm sure that there are a lot more than 34 officials, who you don't know, who disagree with bainsey. Man, this "new math" gives me a headache. I need to get my slide rule out of the desk drawer.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, if you know 1000 officials, then all of them disagree with bainsey, and there are an additional 34 officials who you don't know who also disagree with bainsey? That number sounds way too low. I'm sure that there are a lot more than 34 officials, who you don't know, who disagree with bainsey. Man, this "new math" gives me a headache. I need to get my slide rule out of the desk drawer.

Or perhaps an abacus?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

First of all, what's to disagree with? I made a hypothesis, backed it up with the rules, and asked for hard evidence to the contrary. I expected discussion, not emotion.

More importantly, who said anything about slowing down a game with such a discussion? This kind of discussion belongs outside the game, and over a meeting of minds, like an officials' forum. Don't you think?

Snaqwells, review your post. Do you find "over the back" to be innocuous or problematic? (You had both.) I believe it to be #1 in the problematic department. As for "illegal screen," it would be in my top ten, though barely.

And yes, I heard "timeline" recently. It surprised me, too.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

First of all, what's to disagree with? I made a hypothesis, backed it up with the rules, and asked for hard evidence to the contrary. I expected discussion, not emotion.

It just ain't worth "discussion". And you're not getting "emotion" either. You're getting "reality".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Snaqwells, review your post. Do you find "over the back" to be innocuous or problematic? (You had both.) I believe it to be #1 in the problematic department. As for "illegal screen," it would be in my top ten, though barely.

And yes, I heard "timeline" recently. It surprised me, too.

Sorry, I consider it a problem, like "reaching in." It perpetuates a myth that creates problems. Let me rephrase my question, since you really didn't answer what I meant to ask.

What, exactly, is the problem you find with using the term? What myth does it perpetuate?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

First of all, what's to disagree with? I made a hypothesis, backed it up with the rules, and asked for hard evidence to the contrary. I expected discussion, not emotion.

Rules that no one has found in any rule book. Which rule defines when a screener is no longer a screener but is a cutter? And what rule covers the rights and restrictions of a cutter when that cutter blocks an opponents path?

[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?