Pick and Roll Rule

[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?

[BktBallRef]

Hey guys, it's bainsey, not BRAINsey. He just doesn't get it. Neither does Jedtech. You fellas should have quit when I did, on page 3.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Hey guys, it's bainsey, not BRAINsey. He just doesn't get it. Neither does Jedtech. You fellas should have quit when I did, on page 3.

Yet here you are on page 5. Could you just not stay away or did it take you that long to come up with the clever nicknames?

[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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

The only problem I have with it is that it's an oxymoron. The only myth it perpetuates is that you can indeed screen illegally. Of course, as 4-40-1 reads, you can't. Does it create issues as much as "over the back," "reaching," and other myths? No, not even close. But, it's still there.

So, I put it out here to the test. When we debate whether something is legal/illegal/improper/whatever, we always say to go back to the book. I asked if anyone could come up with an example of an illegal screen that stays within the definition of the rule book. No-one did, yet.

I'd have no hard feelings if someone could do so, as that would be just another learning lesson. Instead, a few others displayed hard feelings from something I pointed out. That's too bad, as I expected something more rational here.

If it isn't worth the discussion, then I don't see the point in responding.

[Adam]

My point is you may well be right, by rule, but the "myth" you're concerned about isn't a problem. I've never had a coach above the YMCA level ask for a foul call on a moving screen when there isn't contact, so this myth isn't a problem. The benefits of using the phrase outweigh any semantic issues some may have with it. The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

I'm done.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is you may well be right, by rule, but the "myth" you're concerned about isn't a problem. I've never had a coach above the YMCA level ask for a foul call on a moving screen when there isn't contact, so this myth isn't a problem. The benefits of using the phrase outweigh any semantic issues some may have with it. The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

I'm done.

Man, I need to come out and work where you do!! I have heard that several times at higher levels. And NO I do not want to get into the perpetuating a myth debate. It would take away witty comebacks I have when I am in the bleechers heckling fans "It is legal to reach in you know. It is that whole holding part that is illegal". I've gotten some priceless looks from that one. Or "Hey they are over the back" "Yes they actually were over the back, good thing they were not on the back b/c then it would probably be a push and there would have been a foul". Just one of the perverse joys I get on rare occasions!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Instead, a few others displayed hard feelings from something I pointed out. That's too bad, as I expected something more rational here.

If it isn't worth the discussion, then I don't see the point in responding.

I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood. You are the ONLY person that I have ever met or heard of that has a problem with it. And that takes in a lot of "persons" over the year. And that's why it isn't worth the very lengthy discussion that we've had about it so far imo. And that's why I'm done discussing it. If others want to indulge you, hey, y'all knock yourselves out.

[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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

I said nothing about cutters or the like, Cam. Where'd you get that?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

No sir. The fact is, it's a FOUL, usually blocking or illegal contact. The coach doesn't need more than that.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage [sic] of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood.

Glad to hear you're not bitter, JR. And you're absolutely right. It is common, and it is understood. And like some other "terms" mentioned here, it's still wrong.