Pick and Roll Rule
 

I vaguely remember reading on here or hearing somewhere that it was a POE for officials to call a foul when the screener rolls into the defense attempting to go around the screen.

Had a call against me today where the official stated that the screener couldn't roll in the same motion as the screen. I disagreed with the call as the defense simply switched the screen, so the roller in no way impeded the defense from guarding the ball.

Can someone give me a brief summary of the rule so that I can better understand?

Thanks in advance

Illegal contact on a screen or pick is a foul. Screens can move without contact and not be illegal. If the screener steps into the path of the defender and there is contact, it is a foul. Rolling, hopping, skipping or stepping matters not.

There is no pick and roll rule. The screening rules allow for a screen to be basically set at the time of contact with allowances for some time and distance. It is also not illegal to go in the same direction of the person being screened. Really hard to say if the call was correct in your game. The issue would be did the screen roll towards the screened player and cause illegal contact or did the roll happen away. You can move on a screen, just have to do it legally.

Peace

If your screener rolled and created contact while moving, the official has to judge whether that contact impeded the defender. They may well have been switching, but if an illegal screen forces a switch the defense didn't want, it should be a foul.

I've always had a hard time with that phrase "illegal screen." I doubt there really is such a thing.

A screen is basically defined as guarding "without causing contact." (NFHS 4-40-1) So, the instant the intended screener causes contact, it's not a screen anymore. It's either a foul (usually blocking, in this case) or incidental contact.

I'd like to put this theory to the test. If anyone can give an example of a true screen that's illegal (aside from eye shielding), I'd love to hear it.

Well considering that screens are defined and when certain movement takes place that is not considered legal as it relates to screens than you have an illegal screen. I know the casebook and the Illustrated book uses the term "Illegal Screen." Not sure why this would be much of an issue as these are all semantics at the end of the day.


Peace

IMO, this type of play is a "had to see". If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door' pivot and rolls to the basket I would be inclined to not call a foul. To me the key is what the screener is doing. 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.

What if there is a defender standing directly in the path which leads straight to the basket?

Huh?

So the screener is standing on the FT line. The dribbler goes around the screener, driving to the basket. The defender is screened by the screener who then rolls to the basker preventing the defender from getting around him and to the dribbler he was guarding.

Yep, that's a basketball play. It's also a foul. The rules don't make an exception for the screener to continue blocking the defender just because he moves toward the basket.

Omigod......:rolleyes:

Did you even bother to read all of NFHS rule 4-40? If so, you sureasheck didn't understand what you read.

Any screen that doesn't meet the criteria outlined in R4-40 is obviously an illegal screen. There's all kinds of case plays also if you take the time to look them up. There's been several POE's recently explaining illegal screens, including POE 4A from the 2007-08 NFHS rule book which gave an excellent explanation.

I'd love to see you do a little research to back up your statements above. You just might discover how ridiculous they really are.


Lah me......

Unfortunately your opinion does not match the way that the play is called by rule, as BktBallRef pointed out.

this thread has the makings of another epic pizzing match :D

POE 4A from the 2007-08 NFHS Rule Book:

SCREENING: <font color = red>A legal screener must be stationary prior to contact within his/her vertical plane(hands, arms, legs and feet no more than shoulder width apart). When these two requirements are not met, and when there is sufficient contact delivered by the screener to bump, slow or dispace, it is a foul on the screener.</font> When a screen is blind, outside the visual field or a rear screen, it is only legal when the screened player is permitted a normal step backward. The screened player must then make a legitimate attempt to get around a legal screen without forcing rough or "displacing" contact. This type of contact must result in a foul on the screened player. <font color = red>When a screener is illegally moving in an attempt to set a screen, but no contact occurs with the opponent, no foul has been committed</font>.

Note that contrary to Judtech's opinion, the red-highlighted sentences above apply to a pick-and-roll play.

It also might explain to some people what to look for and how to call illegal screens. Obviously, there are people out there who are confused.

If you think that some of us using our time to look up citations, POE's, etc. to try and help out and maybe educate a little is pissing on someone, methinks you're maybe a tetch too thin-skinned for this officiating avocation.

JMO. :)

I agree, JR. It's been beneficial to me. I've read every post...good discussion. Just injecting some gratuitous silliness.

Yeah, I saw the smiley. That's why I used a smiley also. Just wanted to make a point though. I'm not looking things up and posting them to crap on anybody, and neither are the other guys contributing either. I may be a l'il blunt sometime but I'm certainly not doing it just to piss people off. That's just a side effect/added benefit. :D

Point taken.

And, I'm getting more and more used to the styles of posters here. Not so sure others are getting used to me. ;)

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.

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.

It may be less an issue of opinion then talking about two different plays. My point of reference was what happens after the screen. The key question to ask, and I am open to seeing a rule on this, is when a screen is over? Let me explain: B1 contacts A2's legal screen. B1 breaks contact and tries to go underneath the screen. When contact is broken and A1 comes around the screen, A2 rolls/cuts to the basket. This is where the last red inked comment comes into play. Is A2 now a screener or a cutter? This is where I pointed out the "fake" roll that we sometimes see. IMO, if contact is broken and the defender gets caught behind a letgitmate cutter they just got pinned similar to a post player. And that is not even taking into account what the status of the defender is when there is a "switch" on the ball screen!
Therefore, the OPINION, comes into play when you decide A) When a screen ends B) who is making a basketball play and/or C) who is faking a play to set an illegal screen.

Are you talking about the screen or the roll? A good legal screen is designed to prevent, or at least make it really difficult, for the defender to get around. That is why I asked earlier when does the screen end? Also, let's throw this into the cookie jar. As A2 goes to set a ball screen, B1 takes a path to go under the screen and there is no contact with A2. As A1 brushes off the screen, A2 begins to roll, in the process of rolling to the basket B1 gets stuck behind A2 as they roll to the basket. Is that a foul? Is A2 still considered a screener or are they now a cutter?

Then let's put it this way....

Forget screens.

Your opinion that ANY contact now caused by a screener rolling to the basket should be ruled incidental is contrary to the guarding principles as outlined under NFHS rule 4-23. If the defender had established and maintained LGP on the "roller", there is no way in hell you can call the ensuing contact as always being incidental contact, as you are asserting. It could be a charge if a LGP was established and maintained. It could be a block if there wasn't a LGP at the time of impact. It could also be incidental contact. You have 3 options to consider, not the one(incidental contact) that you are opining.

Rules rulz!

I thought we were discussing the pick and roll? You are changing the subject. I never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was incidental, YOU were the one who 'asserted' it. Obviously, if there is a defender in LGP who gets displaced by a cutter there would be a foul. LGP is sort of the trump card for everything.
Now, if you want to discuss when a screener is no longer a screener but a cutter, then that would be more helpful.

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.

If you never said that any contact after the screen between the cutter and the defensive player was always incidental, then somebody must have hacked in and used your name to make the post above.

If a player screens for the ball and does a 'revolving door pivot' and rolls to the basket, that player is now governed by NFHS rule 4-23. ANY contact is now decided by R4-23 and you could have a block, a charge or a no-call for incidental contact as I previously writ. What you can NEVER have by rule is contact that is ALWAYS incidental, as you are trying to assert above.

Your statement above is false, erroneous, misleading and completely wrong. And that's exactly what BktBallRef was trying to point out to you also.

A little clearer...and more helpful now? :)

Why? What sorts of rights or priveleges do cutters have? Where is "cutter" defined?
they're all screeners, IMO. And LGP is not required for a screen, nor is it required for the defender to be protected from an illegal screen. LGP is a red herring, IMO.

yes thank you it is clearer. Let me be clear.

1. If a player makes a revolving door screen properly, then contact is going to be deemed incidental.
2. If the screen is performed improperly, then there is a possibility of illegal contact.
3. I said I would be inclined to not call a foul, but it was dependent on what the cutter is doing. The first example would be for the properly performed revolving door ball screen. The second was an example of a non basketball play.
4. I can not recall a situation where B1 was able to get well enough below A2's ball screen to be legal and thus initiate a charge from the cutter. Most players either try to fight over the top of a screen, switch or B2 hedges A1 while B1 goes under the screen then bumps B2 off of A1 back to A2.
5. I firmly believe that it is important to know what the screener and screenie (just made that word up) are doing on this play. I am not sure how that is " false, erroneous, misleading and completely wrong" If an official knows what the players involved are doing, it makes it easier to call.
6. I read BBRef's post to mean that another player became involved. Say B3 slides over to draw a charge on A2. That is not the play being discussed. If I read that post wrong then I refer to point #4

I don't think I agree with this. If A2 sets a screen then rolls towards the basket, he takes a very real risk of cutting off B1 trying to stay with A1. If he steps into B1's path, he must give time and distance to B1; not likely if both players are moving at contact. If he prevents B1 from maintaining his position with regard to A1 and did not give time and distance, it's a foul on the screener; regardless of whether A2 is cutting to the basket for a pass. He's still a screener.

In a pick and roll play, the player who sets the pick can then become the cutter after the initial contact is broken. If a cutter is moving to the basket and the defender is attempting to get around them and are not being displaced or held then there would be incidental contact. If a screener makes contact with a defender, mantains contacts and "rolls" then you have the makings of an illegal screen. 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.
As to LGP If another player, or the person who was being originally screened, slides over in the path of the cutter, regardless of on a pick and roll or garden variety cuttery, establishes LGP and gets displaced then we have a foul. To me it seemed that there were 2 seperate plays being discussed. I agree that in the original play LGP is a Red Herring, even though I am allergic to seafood!

I think the answers to these questions are the crux of the discussion:
When is a screener no longer a screener?
Does a cutter have to give time and distance?

Assuming there is no displacement or holding by the screener:

If both players are moving with A2 cutting to the basket when B1 makes contact trying to get around A2 does A2 have to let B1 through? If so why?
A2 cuts to the basket and makes contact with B1 would this be a foul? If so, why?
If B1 and B2 switch and A2 rolls to the basket and B1 cant get around A2 is that a foul? If so, why?

That's the problem. When something is that self-contradictory, aren't we foolish to simply accept it?

Yes, it is a foul. It doesn't matter if A2 is intended to screen or not. It is the actions that matter. If B1 goes under and A2 rolls into B1 as B1 tries to defend B1, you have the makings of a foul. Not automatic, but it must be watched. If A2's roll is quick and B1 hesitates and only runs into A2 after A2 has taken off and left the main path to A1 open, I'm not going to have that foul. At that point, I'm going to consider that B1 is guarding A2.

On any given "pick & roll"....
1) The "pick" or screen part of the play is covered under the screening principles outlined in NFHS rule 4-40.
2) The "roll" part of the play that comes immediately after the pick/screen ended is covered by the guarding principles outlined in NFHS rule 4-23.
3) For contact occuring during both the "pick" and the "roll", you also have to know the principles for illegal & legal use of hands as defined under NFHS rule 4-24, the principles used to determine if any contact is incidental or not-as defined in NFHS rule 4-27, and the contact principles outlined in NFHS rule 10-6.

Rules rulz!

<font size = +5>THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO FREAKING KNOW!!!</font>

<font size = -3>The rest is just details.</font>

Time for my afternoon nappy now....

Carry on carrying on. :D

You seem to be attached to "displacement" and "holding" as if they were the only or primary instances of fouls during screens. Blocking and pushing (the genus of which "displacement" is a species) are just as common if not more so.

1. It depends. If B1 gets to a spot first and A2 bumps him, that's a foul.
2. It depends. It might be a block on B1 if he's late, a push (TC) on A2, or nothing. The fact that A2 is "cutting to the basket" is totally irrelevant.
3. Probably. If A2 is screening while moving, that's an illegal screen.

Pardon me, did you say something?

/wiping spittle off cheeks and forehead :D

No such thing ruleswise.

If the player effectively sets a screen by preventing a defender from defending their player it was a screen and must meets all of the requirements of legal screen. What the player wanted to do is irrelevant.

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

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 position.

There is no definition of a cutter, that's the crux of the issue. There's guarding, and there's screening. Those two rules tell us who is responsible for contact. The incidental contact definition tells us how to determine if that contact is a foul.
This is where "referee the defense" comes into play. If B1 is trying to guard 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, but if the result is an illegal screen, it's a foul.
If, however, they have switched and B1 is now guarding A2, judge the play accordingly.

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:D


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.

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.

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.:D

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.

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

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.

JURASSIC - Above is my direct quote, what you did was highlight parts of my quote that you felt helped your point. I have put in bold the parts I think were being left out when quoted. What is being missed is the fact I said when I would be inclined to put a whistle on it and when not to put a whistle on it. I guess I can see where people would focus on the word ANY. However, it seems clear to me that since I stated where I would put a whistle on the play, the fact I used the word ANY would apply only to the first instance. If you would combine the words 'inclined' with the word 'any' you would get a better understanding of the posts intent. I'm sorry if my writing style is a bit to obtuse for some. And I do appreciate your attempt to combine the semantic and vernacular, now if we could just work on your quotation skills!:D

SNAQ I used the phrase 'basketball play' to infer that after the screen the cutter did nothing illegal. I can see how it can be taken as a non sequitor and apologize for any confusion. I can concede when I have misspoken, but I do not think that is the case here. Misunderstood, sure, misquoted absolutely, Ms America....welll...

To repeat myself for the last time, the statement made by you above IN context is completely wrong. No matter how you want to try and explain it away, that statement is a piled-high steaming heap of doo-doo rules-wise.

If a screener rolls straight to the basket, ANY contact on or by that screener is adjudicated by the appropriate contact rules already cited many times in this thread. It may be incidental contact but it sureashell is NEVER always incidental contact under the rules. Imo the statement above shows a decided lack of understanding of some very basic rules.

No smileys.

And for the record, that blue font nonsense should also be stuck back in the dark, warm place that it came from.

Feel free to carry on with your bafflegab. I've wasted enough time playing. Hopefully the newbies reading this will understand what the other respondants to you are talking about.

Jurassic, your ability to understand the world outside your preconceived ideas and notions is what is really a pile of steaming doo doo. You seem to get so bent out of shape if someone doesn't word something the way you feel it should be worded. You show that again you put words and meaning into the my post that were not there. And if you don't understand an explaination, then you immediately attack the poster on their competency and rules knowledge.
Obviously my approach is different. I value everyone's input and garner knowledge from how my fellow officials approach different situations and how they go about explaining them. Everyone comes from different backgrounds and approaches, berating someone b/c their way is not your way is not, IMO, very useful.

I quoted your exact statement verbatim. That statement was completely wrong and erroneous as per both of the NFHS & NCAA rulesets. Don't you get bent out of shape when somebody points out your very obvious lack of basic rule knowledge in this particular situation. That ain't attacking anybody. That's pointing out a fact. And that's the whole idea of this forum.

And if you do happen to still think that your statement is correct, may I suggest that you try and dig up some rules citations to back up your premise. Good luck with that.

Love, JR.

This may not help, but I'll take a shot. 10.6.7 Comment. Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent..........

Now, we never think of a dribbler as setting a screen, but the principles still apply in certain situations. The same would be true of the guy who thinks he's through setting his screen and is now a "cutter."

No, you didn't. You focused on one sentence and one word. Granted by using the word "any" I was speaking in a generality regarding the immediate action involved. You took it to mean ALL contact regardless of any other factor. I can understand the reasons this would confuse some.
I only get bent out of shape when you jump to conclusions before you have all of the information clarified. Instead of indicting someone's rules knowledge and ability, it might be a good idea to ask that person to expand or be more specific on the certain words or phrase that are causing concern.

What!?!? I think you are just trying to make this a longer thread than the "52 years old...." thread:D

What is the difference between "rolling straight to the basket" and "faking a roll to the basket" if, while doing so, contact is made which obstructs the defender?

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

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.

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

Or perhaps this... Cutter

Let's try this quotation thing again so I can pinpoint for you where I think you misspoke.

Each sentence here is wrong, IMO.
It doesn't matter what the screener's intent is; only what the result is.

I'm not sure of any other way to read the word "any" hear than the way we have. With the word "inclined" (that I cut out), it seems to us you are alluding to your final sentence, where you'd have a whislte only if you think he was "faking a roll to the basket." Our point is, regardless of whether he was rolling to the basket or not, if he obstructs the defender without meeting the requirements of a legal screen, it's a foul.

Again, it doesn't matter what he's trying to do or if he's just faking it. Even if he's rolling to the basket, if he illegally gets into B1's path and physically prevents B1 from getting to his desired spot, it's a foul. He's not a "cutter," there's no such animal in the rules, he's a screener and must do it legally.

Had I been the only one to misread your post, or had Jurassic been the only one to misread your post, or had jar been the only one to misread your post, or had Camron been the only one to misread your post..... See the pattern? These are people who do not agree all the time on details, yet they all read you the same.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

I accept that. I can see that I used some terms and verbage that may be confusing and that is obviously not my intent. "Fake a screen" "Revolving Door pivot" "any v all" and a few others are terms I have been taught and I use, so I wasn't trying to be overly clever. This is a type of play that, at least to me, is more easily demonstrated on the court than typed on a forum. Thank you for pointing out what is causing confusion and why. I will try to strip away most of the verbosity and simply ask questions that will help with my need for clarification.

When is a screener no longer a screener? I think this might be where there could be some differences opinion. I am not asking what is a legal screen and what isn't.

To me, obstruction is a vague term. It may not be for others and that is fine. There can be legal or illegal obstructions. Which leads my thought process to look at a play like this and determine if the defender can't "get to his spot" because of poor defense on their part or because of an illegal obstruction on the offenses part.

If a player is not a screener then what word would be better to describe them? I use the word cutter b/c the player is now cutting to the basket.

If an offensive player is not a screener, wouldn't they have the same right to a spot on the floor as the defensive player on a "first come first served" basis?

Ok, so it was like 3 1/2 questions with one comment! Thanks for the help

Even a screener has the same rights to a spot on the floor. Any player getting in the path of an opponent is either a screener or a guard. If his team has the ball, he can't be a guard.
So, after the initial screen, when the screener cuts to the basket, he may become a screener again if his movement places him in the path of a defender.
I'm not there to judge poor defense or poor offense, so even if the defender is a bit slow, it doesn't matter.

The problem is, the pick and roll is often taught as a seal off type move, where the screen rolls in such a way as to seal off the defender by moving into and obstructing his path. That's typically a foul, and just because the screener has his hands up looking for a pass doesn't mean he isn't guilty of an illegal screen.

Yeah, we agree on the second part, which is what I meant be 'faking a roll'. Although some players just do it on their own without being taught!!

The first part is where we may disagree. This is where it may get complicated to explain via typing. If the 'former screener' is going north and south in their cut to the basket, and the person defending the ball is going east to west (or probably northeast to southswest) their paths are most likely going to cross. I would interpret that point to go to whoever gets there first as opposed to a illegal/moving screen.

And I apprecitate your concern for those defenders who are a little slow. If only some of my coaches had been so understanding. However, speed has a lot of bearing in this type of play, because the defensive player has to be quick enough to get around the screen and recover. And/or they would have to beat the offensive player 'to the spot'. This is why I often just yelled "Switch"!!:D

We've got a local team who likes to run and gun so any offensive stuff in the 1/2 court tends to be of the hot potatoe variety trying to get a quick shot. In these situations they will constanly run what their coach calls "blur" action. It is basically a foot ball like crossing pattern with two players on diagonal routes which at some point leads too: two offensive players bumping or two defensive players bumping or 1 of the defensive players going under in order to create space for the other to move through. As soon as one defender changes his run or is caught up this player immediately dives at the ball while the other continues on their line to exit.

Ivariably you see recovering players needing to run around their own teammate or the offensive cutter to recover and occaisionally run into one or both of these people in the attempt. I was of the opinion when I first started wathcing it that their had to be an illegal screen/block/ something in there that wasn't right.

9 times out of ten though it is the potential contact or contact that is simply incidental that seems worse then it is because of poor decision making or communication by the defense leading to the situation. Not anythign illegal occuuring. In the time where the are holding or pushing I'm calling an offensive foul, but if their is nothing more then a regular player recovering through a mess then normal its play on. When I have someone complain I'll often tell them that their needs to be contact impeding them to make a call not just them caught standing there going "thats illegal".

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.

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.

Either incidental contact or a foul.

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. :)

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?

Probably Several Thousand ...
 

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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. :D

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.

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!!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

An illegal screen is a foul. You have a problem with that.

Read the definition of pivot.

An illegal pivot can be traveling. Is this a problem for you?

Not at all. There's one key word that's in the definition of screen that's not in the definition of pivot. Check it out.

Forgive me, I attributed that statement to the wrong person. It was said, just not by you.

Okay, check the definitions of block and charge. They contain the word illegal.
There is no legal block. There is no legal charge. They are merely fouls, and if they were legal, they wouldn't be fouls.

So, is a screen is illegal, by definition it is no longer a screen, but merely a foul.

You're right.

You win.

Next question:

So what?

So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

(Aside to Cam: No prob.)

Look, put this in the category of "baseline," "in the key," "call timeout," etc. Technically incorrect terms that still get the point across and don't cause any undue heartaches except for the particularly anal semanticists amongst us.

You need the change the "we're" above to "I'm". You seem to be about the only respondent so far to really give a damn. However, don't let that stop your never-ending quest for correct vernacular(as YOU see it), even if the regular ol' vernacular was, is and will still be commonly used by 103.4% of the rest of us.

ver-nac-u-lar- using plain everyday, ordinary language

In basketball officialspeak, the term "illegal screen" is our vernacular.

Fine with me. I think that's a fair classification.

I thought you were done discussing this. Anyway, very well. If the only point you have is, "it's perfectly okay, as long as everyone does it," then I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Personally, I believe officials should care more about what's right than what's popular.

To be accurate, my point is that "it's perfectly OK as long as every other official but that guy does it. :D

Agree with "done discussing" part.

But there is a difference.

The offending player in a block/charge is not trying to commit/set a block/charge. The block/charge is all by itself the failure to do something properly...thus it is illegal by definition.

However, a screen is a legal act and the player trying to commit/set a screen is doing so on purpose (usually) and is only charged with a foul when they do so improperly...when it is not a legal screen....or is an illegal screen.