illegal screen

[fortmoney]

Say a player moves in a way that would be an easy call for an illegal screen, but there is zero contact? Ie the defender has to go to great lengths to avoid contact and continue on his path. is that a foul, even with no contact?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by fortmoney

Say a player moves in a way that would be an easy call for an illegal screen, but there is zero contact? Ie the defender has to go to great lengths to avoid contact and continue on his path. is that a foul, even with no contact?

No.

[APG]

Originally Posted by fortmoney

Say a player moves in a way that would be an easy call for an illegal screen, but there is zero contact? Ie the defender has to go to great lengths to avoid contact and continue on his path. is that a foul, even with no contact?

You can't have a personal foul without contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You can't have a personal foul without contact.

This question is the reason we need to get rid of the term "moving screen."

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This question is the reason we need to get rid of the term "moving screen."

Peace

+1000


MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

A moving screen is not in and of itself a foul, illegal contact must occur for a foul to be called. If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed and distance of the defender.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fortmoney

Say a player moves in a way that would be an easy call for an illegal screen, but there is zero contact? Ie the defender has to go to great lengths to avoid contact and continue on his path. is that a foul, even with no contact?

What call would you have if there is no contact? What signal would you choose from the chart?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What call would you have if there is no contact? What signal would you choose from the chart?

The same signal we use for the high dribble: Frankenstein.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The same signal we use for the high dribble: Frankenstein.

Frankenstein's Monster is the signal for "over the back".



I've never heard of a signal based on Dr. Heinrich Frankenstein.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This question is the reason we need to get rid of the term "moving screen."

Peace

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

+1000


MTD, Sr.

I know that we've had this discussion before and nobody's mind is going to get changed, but the rulebook tells us not only that there are moving screens, but that they can actually be legal. 4-40-6.

We don't need to get rid of the phrase, IMHO, we simply need to educate people on what a moving screen is, and when it is legal or illegal.

[Pantherdreams]

How about this (not to hijack the post but . . .):

Do you call an illegal screen where contact occurs automatically? Or do you treat it like any other fouling situation and let advantage disadvantage play a key role assuming it doesn't lead to rough play??

I guess I see lots of border line screen (poor technique, poor coaching, etc) and struggle with when to call them and when not to. I don't want to let illegal screening go and have it get out of hand but if the defender gets through it anyway or they are no more disadvantaged then they would have been if the kid hadn't stepped or lifted their arms what do you do?

examples: PLayer A sets a screen and lifts elbows and raises arms so they are way outside the body and up. Defender B hits the screen but hits it in the chest and where fists meet so they elbows make no impact on the play as they immediatley switch? Call?

Player A moves in to set a screen and is moving into defender but defender overpowers screener anyway and isn't impeded. Call?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I know that we've had this discussion before and nobody's mind is going to get changed, but the rulebook tells us not only that there are moving screens, but that they can actually be legal. 4-40-6.

We don't need to get rid of the phrase, IMHO, we simply need to educate people on what a moving screen is, and when it is legal or illegal.

When people use the term, they suggest that a "moving screen" is illegal. Actually I get asked more questions like, "Was that a moving screen..." when the reality that is not why I would rule on the legality of such a play. So yes we need to educate, but it falls on deaf ears. And honestly it is really not our job to educate the public. They have the same access the resources we use. I do not expect fans to know any better, but I do blame coaches as they often have the opportunity to watch the same presentations officials do (in my state not required for each coach to do so by the way) as a requirement to keep our jobs as officials.

Screen discussions should be about legality and illegality. Not whether the screen is moving or not. Because if you do not give the proper time and distance the screen can be stationary and be a foul. This is why I said what I did in the previous comments.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

How about this (not to hijack the post but . . .):

Do you call an illegal screen where contact occurs automatically? Or do you treat it like any other fouling situation and let advantage disadvantage play a key role assuming it doesn't lead to rough play??

I guess I see lots of border line screen (poor technique, poor coaching, etc) and struggle with when to call them and when not to. I don't want to let illegal screening go and have it get out of hand but if the defender gets through it anyway or they are no more disadvantaged then they would have been if the kid hadn't stepped or lifted their arms what do you do?

examples: PLayer A sets a screen and lifts elbows and raises arms so they are way outside the body and up. Defender B hits the screen but hits it in the chest and where fists meet so they elbows make no impact on the play as they immediatley switch? Call?

Player A moves in to set a screen and is moving into defender but defender overpowers screener anyway and isn't impeded. Call?

As a general rule, the defender (or screened player) usually is not going to get a call from me if they are not displaced or they simple give up on the play because they are being screened. I want the defender to usually earn the call by keep moving in the same direction, not just stop because an illegal screen is in front of him. I equate this to holding in football where we want the player being held to attempt to get away. If the defender in football just accepts they are being held and stops or dances with the blocker, then I would not make the call. Too often basketball players accept their plight and will not try to run through the screen or go around taking themselves out of the play instead of being taken out of the play with the contact from the screen. Now this is the philosophy I used to be consistent on calling screens and usually helps me get the obvious violations.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;843934]As a general rule, the defender (or screened player) usually is not going to get a call from me if they are not displaced or they simple give up on the play because they are being screened. I want the defender to usually earn the call by keep moving in the same direction, not just stop because an illegal screen is in front of him. I equate this to holding in football where we want the player being held to attempt to get away. If the defender in football just accepts they are being held and stops or dances with the blocker, then I would not make the call. Too often basketball players accept their plight and will not try to run through the screen or go around taking themselves out of the play instead of being taken out of the play with the contact from the screen. Now this is the philosophy I used to be consistent on calling screens and usually helps me get the obvious violations.

Peace[/QUOTE

^ What he said (minus the football stuff since I don't do football)]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When people use the term, they suggest that a "moving screen" is illegal. Actually I get asked more questions like, "Was that a moving screen..." when the reality that is not why I would rule on the legality of such a play. So yes we need to educate, but it falls on deaf ears. And honestly it is really not our job to educate the public. They have the same access the resources we use. I do not expect fans to know any better, but I do blame coaches as they often have the opportunity to watch the same presentations officials do (in my state not required for each coach to do so by the way) as a requirement to keep our jobs as officials.

Screen discussions should be about legality and illegality. Not whether the screen is moving or not. Because if you do not give the proper time and distance the screen can be stationary and be a foul. This is why I said what I did in the previous comments.

Peace

You can tell I am getting old because I am letting the young guys do my talking for me.

+1,000

MTD, Sr.