Foul or incidental contact?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... I'd prefer it termed it "blocking", which explains why that's the signal I most frequently use cuz it makes sense.

Agree that an illegal screen can be one of several types of illegal contact. Push, hold, block, and others, are signals that I've used for illegal screens, but block is usually my go-to call, and signal, for an illegal screen.

Note: Over thirty-three years I've developed a bad habit of giving the preliminary signal for a blocking foul (at the site of the foul) with a blocking signal that includes my fists on my hips. I can always recover and go with my hands on my hips when reporting to the table. Anybody else have this problem?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that an illegal screen can be one of several types of illegal contact. Push, hold, block, and others, are signals that I've used for illegal screens, but block is usually my go-to call, and signal, for an illegal screen.

Note: Over thirty-three years I've developed a bad habit of giving the preliminary signal for a blocking foul (at the site of the foul) with a blocking signal that includes my fists on my hips. I can always recover and go with my hands on my hips when reporting to the table. Anybody else have this problem?

No, cause I use my fists at both locations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, cause I use my fists at both locations.

Same here for the most part.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, cause I use my fists at both locations.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Same here for the most part.

Yet another example of "When in Rome ...".

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, open hands, or fists, both seem to be acceptable. I've never heard any criticism, from anyone, that fists are unacceptable.

Regarding player control foul signals, here in my little corner, any signal, or series of signals, seems to be acceptable. We've got 325 officials in my local board, and I bet that we have over 100 "acceptable" player control foul signals.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yet another example of "When in Rome ...".

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, open hands, or fists, both seem to be acceptable. I've never heard any criticism, from anyone, that fists are unacceptable.

Regarding player control foul signals, here in my little corner, any signal, or series of signals, seems to be acceptable. We've got 325 officials in my local board, and I bet that we have over 100 "acceptable" player control foul signals.

Actually it has nothing to do with "When in Rome..." as it relates to me. We have way more than 325 officials in the area. As a matter of fact I belong to 3 basketball association and one of them has almost 400 officials. No one is going to care that much about where you put your hands on something like this unless they have nothing else to comment about. But when you can referee plays, that is a minor issue. And when I see someone give a PC fouls signal "properly" it will be a first time I have seen it in years.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yet another example of "When in Rome ...".

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, open hands, or fists, both seem to be acceptable. I've never heard any criticism, from anyone, that fists are unacceptable.

Regarding player control foul signals, here in my little corner, any signal, or series of signals, seems to be acceptable. We've got 325 officials in my local board, and I bet that we have over 100 "acceptable" player control foul signals.

You seem to have missed the point. The point was on this call, they aren't even touching their hips. It's the punch.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Be polite with our guest, there are multiple posts in your history where you wrote "illegal screen".

C'mon you know if the defender gets faked out and goes the wrong way and runs into another offensive player who is about to set a screen it's probably incidental.

#1, Who are you? I don't know you. As far as you're concerned, I am BktBallRef.

#2, I wasn't impolite.

#3, I know no such thing.

Screens can be illegal but they are blocking fouls. If the contact prevented the defender from continuing to guard the opponent, then it's a foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I've heard several officials blow the whistle, shout illegal, and point the other way on this call. What are they referring to if not an illegal screen? Maybe, they're stealing NBA verbiage?

Also, doesn't the defender's path have to be a path that affects the play? Otherwise, couldn't I simply tell my guys to run into moving offensive players and I'll get a foul call?

Not sure what they might or might not be doing. Yes, screens can be illegal but again, it's usually a blocking foul.

No, you can't just run into an opponent and get a foul called. You stated that your player was setting a screen. Evidently, the official determined that the screen was not legally set. Don't get hung up on whether the dribbler used the screener not.

[JRutledge]

Well considering that a screen's legality is at issue, I have no problem with using the term "illegal screen" to describe the foul. Now the signal most of the time is the "blocking" signal. I do not see either reference to be outside of rulebook language. Screens are legal or illegal and the rules makes that rather clear. Otherwise this is an issue of semantics.

Peace

[Rich1]

Not disagreeing with any of you but need clarification...

If calling a foul for illegal screen (on or off ball), why isn't the punch signal all I need? This is an offensive, team control foul which is the very definition of the punch (although like most in my area I also use it for PC as will). The two hands to the hip signal is for a block, which I see more as a defensive call. I agree that essentially an illegal screen would be a block or push and would indicate such at the table, but I am not sure why or how to signal this when it happens. I can't see using a fist, then punch, then block and if my partner simply signaled with the fist then the block i would be thinking foul on the defense, not offense. Is there something in the mechanics book that shows a prefered sequence?

Originally Posted by Rich1

Not disagreeing with any of you but need clarification...

If calling a foul for illegal screen (on or off ball), why isn't the punch signal all I need? This is an offensive, team control foul which is the very definition of the punch (although like most in my area I also use it for PC as will). The two hands to the hip signal is for a block, which I see more as a defensive call. I agree that essentially an illegal screen would be a block or push and would indicate such at the table, but I am not sure why or how to signal this when it happens. I can't see using a fist, then punch, then block and if my partner simply signaled with the fist then the block i would be thinking foul on the defense, not offense. Is there something in the mechanics book that shows a prefered sequence?

To keep things simple I use the blocking signal for fouls on the defense (yes I use fists), and the punch is all I use for the TC fouls. When I punch the other way everyone knows what it's for, especially if it's off-ball. I don't use the blocking signal at the table either, just the TC signal. If the coaches need clarification I will tell them verbally.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Not disagreeing with any of you but need clarification...

If calling a foul for illegal screen (on or off ball), why isn't the punch signal all I need? This is an offensive, team control foul which is the very definition of the punch (although like most in my area I also use it for PC as will).

Well if you follow procedures properly, then the TC foul is supposed to come with the description of the foul. No big deal to me, but that is what the "book" says.

Originally Posted by Rich1

The two hands to the hip signal is for a block, which I see more as a defensive call. I agree that essentially an illegal screen would be a block or push and would indicate such at the table, but I am not sure why or how to signal this when it happens. I can't see using a fist, then punch, then block and if my partner simply signaled with the fist then the block i would be thinking foul on the defense, not offense. Is there something in the mechanics book that shows a prefered sequence?

Not disagreeing, but some of us do not make the rules per say.

Peace

[Raymond]

Using my voice, "illegal!" or "team control", seems to alleviate any possible confusion when I make the call.

Communication.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not directly, but correcting a publically declared coach on "rulebook terminology" (for which you are a known stickler) when you use the same phrase seems kinda hypocritical.

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

As far as you're concerned, I am BktBallRef.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't need to know you personally to know your name ... you have made your Forum name-real name connection quite public ...

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum.

I agree with BktBallRef. As much as I truly admire those that post under their real names, some of us have been very strongly encouraged, under local, state, or international association social media guidelines, to remain anonymous on the internet. The internet is very powerful, and with a few clicks, many of us posting anonymously can be "outed" with a few simple cross references. I'm from Connecticut, I'm IAABO, and I've posted about a few of my articles being published. It wouldn't be to difficult to "out" me with just a few mouse clicks. Just because it can be done, and just because some of us have carelessly posted too much personal information, doesn't mean that it's right to "out" us. Also, to those Forum members that have reached out to me with private messages, that are usually answered with my real name, association affiliation, email address, home address, and home phone number, I would hope that they will continue to treat me anonymously when posting the Forum.