Foul or incidental contact?

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Since there's actually no foul that's called an illegal screen, your player was called for a blocking foul. It makes no difference whether the dribbler "used the screen" or not. If your player was moving and blocked the defender's path, that's a foul.

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?

[BillyMac]

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?

There is no signal for an illegal screen. The most often used signal is a stop the clock fist, followed by a blocking foul signal (hands (not supposed to use fists) on hips), followed by a team control foul signal (punch), sometimes (not required) followed by some verbiage about an illegal screen.

The blocking foul is called due to illegal contact (block) as described as illegal activity in the principles of screening.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There is no signal for an illegal screen.

Sure there is. I point in the other direction.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There is no signal for an illegal screen. The most often used signal is a stop the clock fist, followed by a blocking foul signal (hands (not supposed to use fists) on hips), followed by a team control foul signal (punch), sometimes (not required) followed by some verbiage about an illegal screen.

The blocking foul is called due to illegal contact (block) as described as illegal activity in the principles of screening.

Not saying I agree with it, but 10-6-6 does say, "Contact caused by a defensive player who approaches from behind is pushing..."

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

Though this citation might not actually address the original post...

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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?

Nope, and if you did that, you're players would likely be called for "illegal screens."

[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.