Foul or incidental contact?

[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.