Foul or incidental contact?
 

I have an example from my game a couple weeks ago. My guy goes to set a screen for the ballhandler, the ball handler gives a fake, but drives away from the screen. The defender goes for the fake, makes contact with my guy setting a screen. He gets called for an illegal screen. I agree that my guy was not completely set when contact was made, so if he used the screen, I would have agreed with the call. The way it went down, I thought it was incidental contact. Your thoughts?

Still slowed him down
 

The contact probably slowed his reaction and recovery going back the other way, so I've got no problem with the foul call.

This is really a HTBT situation. I can see why a foul was called, but hard to say for sure without seeing the play.

Peace

Sounds like a no-call to me, especially if the defender went the wrong way and initiated the contact with the screener.

Coach, you gotta start taping your games! Just say it's for a highlight video or something but secretly funnel that video to us ;)

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 as 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?

I love this site. During the games I'll say to myself, I gotta remember that play and see what the guys say about this.

We need a description of the contact to say whether or not it was a foul.

Tough to decide from a written description.
Screens do not have to be anywhere near the player with the ball.
This could be an example of an illegal off-ball screen or it could be a defender illegally contacting a cutting offensive player.
These are the difficult judgment decisions officials must make hundreds of times during games.
I wish that I could offer the coach more feedback, but some plays just come down to what a particular person sees and thinks at a certain point in the game.

Screens ...
 

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.

Sure there is. I point in the other direction. :D

If the screen prevents the defender from getting to where he wants to go, and the screener isn't legal at the point of contact, then this is not going to be incidental contact.

The rule is "contact which prevents a player from performing normal offensive or defensive movements" (paraphrased from memory). Assuming the contact did that, and the screener wasn't legal when contact was made.

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

Is This German to the Point?
 

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...

If you're going to keep coming back you need to start videotaping these games! :D

Fist Bump ???
 

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.

Same here for the most part.

Rome Is A Very Popular Place To Visit ...
 

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

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

#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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Peace

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

Communication.

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.

I'm Just A Sweet Transvestite From Transsexual, Transylvania …
 

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.

Before You Make That Next Click ...
 

From IAABO (International):

With the onslaught of social media (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.) there are many ways for officials to become controversial very innocently. Officials love to talk, I am sure you know the old saying "tell a ref tell the world". How often does the conversation between officials start with "I had this play" and then we continue with one upsmanship and "I had this play" and so on. We were always concerned when we were having an adult beverage in an establishment talking basketball, being heard by someone as we made comments about a coach, player or even rowdy fans. Why wouldn't we have the same concern today where, instead of being out in public making comments we now make them online? The danger again is that we do not know who views these comments, and we do not know what they will do with these comments.

In regards to basketball, I have watched officials put up a play online and ask for comments from others and there may be responses from a number of officials that give their "opinion", many of which are incorrect rulings. It amazes me that officials did not ask their own interpreters who have been IAABO trained and most likely can provide the correct response and rule citation. The interpreter also has another resource and that Is Peter Webb who is IAABO's Coordinator of Interpreters and who will respond to each and every question with the correct ruling and rule reference within 48 hours.

My concern is that an errant comment made by an official can come back to haunt them, in fact most Division 1 conferences have added this clause to the officials contract. "The office must refrain from any public criticism of the conference, Conference staff, coaches, student athletes, and Conference athletic departments. This criticism includes communicating with the media, and other basketball officials, as well as any method of social or electronic media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, email etc.). Any violation of this policy will result in disciplinary action being taken, which could include one or more of the following actions: private reprimand, suspension or termination".

This may filter down to the state athletic associations in the near future, thus the point of this article is to give our officials a heads up on what is happening in our officiating world. You just might want to give some thought to the above before you make that next "click".

AremRed:

If that's what he wants, then that's what you should do, unless you wish to have posts edited or deleted.

I'd do the same for any other member, BTW.

I do not know how anyone can expect to only be called something when people happen to know who you are? Some of us have been here a very long time and shared who we are on other forums or correspondence. I am not trying to get in the middle of their dispute, but if someone refers to me by my name other than what is listed, I do not see how I can control that, other than ignoring that person. And even then that is not how I will be referenced if others are talking. I seriously do not know how we can expect to control something like this even if we are expecting cordial conversation.

Peace

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

C'mon BktBallRef 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.

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.

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

Polite, yes. Is this a bannable offense though?

What's so difficult about using a person's user name? No one cares if know the person's real name, it doesn't impress anyone and it comes off as douchey, imho. To me it's the same as outing what level or conference someone works even though it may be public knowledge elsewhere.

It's called forum/internet etiquette. And those who argue about its enforcement really need to explain why it's so important to bring so much attention to themselves.

I agree with you, but I guess I do not feel that should be expected when you are so public like me or others here. Then again this is coming from a person that uses my real name, so I guess I do not see the big deal. But as you stated, I would not call someone anything they did not wish to be called. And I know many people here personally through real life or some other internet or social media outlet.

I was not trying to take this discussion in another direction. I just was curious that is all. Never thought much about it either way.

Peace

You weren't banned. Move on.

I was just concerned whether there should have been a foul or not. But, he was definitely charged for an illegal screen. The ref punched, pointing the other way while shouting "illegal". That's the extent of the mechanic(s) used, and that's standard around here for illegal screens.

Also, as an aside, I looked it up and the phrase "Illegal Screen" was used in the NFHS 2011-12 case book. Specifically:

"B1 is charged with an illegal screen against A2"

So, I think it's a term the NFHS is ok with.

Illegal Screen ...
 

The term "illegal screen" is fine, but there's still no signal for it. The punch is for all team control fouls (except a player control foul, but that's a controversial topic for another thread) not just illegal screens.

Frankly, I don't see an issue with the terminology here. I don't see this as one of those terms that confuses people (like "moving screen") into thinking something is illegal when it's not.

Team Control Foul ...
 

Nor do I.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2918/1...29ddc650_m.jpg

NFHS Signal Chart:

https://nfhs-basketball.arbitersport...010%5B1%5D.pdf

Coach, the point I was trying to make, before all the drama with AremRed unfolded, was your player can be guilty of a blocking foul whether:

1- he actually set a screen or not
2- whether the dribbler used the screen or not.

Without being able to see the play, we can't tell you whether a foul occurred. But yes, it's possible.

Yeh - I understand ur point. I was just letting u know my concern was not with what he was called for, but whether any foul should have been called. I think it was one of those where a patient whistle may have let it go. But, it's hard (if not impossible) for y'all to say without video.

Exactly. And the term is used in the casebook, which as far as I am concerned is just as good as any other terminology used in the rulebook.

Peace

There's nothing wrong with using the term illegal screen if you choose to do so. There is no signal in the Signal Chart for illegal screen nor is it identified as a foul in the rule book. The post was simply designed to express to the coach that his player was called for a blocking foul.

We now return you to our regular programming.

No - he was called for an illegal screen. Perhaps the ref should have given a blocking foul signal, but the only signals were a verbal "illegal" with the team control punch.

I can't remember the last time I saw a non-illegal screen non-holding blocking foul called on the offense in an NBA or college basketball game.....

Oh wait, it's probably because that has never happened. :rolleyes:

Depending a little on what you mean by "illegal screen" I've had a few calls like that for "chucking" or bumping the cutter.

I'm sorry I ever got involved with this topic. Just another reason I rarely post here anymore.

Really late to the party. THanks Arthur.

Seems like a "had to be there" sort of play. There are a lot of timing and spacing elements that are coming into play here. THat being said if the ball carrier is going to the rim and the player who is supposed to be guarding him runs into someone while running out of the way of the driver unless he gets laif out be excessive contact I'm probably going to pass.

I wish you would, Tony. You're always welcome.

Illegal screen or block. Potato or potatoe. No difference. Still a foul. same result.

For me, illegal screen is either a block or a hold signal but verbal is always "illegal screen".

I will say what they did and conclude with, "on the screen....."

Again it really does not matter in the end as long as the call is correct and the information is given. I just think I want to tell everyone there was an illegal screen and not just some other type of action. Saying "block" alone IMO is not clear enough to many. Not saying that all will be confused, but all it takes is the right time. That is why I say "Illegal screen" when describing the actions. But like the profession I am in on a daily basis, people do what works for them all the time and you are often not wrong if it works for you.

Peace