Pick and Roll Rule

Jurassic Referee

bainsey wrote
Instead, a few others displayed hard feelings from something I pointed out. That's too bad, as I expected something more rational here.

If it isn't worth the discussion, then I don't see the point in responding.

I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood. You are the ONLY person that I have ever met or heard of that has a problem with it. And that takes in a lot of "persons" over the year. And that's why it isn't worth the very lengthy discussion that we've had about it so far imo. And that's why I'm done discussing it. If others want to indulge you, hey, y'all knock yourselves out.

bainsey

Camron Rust wrote
Rules that no one has found in any rule book. Which rule defines when a screener is no longer a screener but is a cutter?

I said nothing about cutters or the like, Cam. Where'd you get that?

Snaqwells wrote
The fact is, the player is attempting to screen, and if he doesn't do it legally it's an illegal screen.

No sir. The fact is, it's a FOUL, usually blocking or illegal contact. The coach doesn't need more than that.

Jurassic Referee wrote
I hope you're not talking about me because it sureasheck NOT hard feelings on my part. It's simply reality. The useage [sic] of the term "illegal screen" is common and understood.

Glad to hear you're not bitter, JR. And you're absolutely right. It is common, and it is understood. And like some other "terms" mentioned here, it's still wrong.

just another ref

bainsey wrote
No sir. The fact is, it's a FOUL, usually blocking or illegal contact. The coach doesn't need more than that.

An illegal screen is a foul. You have a problem with that.

Read the definition of pivot.

An illegal pivot can be traveling. Is this a problem for you?

bainsey

just another ref wrote
An illegal pivot can be traveling. Is this a problem for you?

Not at all. There's one key word that's in the definition of screen that's not in the definition of pivot. Check it out.

Camron Rust

bainsey wrote
I said nothing about cutters or the like, Cam. Where'd you get that?

Forgive me, I attributed that statement to the wrong person. It was said, just not by you.

just another ref

bainsey wrote
Not at all. There's one key word that's in the definition of screen that's not in the definition of pivot. Check it out.

Okay, check the definitions of block and charge. They contain the word illegal.
There is no legal block. There is no legal charge. They are merely fouls, and if they were legal, they wouldn't be fouls.

So, is a screen is illegal, by definition it is no longer a screen, but merely a foul.

You're right.

You win.

Next question:

So what?

bainsey

just another ref wrote
So what?

So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

(Aside to Cam: No prob.)

Adam

bainsey wrote
So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

(Aside to Cam: No prob.)

Look, put this in the category of "baseline," "in the key," "call timeout," etc. Technically incorrect terms that still get the point across and don't cause any undue heartaches except for the particularly anal semanticists amongst us.

Jurassic Referee

bainsey wrote
So, if we're so particular about using correct venecular in our avocation, we should flag this term-in-question, too, whether it's "accepted" or not. I'm sure there are others. I just happened to notice this one.

You need the change the "we're" above to "I'm". You seem to be about the only respondent so far to really give a damn. However, don't let that stop your never-ending quest for correct vernacular(as YOU see it), even if the regular ol' vernacular was, is and will still be commonly used by 103.4% of the rest of us.

ver-nac-u-lar- using plain everyday, ordinary language

In basketball officialspeak, the term "illegal screen" is our vernacular.

bainsey

Snaqwells wrote
Look, put this in the category of "baseline," "in the key," "call timeout," etc.

Fine with me. I think that's a fair classification.

Jurassic Referee wrote
You need the change the "we're" above to "I'm".

I thought you were done discussing this. Anyway, very well. If the only point you have is, "it's perfectly okay, as long as everyone does it," then I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Personally, I believe officials should care more about what's right than what's popular.

Jurassic Referee

bainsey wrote
If the only point you have is, "it's perfectly okay, as long as everyone does it," then I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

To be accurate, my point is that "it's perfectly OK as long as every other official but that guy does it. 😀

Agree with "done discussing" part.

Camron Rust

just another ref wrote
Okay, check the definitions of block and charge. They contain the word illegal.
There is no legal block. There is no legal charge. They are merely fouls, and if they were legal, they wouldn't be fouls.

So, is a screen is illegal, by definition it is no longer a screen, but merely a foul.

But there is a difference.

The offending player in a block/charge is not trying to commit/set a block/charge. The block/charge is all by itself the failure to do something properly...thus it is illegal by definition.

However, a screen is a legal act and the player trying to commit/set a screen is doing so on purpose (usually) and is only charged with a foul when they do so improperly...when it is not a legal screen....or is an illegal screen.

« Previous Page