Illegal pick?

[tjslax]

This question came up last year when we going over a test at our state meeting, I was never completely satisfied with the answer.

Offensive midfielder M1 stops to set a pick for M2. While M2's defenseman (D1) is moving towards the pick he sees it coming and steps to avoid it. M1 then moves his pick position, getting in front of D1 who then obviously has to change his path to avoid the moving pick. No contact is made between the two players what is the officials call (or no call). I will refrain from telling you my guess at this point in time.

[WHEELAX2]

IMO.. a moving pick occurs when an offensive player (player whose team has the ball) makes contact with a defensive player while moving his feet or while making a distinct movement from a set position to pick an opposing player..

I always thought you had to make contact....

[laxfan25]

That's the way I call it - the moving picker has to make contact with the defender to merit an "illegal offensive screen" call. The defender in this instance would have been better off running into the pick setter after he obviously moved - he'll then get the turnover. I've had instances where a guy setting a pick starts to lean towards the defender - the whistle is poised - but if he misses the guy, keep playing.

[LaxRef]

Common question:

SECTION 5. No offensive player shall move into and make contact with a defensive player with the purpose of blocking a defensive player from the man he is playing, nor may the offensive player hold his crosse rigid or extend his crosse rigid to impede the normal movements of the defensive man. If contact is made between offensive and defensive players as a result of the offensive player’s setting a screen, the offensive player must be motionless before the contact occurs.

So no contact=no illegal screen. It's just like warding: I can try to push your stick all over, but if I never touch you or your stick, it's not a ward.

[CTLaxer]

I was always taught that was a moving pick and thats what my interpretation of the rules was too. You call slashes on players even if they don't make contact, why not a moving pick? Just because he didn't succeed in his illegal procedure, doesn't make it any less illegal

LaxRef: that ruling contradicts itself with the last statement in it a little bit don't you think? "Must remain motionless". Also, one could potentially make the argument that even if he's moving while picking and no contact is made because the defender is running around him, he is impeding the defensive players movement which is stated as a no-no, even though contact is not made.

Got the NFHS rule LaxRef?

[LaxRef]

I was always taught that was a moving pick and thats what my interpretation of the rules was too. You call slashes on players even if they don't make contact, why not a moving pick? Just because he didn't succeed in his illegal procedure, doesn't make it any less illegal

NFHS laxref?

Ah, but the rules specifically say you can call a slash if no contact is made. The rules specifically say that you need to make contact to have an illegal screen. And even if it were techincally against the rules to move and not make contact--which it isn't--you wouldn't call it anyway based on TPOAD.

We penalize players who actually do something that violates the rules, not people that try to violate the rules but fail in that attempt.

The rules are the same in NFHS.

[CTLaxer]

LaxRef: check my post again after the edit.

[LaxRef]

I was always taught that was a moving pick and thats what my interpretation of the rules was too. You call slashes on players even if they don't make contact, why not a moving pick? Just because he didn't succeed in his illegal procedure, doesn't make it any less illegal

LaxRef: that ruling contradicts itself with the last statement in it a little bit don't you think? "Must remain motionless". Also, one could potentially make the argument that even if he's moving while picking and no contact is made because the defender is running around him, he is impeding the defensive players movement which is stated as a no-no, even though contact is not made.

Got the NFHS rule LaxRef?

It is not a contradiction; you're quoting out of context:

If contact is made between offensive and defensive players as a result of the offensive player’s setting a screen, the offensive player must be motionless before the contact occurs.

In other words, if contact is not made, he doesn't need to be motionless.

As I said, the NFHS rule is identical (except they use the word "stationary" instead of "motionless," missing the NCAA edit as they often do).

[laxfan25]

You call slashes on players even if they don't make contact, why not a moving pick?
The reason we call slashes even when contact is not made is because of the strong potential for injury if the check WAS to strike the player. The only time we'll make that call is if the swing was so vicious that you go "Whoa!"
It's all about player protection...

[tjslax]

I thought so...different people have different feelings. I also feel you must make contact (because that's what the rules say). So the defender just need to run into him for change of posession-going around him isn't gonna get you anywhere (pun intended)

[laxfan25]

I thought so...different people have different feelings. I also feel you must make contact (because that's what the rules say). So the defender just need to run into him for change of posession-going around him isn't gonna get you anywhere (pun intended)
As long as the ref agrees that the picker was moving...

[Shorelax]

Intially - I would have called the moving pick. I thought it had more to do with impeading progress. I have since changed my position - as usual LaxRef has shown us the light!!

[Snake~eyes]

Common question:



So no contact=no illegal screen. It's just like warding: I can try to push your stick all over, but if I never touch you or your stick, it's not a ward.
LaxRef hits the nail on the head as usual. No contact no foul. ;)