Video Breakdown and Analysis (Video)

Originally Posted by deecee

edit: I do want to add if the implication is that he is ball watching, thats a tough inference to make from that angle.

He's just helping watch for throw-in plane violations.

[JRutledge]

I am not totally convinced that is an illegal screen. But it is close. I would have to see other screens during that game to see if that was consistently not called.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

The screener hit the trifecta:

1. He caused the contact
2. The contact delayed his opponent
3. The screener wasn't given a chance to stop or change direction

As to why it wasn't called I go with JRut's reasoning: Maybe it hadn't been called up to that point in the 1st half.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The screener hit the trifecta:

1. He caused the contact
2. The contact delayed his opponent
3. The screener wasn't given a chance to stop or change direction

As to why it wasn't called I go with JRut's reasoning: Maybe it hadn't been called up to that point in the 1st half.

1. Screens are supposed to cause contact.
2. Screens are supposed to delay the opponent.
3. Screens are no necessarily supposed to allow you to change direction or stop if they give you the proper time and distance.

If anything I am wondering was the screener outside of his frame a not allowing normal movement? That would have been the reason I would have called a foul in this case.

But overall the angle is bad and hard to ultimately tell. It is just not a slam dunk.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1. Screens are supposed to cause contact.
2. Screens are supposed to delay the opponent.
3. Screens are no necessarily supposed to allow you to change direction or stop if they give you the proper time and distance.

If anything I am wondering was the screener outside of his frame a not allowing normal movement? That would have been the reason I would have called a foul in this case.

But overall the angle is bad and hard to ultimately tell. It is just not a slam dunk.

Peace

1. Screens involve contact. Screeners are not supposed to cause (initiate) the contact. That's part of the rule (NF 4-40-1, NCAA 4-34-1...in the '13-15 books).
2. Screens are supposed to delay the opponent but they're not legal if the screener causes contact while delaying the opponent.
3. The screener has to allow a moving opponent an opportunity to stop or change direction, i.e., a "normal" step

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

1. Screens involve contact. Screeners are not supposed to cause (initiate) the contact. That's part of the rule (NF 4-40-1, NCAA 4-34-1...in the '13-15 books).
2. Screens are supposed to delay the opponent but they're not legal if the screener causes contact while delaying the opponent.
3. The screener has to allow a moving opponent an opportunity to stop or change direction, i.e., a "normal" step

Again, I am not convinced the screen was illegal based on practicality. You say he was not allowed a step, not sure I agree with that point of view. You say he caused the contact, not sure I agree with that either. If that based on what I saw was a foul, we would be calling fouls every trip down the floor. I think it is close, but does not jump out at me. And I probably would have passed on that too. A screened player has to do a little more IMO.

Screens are often set in tight places and this is one of them. Not sure that falls into my standard as a foul. It is not a great screen, just do not know if I would call a foul.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Loved C's positioning (came onto the floor a little bit because there wasn't much weak side action on the throw-in).
Loved C's focus (I highly doubt he was ball watching).
Loved C's posture (he's engaged and looks comfortable).

I agree with some that game context matters, but absent that info, I think he's got plenty of good reasons to pass on this call. I think I would have, too. A2 got in the way of his view at the last second, and I don't think there's much he could have done to get a better look at that point, so this would be the only reason he might have "missed" the call if there indeed was a call to be made.

On another note, we're trained to referee the defense, but I tend to referee the offense until the throw-in ends because that's where fouls seem to come from (screens, push-offs, hold-and-chucks, etc.). Anyone else use and/or have thoughts on this technique?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not totally convinced that is an illegal screen...

I agree...and if the C also agreed, then he didn't necessarily miss anything. He may have seen it and passed on the call.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

He's just helping watch for throw-in plane violations.

Yep. I can see a little finger flip as he counting five seconds.

Didn't we have a video on the Forum a few years ago of a nonadministering official calling a five sound violation from about forty feet away from the inbounder? If remember correctly, it was a classic.

[ballgame99]

Maybe it was "missed" because it was on the backside of the play and didn't result in the offense gaining a significant advantage. He looks like he is looking right at it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Maybe it was "missed" because it was on the backside of the play and didn't result in the offense gaining a significant advantage. He looks like he is looking right at it.

That is my thought. He had a patient whistle and realized that, while certainly eligible for a foul, the contact was completely irrelevant to what was happening.

[Pantherdreams]

I would fall on the side of the group saying he may have simply passed. While the screen looks bad (re: time and space, and movement) I'm not sure how much of that is initiated by the screener or the defender and the camera angle is not great for me to judge. I'm not sure it does but, lets' assume for a minute that the screen does not in fact pass the test for legal screening.

So its not a legal screen is it now a foul.

Is there illegal contact created by/responsible to the defense? If we agree the screen is illegally set yes.

Phase 2: Is the contact created more then incidental? Excessive/leading to rough play - No your going to get much worse than that on legal screens and plays. Gaining a clear and immediate advantage, based on how it was defended - where it was on the floor, the players reactions and result patient whistle says no significant advantage.

Now if I had a partner that saw an illegal screen and felt that was what held up or got a player open and thats enough I'm in his/her corner. From the cheap seats it looks like a play that has a whole lot of if, maybe and marginal going on that has no advantage gained by the fact that the screen might have been illegal. If its my call we are moving on.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Is there illegal contact created by/responsible to the defense? If we agree the screen is illegally set yes.

Kind of confused by this line. If the contact was created by the defender then in this case in can't be an illegal screen.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Phase 2: Is the contact created more then incidental? Excessive/leading to rough play - No your going to get much worse than that on legal screens and plays. Gaining a clear and immediate advantage, based on how it was defended - where it was on the floor, the players reactions and result patient whistle says no significant advantage.

If you're going on the premise that it was an illegal screen, the contact had to have been deemed more than incidental. There also isn't anything in the rules requiring illegal contact of any kind to be excessive in order for it to be called a foul.

The term "significant advantage" isn't used in the rules, either. Determining a foul at its basic level comes down to the answer to this question: Did A do something to B to gain an advantage that wasn't intended by rule?

[Freddy]

The comments and analyses from you who critiqued the video of this screening situation were really very insightful and enabling. All responses have been duly noted.
What the official at C reported after studying the video of this play was this: he admits to being so focused on the defender ("officiate the defense") that he did not have the "wider view" necessary to take in everything happening on the play. While watching exclusively the defender, a good look at what the offensive player setting the screen from behind completely escaped his notice. This, therefore, has become a local study clip on the topic of "The Consequences of Telescoping - How to Miss Illegal Screens".
Your responses that mentioned other perspectives, opinions, and concerns, however, have been registered and will be included in future discussions when this clip is used for group study. Again, your comments and analyses above were really very good. Much thanx.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

If you're going on the premise that it was an illegal screen, the contact had to have been deemed more than incidental. There also isn't anything in the rules requiring illegal contact of any kind to be excessive in order for it to be called a foul.

I think what he's saying is that while the screen didn't meet the base requirements of screening (i.e, stationary, time and distance, etc.) it fell short of creating an actual advantage/disadvantage in the greater context of the play....thus, it becomes incidental. If, however, it was "excessive" contact, otherwise known as rough play, we'd still call a foul on it.