Video Breakdown and Analysis (Video)

[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?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

I think there is a foul but I'd bet this is the reason why C didn't call it (and why it took me three viewings to see the foul).