Video Breakdown and Analysis (Video)

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Thanks for the update, Freddy. Upon further review - and given how this game was called up to that point - did the C feel he missed an illegal screen?

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... If, however, it was "excessive" contact, otherwise known as rough play, we'd still call a foul on it.

Are you suggesting charging an intentional foul under such circumstances?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you suggesting charging an intentional foul under such circumstances?

No. That is why I used quotes around the word. Sometimes, contact is enough that you just need a foul on it even if it really isn't part of the play. But, it can be short of an intentional foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. That is why I used quotes around the word. Sometimes, contact is enough that you just need a foul on it even if it really isn't part of the play. But, it can be short of an intentional foul.

Sounds good. Sorry, I missed the quotes the first time around.

Note: Now may be a good time to remind Forum members that this past season, the NFHS changed the definition of an intentional l foul to include both on-the-ball, and off-the-ball fouls.

[deecee]

In the cases of screen it may not be for a few seconds afterwards that the impact of said screen is noticed. So while I get the logic of the screen happened on the other side of the lane, and that it wasn't in the immediate vicinity of the ball I do not subscribe to passing on illegal contact for these reasons. You aren't going to call the foul only IF the team gets an advantage because that may not be obvious until a few seconds after the initial act.

Sometimes illegal activity needs to be called at the point, especially fouls away from the ball. That's the whole point of off ball officiating.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

In the cases of screen it may not be for a few seconds afterwards that the impact of said screen is noticed. So while I get the logic of the screen happened on the other side of the lane, and that it wasn't in the immediate vicinity of the ball I do not subscribe to passing on illegal contact for these reasons. You aren't going to call the foul only IF the team gets an advantage because that may not be obvious until a few seconds after the initial act.

Sometimes illegal activity needs to be called at the point, especially fouls away from the ball. That's the whole point of off ball officiating.

I disagree. You may need to be patient and have a bigger view but you don't have to call everything that happens off-ball that my develop into an advantage. Sometime, players just clumsily collide. Sometimes they do something technically against the rules, but the whole point of all officiating, off-ball or on-ball, is to judge whether the contact matters or not.