Video Breakdown and Analysis (Video)

[Freddy]

What did this official miss and, more importantly, why?

Looks like an illegal screen to me Freddo but I had to watch it a few times before I saw it.

[deecee]

easy one. illegal screen opposite side of paint from where the ball is being inbounded. As to why, who knows? maybe he thinks the offensive player can blind side the defense on a screen and time/distance don't apply. He's new. Why do any of us "miss" making a call? Could be skill level, or he/we suck.

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

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.