Video Request: Illegal Screen or Block?
 

Purdue @ Pitt, 12/1/15, ESPN2. Start sequence at 1:41 second half.

W0 dribbles ball into frontcourt right side. B21 moves toward W0 and contact occurs while W0 still has the ball (W0 was either looking to make a spin move or pass the ball....hard to tell).

T calls illegal screen on W0. I think most folks thought it was a blocking foul because of the way B21 moved up to attack the basketball, but I can also see the argument that W0 may have been screening (illegally) while in player control. Needless to say, HC of W was incredulous.

Unusual call. I'm looking forward to the discussion that follows.

Since I'm sitting at work I can't post the play but I just watched it: It was an illegal screen. It appeared W0's initial intent was to hand the ball to W12, who was going to use W0 as a screen. W12 was being defended by B21. W0 spun his body - specifically his backside - into B21's path and didn't give him enough time to stop or change direction. He also displaced him.

White's HC was upset - the fact he was down 9 with 1:36 remaining helped - but if the BH/D doesn't spin himself into the defender's path there's no issue.

This must be a point of emphasis in the college game this year? There were several of these dribble hand-offs called illegal screens last night in the Missouri game. One in particular looked pretty innocent, which is what makes me think the officials have been told to look for this type of contact.

There is also a recent posting / video on the NCAAW site of a nearly identical play.

I had to laugh at the announcer on the OP game -- "you can't be screening when you have the ball"

You can pick to screen, but you can't roll to screen.

It was a POE a couple of years ago.

I don't think that's quite the saying you are looking for.

It was hammered at us at the 2 college camps I went to this past summer. Not just this type of player behavior but also when the screener rolls to the basket with the second defender going under the screen then getting driven down (and in most cases forcing a switch) with the screener. It was made clear that if the screener rolls the defender MUST be either sealed on his back but NOT in between him and the basket.

Yeah, that made me chuckle as well. Actually it made me kinda mad.

In fact the only part of the screening rule that has anything to do with the screener having the ball is that little caveat about a screen outside of the visual field when the screener doesn't give a normal step distance; should contact then occur, it is incidental provided the screener isn't displaced if he/she has the ball. In other words, screener or not, you can't displace a ball handler. Obviously that is NOT the situation in the OP.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PGbM4OucmY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If there is contact with rolling player that creates an advantage by keeping the defender from going below the screen, it is and always has been illegal. It isn't any different than the screener stepping higher to ensure the defender can't go over the screen. The fact that the player intends to roll to the basket doesn't absolve them from meeting the requirement of setting a legal screen.....the most relevant of which is that he screener must be stationary unless they're moving the the same path/direction.

I've always called it that way but many haven't.

Essentially, they have to start the roll before the defender goes under so that the defender is following them instead. Once the defender goes under, the likelihood of an illegal screen is much higher of the player rolls into them.

This was the sentimentality that they were trying to get through to all attendees at the camps. MAKE THIS CALL.

Would like to see more opinions on the actual play in the OP. A1 appears to be dribbling in a set path and there is contact with a defender that does not have LGP.

Did T anticipate the hand-off that ended up not occurring?

The play was called correctly. The offensive player cannot just make a beeline for a defensive player (especially one that is guarding someone else) and just make arbitrary contact.

LGP has nothing to do with an illegal screen call (and in this case the defender had LGP on the player he was guarding). LGP has to do with block/charge situations, which this is not. The contact was an easy foul call on the ball handler and it was not a PC foul but an illegal screen foul.

What I would like to know is what the conversation was between the coach and the new T.

I can already tell this is gonna be a good one.

http://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresou...05/popcorn.jpg