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

Both options are certainly possible. This is as play you just have to referee.

Did the dribbler cut off the defender (screening rules apply) or did the defender run in to the dribbler (guarding rules apply)?

In my opinion, the dribbler intended to knock the defender off of his man and the defender was just trying to stay with his man....thus I see it as a screen. The fact that there was no handoff doesn't change that.

How do you make a beeline towards a moving object, yet at the same time continue in your initial path? Was he not just as likely making a 'beeline' to his teammate as he was the defensive player? There are many offensive sets that involve handing the ball off. If the defensive player decides to 'go over the top' instead of behind the hand-off, it makes the actual hand-off more risky and potentially causing the offensive player with the ball to disengage from attempting to hand the ball off.

I'm not saying this was called correctly or incorrectly, but I'm not seeing too many opinions siding one way, which leads me to believe this is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

If NFHS rules and defs are different than NCAA in this case, then I apologize.....but I don't believe there is such a thing as an illegal screen foul, per se. An illegal screen is a reason for foul call, but there is no definition for it as a type of foul.

What I'm saying is... somebody prove to me why the foul in this case is not a player control foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless you're saying the ball handler didn't have control of the ball, it is a PC foul.

Now, it isn't a charge, however. Maybe that is what you meant. Technically, it was a block committed while trying to set a screen.

If A1, who has someone guarding him, is making a beeline towards a teammate who has someone guarding him then A1 is settig a screen or receiving a screen. The subsequent contact between A1/B2 or A2/B1 falls under screening rules and principles.

NCAA refs, as has been mentioned a couple times, are supposed to be on the lookout for A1 setting up these illegal screens. A1 is not accidentally ending up in B2's path.


Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I think everyone here who has opined has said that this was a correct call.

The fact that the handoff didn't occur on this play makes a big difference IMO. I don't see how that ball handler did anything wrong. The defender looks like he tried to fit into a place where he didn't fit and bumped into an active ball handler in the process. Did that ball handler put him in that position? Yes, but isn't that what basketball is about? Trying to get an advantageous position on the defense? Just because a ball handler gets in between a secondary defender and the guy he's supposed to be guarding doesn't give that defender the right to go through that ball handler.

This is what I meant, it wasn't a charge, and I should have been more clear.

Yes illegal screen isn't a type of foul but it is a descriptor of the act that was committed. The foul would most likely be a block IMO.

BNR said it best as to the ball handlers movement why it was a foul. A lot CAN happen but it doesn't change what happened and doesn't excuse legal versus illegal contact. There are many legally executed dribble handoffs and this, even though botched, was definitely not one of them.

Freedom of movement applies to the defense as much as the offense and each player on the court has a right to not be illegally prevented from moving to where they were going.

It is illegal when the player makes contact and dislodges the opponent. I've watched the video a half dozen times and don't see anyway this would NOT be a foul on the ball handler. The success of the handoff, like I said already, is immaterial to what happened.

Take the ball out of the equation and imagine he is just another player. Now how would you judge the contact?

Lack of success in executing the play doesn't make it legal.

+1

Is there an assumption being made that success equates to the hand-off being made? Maybe success of the play was a fake hand-off?

How is there illegality to a specific player when contact occurs 'in the middle', where two players meet as their paths cross?

Doesn't dislodging an opponent infer that the opponent was maintaining a specific spot on the floor, hence not moving?

Try to see the broader picture. The ball-handler improvised at the end which could be confusing. The play they are trying to stop is a dribbler purposely trying to pick for a shooter. It's a sneaky play that hasn't been called correctly in the past.

If that's how you see things then you never have an illegal screen in any of your games. A player could be moving and gets shoved therefore dislodging him from his legally obtained path.

That's why we get paid the big bucks.

Really -- you continue to argue against (almost) all the opinions here. There's a lesson to be learned.

This is Division 1 basketball, A1 & A2 didn't just randomly take the same course. There was a screen intended by A1. A1 & A2 executed it poorly and A1 decided to hang on to ball and throw up some shot in hopes of fooling the ref. It didn't work. There is a reason the dribble hand-on is in our preseason video and why you see offensive fouls being called more often.

And A1 wasn't dislodged, he threw his shoulder into B2 at the start of his spin. You supposedly have no opinion as to whether the call was correct or not, but all I see is you typing how A1 didn't commit a foul. So you do have an opinion, and it's an opinion in the very miniscule minority.

Excellent call!
Taking this type of dribble hand-off out of basketball is a good thing. That defender was defenseless and either of them could have been injured.
I think all of the rules are to teach the players to begin avoiding more contact rather than "hunting for more contact".

Slight tangent: Did anyone else notice how the WC was trying to grab the ball when its was being tossed to the new T.
Q. What if W-coach had successfully secured that tossed ball before the spot throw-in toward the end of that video - should they whack him?

I saw that as well, although in my opinion, the coach was simply trying to help catch the ball, hand it right to the official and let the ball be put in play.

If, however, the coach catches that ball, and continues his rant, he definitely deserves to get whacked.

I think that's a really good. Dixon certainly could have gotten a T.

Never giving coach a tech here unless I at least say, "Coach, ball."