(Video) Legal or Illegal Screen

[Rich]

Legal.

[Dad]

I'm fine with an illegal screen here. There's no way the defense has time to stop and change directions when the player actually becomes a screener. By the time he stops, the defender barely has room to take a step, let alone two which should be given when a player is running.

I'm probably never calling this illegal, but I do not think it's an easy call if you're going off the rule.

[TimTaylor]

Legal.

The screener meets the requirements of 4-40-5.

Clearly plenty of room as the defender takes two strides before he makes contact with the screener.

[OKREF]

Legal. Time and distance requirements met.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Legal.

The screener meets the requirements of 4-40-5.

Clearly plenty of room as the defender takes two strides before he makes contact with the screener.

This doesn't matter. You can't jump in front of someone who has taken two strides and claim two strides. Defender is pushing off his left foot when the screen is set. He slams into it on his right foot.

Illegal, I think the screener comes to a complete stop right before contact, which is not enough time/distance for how fast the defender is moving. Plus it's a bullshit play in the backcourt and I want to clean that up.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Illegal, I think the screener comes to a complete stop right before contact, which is not enough time/distance for how fast the defender is moving. Plus it's a bullshit play in the backcourt and I want to clean that up.

Horrible philosophy. Not surprising to me you'd spew this nonsense.

[ODog]

Late to the party here, but firmly in the Legal camp.

When I clicked on the thread with "Video" in the subject line, I thought, "Oh boy!"

Then after watching it, my reaction was, "How is this thread multiple pages?"

Originally Posted by Rich

Horrible philosophy. Not surprising to me you'd spew this nonsense.

The part where I give my reasoning for why I don't think time/distance were met or the part about this being a cleanup/game management play?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Horrible philosophy. Not surprising to me you'd spew this nonsense.

Agree. Why clean up a legal and entirely legitimate play? Blame the defenders team for hanging their teammate out to dry.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Dad

This doesn't matter. You can't jump in front of someone who has taken two strides and claim two strides. Defender is pushing off his left foot when the screen is set. He slams into it on his right foot.

You're wrong. The screener's feet were set before the defender's left foot hit the floor.

And as Cameron pointed out, the screener was in fact moving (backwards) in the same path & direction as the defender before he set the screen.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

You're wrong. The screener's feet were set before the defender's left foot hit the floor.

And as Cameron pointed out, the screener was in fact moving (backwards) in the same path & direction as the defender before he set the screen.

I'm right and I'll show you step by step what happens in this video.

The offensive screen jumps off his left foot landing on both trying to set a screen. Not only does he land almost the same time the defender is on his left foot, which is illegal, but when he lands he's in an illegal screening position. Left foot is behind the free throw line and he has his knee and shoulder stretched out. He notices his position is horrible and tries to correct it. By the time he corrects and tries to get straight up and stationary the defense doesn't even have HALF a step to move.

As for the path and direction, this one is easy. At BEST he jumps parallel to the table, and at worst he jumps from opposite table side to table side, slightly. The defense is clearly running from table side to opposite table side. So not only are they clearly running in two different lines, but this isn't at all what the rule 4-30 art. 6 is talking about.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm right and I'll show you step by step what happens in this video.

The offensive screen jumps off his left foot landing on both trying to set a screen. Not only does he land almost the same time the defender is on his left foot, which is illegal, but when he lands he's in an illegal screening position. Left foot is behind the free throw line and he has his knee and shoulder stretched out. He notices his position is horrible and tries to correct it. By the time he corrects and tries to get straight up and stationary the defense doesn't even have HALF a step to move.

As for the path and direction, this one is easy. At BEST he jumps parallel to the table, and at worst he jumps from opposite table side to table side, slightly. The defense is clearly running from table side to opposite table side. So not only are they clearly running in two different lines, but this isn't at all what the rule 4-30 art. 6 is talking about.

My ruling is legal.

From what I can see this ^^^ picture is probably the moment the offensive player gets into a screening position. He's stationary - or at least from this point on his body doesn't move towards the defender (not that it ever did).

As to his screening position: No, he's not vertical but that doesn't mean it isn't a screen. His positioning is only relevant at the time the contact takes place. As we saw in the video, the contact was on the screener's torso and by that time his (the screener's) body was vertical. Not only was he vertical, he was actually stepping away from the defender.

If the contact took place at the point represented in this picture then I'd say illegal but the screener had enough time to correct himself and the defender had enough time to stop or change direction.

[Camron Rust]

Legal by a mile.

For a moment before the screener stooped, they screener was moving in the same path and direction as the opponent, so that made it legal by an even greater margin than it may first appear.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Legal by a mile.

For a moment before the screener stooped, they screener was moving in the same path and direction as the opponent, so that made it legal by an even greater margin than it may first appear.

They were never moving in the same path and direction. (Before contact)