(Video) Legal or Illegal 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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

Awesome point.

How come you think it's a screen when he's contorting his body? I would think in that picture he isn't set yet, and if hit, would be illegal. Therefore, I'm saying he isn't even set yet so I wouldn't start counting strides.

Given I'm wrong and we do give him strides here, wouldn't we give the defense more than one step if he is moving quickly?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Dad

Awesome point.

How come you think it's a screen when he's contorting his body? I would think in that picture he isn't set yet, and if hit, would be illegal. Therefore, I'm saying he isn't even set yet so I wouldn't start counting strides.

Given I'm wrong and we do give him strides here, wouldn't we give the defense more than one step if he is moving quickly?

He may be contorting his body but his feet aren't moving at that point in the video and the next time they do the movement isn't toward the defender. As I said, if the contact took place at the moment in the picture I would rule illegal because the screener wasn't in his vertical plane but that isn't what happened.

The screen itself probably begins a half-second earlier but it would've been harder to represent that point in a still picture. At any rate, the point the opponent gets into the path of the defender is when we start considering strides. As to how many strides, the last two lines of NF 4-40-5 read:

The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. The position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent.

At most he gets two steps and it's up to the official to determine what's "normal" given the speed of the defender. He definitely had at least two strides to stop or change direction. It's not the screener's fault the defender's teammates don't like him enough to warn him

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Dad

Awesome point.

How come you think it's a screen when he's contorting his body? I would think in that picture he isn't set yet, and if hit, would be illegal. Therefore, I'm saying he isn't even set yet so I wouldn't start counting strides.

Given I'm wrong and we do give him strides here, wouldn't we give the defense more than one step if he is moving quickly?

Let me take a crack at how this will go...

1. Call an illegal sceen on defender
2. Eventually have to Whack the coach (becasue you've identified you are the Sheriff)
3. Eject the parent

and of course all of this is "for the kids";-)

[Dad]

Originally Posted by j51969

Let me take a crack at how this will go...

1. Call an illegal sceen on defender
2. Eventually have to Whack the coach (becasue you've identified you are the Sheriff)
3. Eject the parent

and of course all of this is "for the kids";-)

I'm sorry coaches don't respect you and parents want to beat you up.

Sell your calls better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm sorry coaches don't respect you and parents want to beat you up.

Sell your calls better.

Selling calls has nothing to do with whether they agree with your calls. Sorry, you can be completely right and they will still have an opinion of a call. And calling this an illegal screen and a coach disagreeing with you, they would be right and still would go off if they choose to.

Peace

[Dad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Selling calls has nothing to do with whether they agree with your calls. Sorry, you can be completely right and they will still have an opinion of a call. And calling this an illegal screen and a coach disagreeing with you, they would be right and still would go off if they choose to.

Peace

I guess I should've colored my text blue.

As far as your response, try selling your calls better. There's a world of difference in responses from coaches/fans when they go, "Oh !@#$, I think he saw something there!"

[Blindolbat]

So there are what, 2 people here that think this was illegal? I'm surprised this one came up as questionable.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

So there are what, 2 people here that think this was illegal? I'm surprised this one came up as questionable.

If you're counting me, I originally said I'm almost never calling this illegal. I left some room for times I'm not aware enough of the screener to know how he got to where he did and if he just jumped in front of the defense.

I did think it was a fun play to take apart and talk about.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm sorry coaches don't respect you and parents want to beat you up.

Sell your calls better.

Ha

You sir are a tool......

[Dad]

Originally Posted by j51969

Ha

You sir are a tool......

I know.

My apologies, sir.

[AABATTEE]

Hello officials, I'm new to things and after seeing the video 5 times in slow motion I thought the screen was illegal only because the setters left foot was still sliding over while the right foot was planted. I thought this was a bang bang play and only a well trained eye would call it illegal.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by AABATTEE

Hello officials, I'm new to things and after seeing the video 5 times in slow motion I thought the screen was illegal only because the setters left foot was still sliding over while the right foot was planted. I thought this was a bang bang play and only a well trained eye would call it illegal.

Thank god you showed up with your well trained eye.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AABATTEE

Hello officials, I'm new to things and after seeing the video 5 times in slow motion I thought the screen was illegal only because the setters left foot was still sliding over while the right foot was planted. I thought this was a bang bang play and only a well trained eye would call it illegal.

Actually you have that the other way around.

Peace