(Video) Legal or Illegal Screen
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tF0PzV2bsUc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I want opinions on this. This is not my video BTW, just subscribe to the page and noticed this.

Peace

Legal. Plenty of distance between screener and defender when the screener established position.

Three Blind Mice ...
 

Legal. The screener appeared to meet all the time, and distance, parameters to make this a violent, but legal, blind screen on a moving opponent.

4-40-5: When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the
opponent time and distance to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction.
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.

Nice video JRutledge. Thanks for sharing.

Legal.

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.

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.

Legal. Time and distance requirements met.

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.

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)

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.

http://i65.tinypic.com/2it4p1.jpg

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?

The defender took like three steps before there was contact, for anyone to say he did not have time to change direction (which is not the rule) is really kind of silly.

This screen is legal all the way.

Peace

The screener in your picture is not legal. By the time he gets legal and contact does occur the time/distance requirement has not been met.

Ugly/clumsy/hard contact is not an automatic violation or foul. This is just a hard screen in the backcourt.

Only "foul" here was the defenders teammates not calling out the pick.


I wish I had a cool signature

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

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?"

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? :D

He doesn't have to be vertical when the strides start, just in the path. At time of contact he was legal: at the spot first and within his cylinder.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

The latter.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fIBDYBGk1vM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Someone is going to have to explain to me how much damn time are you supposed to be given? The defender takes like 3 steps before any contact. All that is considered illegal is what happens at the time of contact after you have been getting ready to set a screen. The screen was not blind either and had more than a normal step.

Peace

Legal.

+1. I like how you pointed out that the screen WAS in the visual field of the defender (contrary to some previous opinions). The fact that the defender chose to focus on something else in his visual field (the ball handler) does not make the screen blind.

Big fat no call here. Maybe even a push on the defender if the screener had been significantly displaced, but I'd try not to go there unless I had to.

Easy kind of call to get surprised by. These are the type that are really good to look at once in a while. You just might see it in your next game.

Bravo!

Unfortunately, that isn't what the rules require. He (his torso) was in the path in time...that is all that is required by the time/distance/screening rules. Everything else only matters at the time of contact. And even then, it might not be relevant.

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

Legal. Didn't think it's that close either

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:

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 ;)

Great point. And, this video clearly shows the red player's bench area watching the play and offering no visible assistance. The coach is even looking up court getting ready to make a decision about a half court set - which is what I'd probably expect to be doing.

Edit: Is this a h.s. game? Check out those high falootin' officials wearing NBA shirts. Must be nice.

Agree. And in my opinion the trail on this play is in a great position to see the play develop and NOT get surprised. Legal screen all day, FWIW.

There are several areas that wear grey shirts. They actually look nothing like the NBA other than they are not black and white striped.

Peace

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";-)

Legal and not that close IMO.

Yes it is. This is a game between two Houston area high schools. Most Texas chapters, at least at the varsity level, wear grey with pinstripes. They don't look like the NBA style shirts either though they do wear NBA style shirts at the state tournament.

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

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

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!"

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.

Sell It ...
 

My former interpreter always said that the best bad call is a strong bad call.

To be fair, if someone routinely makes bad calls, I'm not sure how much hope there is for them!

I more meant along the lines of something like a block/charge situations where the boos are about to start and after I'm done they just give up. :p

When I see someone *really* sell a call, I immediately assume they didn't see the play or are trying to convince people of an incorrect call.

Too many years of experience to buy what's being sold, I'm afraid.

Sweet! Good looking uniforms.

Even if they make the call the same way every time?

Then they should tone everything down.

If you make the same call the same way every time, then you aren't really "selling" anything.

Then maybe selling isn't the right word from it. There's a world of difference between lazy mechanics and a strong call that makes people think twice before they start complaining about it.

I couldn't agree more.

Yep. And a sharp, yet relaxed (not "selling") call can often sell a call just as well as a sharp, aggressive, call.

Ha

You sir are a tool......

I know.

My apologies, sir. ;)

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.

Actually you have that the other way around. ;)

Peace

Unfortunately, that point is irrelevant. There is no part of the screening rule that requires the feet to be planted. Is the body in the path or not in time? That is all you need to know.

Hmm.