It doesn't. I'm not excusing this crew, but having a C in there might caught the off-ball activity where clearly the lead doesn't see it.

This is common in that league. Every game I have had in that league has gotten into the double bonus within the first 6-8 minutes of the game. The coaches expect for us to protect the players all while those types of fouls happen regularly.

Wow! And that any coach could justify 42's actions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have a no call on the screen, but a common foul on 42. Get that it probably doesn't escalate. Not on this trip anyway. Agree 2 man sucks, but this is still an easy get.

... and the heck of it is, she looks like she's frustrated with HERSELF for not holding her opponent better and stopping her from receiving the ball.

Why do coaches try to say that a missed call "led to" the flagrant their player committed. Aren't coaches supposed to preach and teach responsibility and integrity to the players - but then they turn around and say it is the officials fault that their kid just pulled some cheap crap like the illegal block in the back on this video? That's just stupid...

I agree, but that is not going to change that fact. People like to blame others for their actions or something they had some say over.

Peace

I agree. You really need some context in order to understand what's going on. Had the two players been going at it earlier in the game and should that have been addressed?

There is an illegal screen. Black moves and extends her hip. Perhaps time, score and the way the game had been called dictated passing on it, but it is still an illegal screen.

Clearly there is then an extended hold that deserved a whistle prior to the flagrant foul. I'm willing to bet this isn't the first altercation between those two during that game.

That's a legal screen. Contact is on the torso, which is above the left leg. The right leg is extended out, but there's no contact over there. This matters.
On top of that, the defense switched pretty quick and the defender gave up trying to get through the screen.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you there. The screener must be stationary and stay within her vertical plane. Black shuffles her feet to the left and then clearly extends her hip and body to the left, creating contact. As I said in my earlier post, I would probably be okay passing on it, but I would like to know the time, score and overall game situation before making that situation.

Quite frankly, that's a game management call that needs to be made early in the game. If this is the first Q then I'm going to have a whistle here. If this is a late game situation and no illegal screens have been called to this point then I'm probably going to pass on this as marginal.

I think the screen is illegal.

The initial contact is on the torso, but the subsequent contact, as the defender is trying to get around it is on the extended knee and shifting hip.

Being unsuccessful at getting around (due to the contact on the extended knee and hip), she then gives up as the other player takes over. But, I don't think that absolves a player of an illegal screen. Maybe the defense would not have preferred that switch. Advantage to the offense by way of illegal contact.

If you've been calling that screen illegal all night, by all means call it here. But my guess is that screen is not going to be called illegal 98% of the time. I'm guessing this was a last minute of the game situation where they wanted to foul on purpose? If so, missing that hold on white is a bad miss by the official.

From the video description I was expecting the girl that got screened to retaliate, that would be the only way you could say an illegal screen led to anything. More appropriate title would be 'missed hold leads to flagrant' but even then that would imply the girl that got held retaliated. This is just a dumb play by a defender that can't defend.

To me the screen is illegal and missed by the crew. W42 holds and is not called. Then comes the flagrant and W42 doesn't get to play any more on this day.