Illegal screen to flagrant foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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 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.

[ballgame99]

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.