Illegal screen to flagrant foul?
 

Play has the locals up in arms. Did an illegal screen lead to the flagrant?

The coach of white team thought so. I thought they should have gotten the first push by #42. But those are the breaks when you have 2 man crews in Maryland. :(

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LjchOeuhR0c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) I don't see a screen that's really illegal. White had room to take a step back.

2) Even if the screen was illegal and was not called, that does NOT lead to the flagrant foul.

Didn't see an illegal screen. I did see a player that's done for the game.

Only thing I see that led to the flagrant is a player with an inability to handle mild frustration without striking out with a violent cheap shot...

Watching it live?

White 42 holds (uncalled) and then commits a flagrant foul.

Agree

Bloom,

What county... if this is an inbounds play there is no excuse for no whistle. a good two man crew could pick this up....

Anne Arundel, Broadneck vs. South River.

Pick what up?

If the screen was illegal by black, it would be for the leg/hip extended out. I'd be fine with no call on the screen.

But the officials did miss a hold (or two) on white which maybe could have stopped the play with just a common foul on White.

I wish we had a wider view to see the officials, and also more time after the foul to see how the officials reacted.

I don't see what a 2 man crew has to do with this. NY state is 2 person and this stuff doesn't happen in my boys games. I have had the occasional IF and 1 flagrant on a fast break, but there is no excuse for EITHER of the 2 to NOT have a hold unless they are (1) not paying attention (not good) or (2) they aren't good officials.

The player got held from the time she was off the screen to the endline, and it was an obvious hold.

Not calling the hold however does not explain the flagrant away. That action stands on its own 2 feet.

Agreed......

The hold on the girl who punches the player....

I couldn't read the number on the player wearing the "black" jersey but it looked like a "1". That said, here is what I saw:

I had a CF by W42 for holding B1 who was trying to go around W42. And then, since the initial CF by W42 was not seen by either official I have FPF by W42, for the forearm to the head and neck region of B1.

MTD, Sr.

gotcha. I was still on the OP theme of wondering about the screen.
I would have had that hold, and judging by her attitude, a T following.

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.