SMU @ Cincinnati Plays

[jpgc99]

I'm the one that brought up the question in the first place, and it was a sincere question.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

3. It looks like the screener actually pushes the defender from behind, meaning it should have been a pushing foul. If you pass on that, then I'm not 100% sold on the illegal screen call.

The part above in bold is what was concerning to me. The statement implies that an illegal screen can only be a blocking foul. As we have explained, an illegal screen can be a block, a hold, a push, a chuck, etc.

The action in play 3 is an illegal screen, and it is an illegal screen because of the push.