SMU @ Cincinnati Plays

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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



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.

I had a pushing foul. IMO, it didn't matter what the dribbler did, where he was, etc. The offensive player displaced the defender.

You say that push and the screening action occurred at the same time, thus an illegal screen. I didn't see it like that the first time, but upon further viewing, like I said, I'm good with that.

I had no problem with that question, just the subsequent responses telling me what I said is the same thing. It's not... There can be a push separate from an illegal screen.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk