Syracuse @ GaTech - Illegal Screen in final seconds

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes it was in his field of vision, all he had to do was turn his head. Regardless of this fact, he was given a step and took it and then the contact took place with a stationary screener.







Yes. He did not exaggerate his stance or set up in an unusual way.







Agreed and if he did not give the proper time and distance, this would be a foul. This in my opinion was not a foul. And even if it was borderline I still would not want a foul called here.



Peace

Fair enough, although I don't believe how far one can turn his head is a component of the visual field. I still disagree, but I do so respectfully.

If you're my assignor and you don't want this called, I'm not calling it. But with all the POEs on screening lately, and given my previously listed opinions on the play, I'm calling this 9 times out of 10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

In regular speed I see a foul. Ball handler takes off before screener gets in position and doesn't work defender toward basket before heading left. Screener steps wider right and leans to make sure he gets a piece of defender.

Obviously, id want to know how game was called earlier but i see this as a foul.

[Dale3]

Pure speculation here, but the official's mechanics for this call are a bit weird and awkward. Which based on experience, usually means the official wasn't a big fan of his call. Again, pure speculation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Fair enough, although I don't believe how far one can turn his head is a component of the visual field. I still disagree, but I do so respectfully.

If you're my assignor and you don't want this called, I'm not calling it. But with all the POEs on screening lately, and given my previously listed opinions on the play, I'm calling this 9 times out of 10.

Unless I get something specific, but if you can turn you head and see where you are going, then it is within your field of vision. A blind screen is usually seen as from behind or where you would have to turn around to see and you cannot. That is the illustration in the S&I book as well (page 78 specifically, referencing 4-40-4).

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

I know the sticking point for a lot of people on this thread and the previous screening threads has been defining field of view. Where he looking? Where he could look if he chose to? etc

For my purpose here lets not worry about head turning or not turning. lets say from facing forward your peripherals go out to the sides at 90 degrees from the point forwad so an 180 degree range. More or less for some people I know but lets say that peripherals are the field of view.

Screener moves from out side of field of view into his field of view while he's focused on the ball carrier. After he establishes himself 1.5 steps by the defender take place before contact.

As an official and a basketball enthusiast this screen is poorly defended, the defense wants to be bailed out based to how they try to react to the screen the didn't get dealth with properly. I don't see the screener doing anything wrong.

Finally I will say that is this is an illegal screen then there aren't a lot of legal screens happening vs good active defense.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Fair enough, although I don't believe how far one can turn his head is a component of the visual field. I still disagree, but I do so respectfully.

If you're my assignor and you don't want this called, I'm not calling it. But with all the POEs on screening lately, and given my previously listed opinions on the play, I'm calling this 9 times out of 10.

Even with the POE on screening this year I have not seen this called earlier in the season.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I know the sticking point for a lot of people on this thread and the previous screening threads has been defining field of view. Where he looking? Where he could look if he chose to? etc


As an official and a basketball enthusiast this screen is poorly defended, the defense wants to be bailed out based to how they try to react to the screen the didn't get dealth with properly. I don't see the screener doing anything wrong.

Finally I will say that is this is an illegal screen then there aren't a lot of legal screens happening vs good active defense.

This play involves screening a moving opponent. The defender does have time and distance to stop so i don't have a problem with that. The issue for me is the screener sticks his right foot out into path and leans.

Panther i don't see this as a defensive issue as much as i do poor offense. 4 orange knows he's got a screen coming. he doesn't set up the defender and wait for the screen so screen can have full effect-- prevent defender from having any chance to go over top. Now, id like the screener's defender to be in the neighborhood but, with the dribbler going few feet outside screen, its not going to change the way its guarded. I would want the defender to stay with the dribbler….and i think he would have had screener stayed within frame etc.

[Hawkeyes]

Terrible basketball play!
The only person actually making a decent basketball play is the screener. Screener's defender allows his guard to get screened and is too lazy to even get up and "show" - forcing the ball-handler to pause...
The on-ball defender acts like this is a one-on-one game and he doesn't notice the ball-handler motioning for the screen; and the ball handler doesn't give the screener enough time to get in position.
The Trail is doing a good job to avoid being straight-lined, but seems (IMO) to get caught by surprise by this contact - which may explain the weird mechanics...
I put this call in my "I didn't love that call" category.
I admire the guts to make the call, but unless we've had others like this during the game I'd leave this one alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes it was in his field of vision, all he had to do was turn his head. Regardless of this fact, he was given a step and took it and then the contact took place with a stationary screener.



Yes. He did not exaggerate his stance or set up in an unusual way.



Agreed and if he did not give the proper time and distance, this would be a foul. This in my opinion was not a foul. And even if it was borderline I still would not want a foul called here.

Peace

I agree with everything you have said with regard to Time And Distance. I think that the people who are saying this is a foul is that the Screener set his feet wider than his shoulders and the Screenee made contact with the Screener's lower leg.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agree with everything you have said with regard to Time And Distance. I think that the people who are saying this is a foul is that the Screener set his feet wider than his shoulders and the Screenee made contact with the Screener's lower leg.



MTD, Sr.

That's what I'm saying.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agree with everything you have said with regard to Time And Distance. I think that the people who are saying this is a foul is that the Screener set his feet wider than his shoulders and the Screenee made contact with the Screener's lower leg.

MTD, Sr.

I disagree with that even more if that is the case. I do not see him sticking out his leg. He moves to get into place IMO. And the contact looks more with his torso than with the leg.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with that even more if that is the case. I do not see him sticking out his leg. He moves to get into place IMO. And the contact looks more with his torso than with the leg.

Peace

We'll put you down for one vote - NO, then.

I think we've all said what we think here. Some of us agree, some disagree.

For me, he sets the right leg well wider than shoulder width (freeze it at :14) and the defender goes right over it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We'll put you down for one vote - NO, then.

I think we've all said what we think here. Some of us agree, some disagree.

For me, he sets the right leg well wider than shoulder width (freeze it at :14) and the defender goes right over it.

OK, I still do not see it that way. There is a reason we call it "judgment."

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, I still do not see it that way. There is a reason we call it "judgment."



Peace

The one who was standing there with the whistle agreed with me, however.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

The one who was standing there with the whistle agreed with me, however.

Well if that is the standard then we will be right or wrong many times. I do not care what he called, because many times it is seen as a IC later. I would rather see if the league or the NCAA says so. If they put this on the tape then I can feel more confident on who agrees with who.

Peace