Syracuse @ GaTech - Illegal Screen in final seconds
 

https://twitter.com/tjbasalla/status/833489498948370433

Hoping that Twitter will embed/work here.

And I know..."final seconds" shouldn't matter. And in a perfect world it wouldn't. But this world ain't perfect and things are different late.

That said, thoughts on the call?

Please don't post links to the twitter accounts of Syracuse guys. ;)

Ha, it's the only link I could find of the play so far. Didn't even realize it was from a whining fan.

Great call. 21 knew it, too. He gambled trying to make something happen for his offense…and lost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good call. If that's a foul in the first half, it's a foul at the end, too.

Let's All Sing Like The Birdies Sing ...
 

I can never see these Twitter videos. I always get "The media could not be played". I don't subscribe to Twitter. Is there anything that I can do to see these videos?

Better looking video.
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J7ibWGenLxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Not illegal for me.

I really do not see this foul either. It looks like he gave him at least a step and he was not moving fast. The player also embellished the contact as well. But again, I get the benefit of slow motion. I am sure I have called a foul on this kind of play.

Peace

I don't see a foul. Defender got caught without warning by his team and it looked worse than it was.

I do not see a foul on this play. The screener was set. The Ga Tech player ran into the screener.

One thing is certain, #1 white did a great job of embellishing.

Difficult to tell how much is him leaning or extending and how much is the sell job by the kid getting screened . . .

That being said if that's a foul late ok. BUT it had better be a foul early and at that level if that a foul on the screen teams just wouldn't be screening because everyone would be fouled ok.

In this part of Rome that a ton better than most balls screens and I don't think we get enough of those bad ones as fouls.

I probably have nothing here based on the view and angle.

Surprised by the amount of posters who either say this wasn't a foul or should have been passed on.

While I agree that if similar plays were passed on earlier in the game that this probably shouldn't be called, judged by itself, I ask the following:

1. Was the screen in the opponent's visual field, and did the screener give the opponent a normal step backwards?

2. Was the screener's stance shoulder width apart?

Answer these questions honestly and you don't even need to consider whether or not the screener was moving.

It's called an "illegal screen," not a "moving screen."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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

I did put a little smiley face there.

Typically when people go over a knee or hip it raises a red flag for me....

I agree with the red flag, but whether that is an acceptable position I will suggest I see very little that suggests that stance is typically ruled illegal. Again, this is college so there is some standard at that level they can put out, but I do not see that is what is used as the typical example for an illegal stance.

Peace

Illegal screen...the leg was outside of his torso and he was late. The defender was moving and didn't even get 1 step from the time the screener's foot hit the ground until contact.

Blind screen with no time or distance. Defender doesn't even complete his first step before contact occurs.