Syracuse @ GaTech - Illegal Screen in final seconds

[MechanicGuy]

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?

[Nevadaref]

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

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[crosscountry55]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Hoping that Twitter will embed/work here.

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?

[JRutledge]

Peace

Not illegal for me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

[deecee]

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

[RefLarry]

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

[#olderthanilook]

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

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[crosscountry55]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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