No, it isn't.

No, she doesn't. Use the floor/background as a reference. She simply stops and braces for contact. There is no part of her body that changes direction back towards the opponent.

Play 1 was a legal screen.

Also, welcome and good plays to discuss for your 1st post.

I used quotes for "same" because while not exactly the same direction, both were moving up the floor, 21 stopped, girl ran into her. Nothing to call. As others said I don't think the hips moved back, they moved upon contact. Don't need your feet set if you have legal position and she did.

Got me it’s not a matter of her moving into girl or not. She simply stops short but doesn’t give the defender time or space to react. Illegal screen.

Great point we had this debate (similar anyway) at our last meeting. If the screener sets a screen illegally wide legs or arms/elbows, but the screened player hits them where they are legal can you call a foul. Majority leaned to yes for safety reasons but not sure that it is supported by spirit of rule.

First one is legal and the second is not.

In 1 the player just stops moving forward. #2 is a clear hip check.

Thanks! This is exactly why I joined the forum. I knew I'd learn a lot.

Not relevant. You never have to give time for the opponent to react when a player stops. That is for moving INTO another player's path. When it is a matter of one player following another (same path/direction) the following player is responsible for contact if the player in front stops regardless of the time/distance.

The majority is wrong

Sadly, that is not uncommon. :/

#1: completely legal. Defender wasn't paying attention. If Tenn21 had the ball and a defender ran into her like that, what would you call? The butt movement is completely inconsequential, as contact was squarely to the torso.

#2: Borderline, but I would pass on it.



Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I've got a lot of respect for the rules knowledge of the people on this thread who have disagreed with me so I would have a rookie take their word. I don't think it's beneficial for me to keep stating my case, so I'll just say this and move on. In real time, if I'm calling that game, I'm going the other way. I don't think my assignor would have a problem defending that call. I've watched it 10 times, and every time it looks to me like she purposely sticks her rear end ever so slightly into the defender. As I said before, this is a garbage play 80 feet from the basket. She needs to clean it up, there was no reason for that in my opinion and I'm going to help her clean it up if I'm calling that game because on top of being (IMO) illegal, it's a bs screen that was only set so that she could put somebody on their back end. I don't mean to turn this into a debate and I've made my position clear so I won't continue to beat a dead horse after this post.

I think it's a dangerous habit to allow your opinion on a legal tactic to color your perception of that tactic. We aren't supposed to be avenging gods but impartial judges evenly applying the rules (even when we personally don't like the result).

On the first, here's how I see it.

The screener doesn't move towards the defender, she slows her movement away from her. This quickly closes the distance between them and works as a screen.

On the second: illegal but slight movement. I like to get those on occasion, but I could see passing here.

#1 is legal. Screens can be facing any direction. They are both moving toward the other end of the floor and the player setting the screen stops. She is in the visible field of the player chasing at all times.

#2 is close but I have it as illegal because the screener's legs are wider than her shoulders and the contact is on the illegal part of her stance. If the contact was in the torso, even though her legs are too wide, this screen would have been legal too.

On top of that, I think she also extended her knee out even more to make sure she got the screen.