Illegal screens?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I will beat a dead horse. A couple of things you need to think about.
This is not a garbage play. You have claimed it is dirty. Sorry but it’s not.

What does the player do wrong? She stops. Let me reiterate she stops. You claim she put her butt out... but look how she stands.... she is entitled to any place on the floor she gets to first.... if she had the ball and stopped, would you say it is a dirty play?

It is not s a garbage play any more than a blinde side screen. Blind picks can be violent. It doesn’t mean it is cheap or garbage.

It’s not a bs screen. ... this is no different than a player slowing down to bunch up defenders so players team mate gets an easy layup ( the Legal moving screen)

You want to clean up a Legal play.

It was a contested play/screen on a steal not 80 feet from basket.

It makes no difference which way she was facing. If she turned 180 would you say the same thing? I doubt it... screening requires no particular way to face.

And lastly... you have no rule to back you up. Calling this is just making up something as you go along. Just because you didn’t like the play...what other rules do you make up because you thought play was garbage?

Some random thoughts....

All of this would be great stuff if it weren't built on the false premise that it was legal. I don't see it as a legal screen because she puts her backside/hips into the defender. Good thoughts though. As I said, no reason to beat a dead horse as to why I see it as illegal, if you need to see my thoughts on that, feel free to scroll through them. I've read through everyone else's thoughts on what they saw and it sounds like I'm not the only one who sees an illegal screen. Have a good week, fellas.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

All of this would be great stuff if it weren't built on the false premise that it was legal. I don't see it as a legal screen because she puts her backside/hips into the defender. Good thoughts though. As I said, no reason to beat a dead horse as to why I see it as illegal, if you need to see my thoughts on that, feel free to scroll through them. I've read through everyone else's thoughts on what they saw and it sounds like I'm not the only one who sees an illegal screen. Have a good week, fellas.

The defender ran squarely into the small of the screener's back; that won't change no matter how much you are upset about the play. Her a$$ & hips had nothing to do with the contact.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The defender ran squarely into the small of the screener's back; that won't change no matter how much you are upset about the play. Her a$$ & hips had nothing to do with the contact.

I'm not upset about the play. I just don't agree with you. Continuing to say the same thing that I don't agree with isn't going to change my mind. Appreciate your perspective though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I'm not upset about the play. I just don't agree with you. Continuing to say the same thing that I don't agree with isn't going to change my mind. Appreciate your perspective though.

Video doesn't lie. Has nothing to do with philosophies or agreement or anything else.

I use video to get better, not to validate my opinions.

[UNIgiantslayers]

I'm not exactly extremely tech savvy and for whatever reason, my pictures are too big to post here. Here is a Google draw frame-by-frame. You're telling me in these pics, if she were leaning that much on a defender coming from her front (leaning in any direction, front, side-to-side), you aren't calling that illegal?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Maybe this will work

[JRutledge]

No because she stopped. And she ran directly into her back. She did not stick her butt out, she ran into her no matter what she did because the defender was not paying at all attention.

Sorry, but if that is your logic, it is not very good logic. And this is why you cannot show pictures because her feet a planted on the floor and the defender runs directly into her.

Peace

[UNIgiantslayers]

I don't have the NCAA book handy here, but here's Fed rules for screening:

(d.) The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart.

Is she within her vertical plane?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I don't have the NCAA book handy here, but here's Fed rules for screening:

(d.) The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart.

Is she within her vertical plane?

Yes she is. She stopped. Her body was clearly in her space. She did not exaggerate her space to cause any contact with the defender. You obviously did not look at where she made contact with the screener's back on your created picture. She did not run into her butt, she ran into the square part of her back.

Peace

[UNIgiantslayers]

I will respectfully agree to disagree. Have a great week.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I don't have the NCAA book handy here, but here's Fed rules for screening:

(d.) The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart.

Is she within her vertical plane?

The NCAA-Men's rule is similar. But if contact is to the torso, the legality of the stance is irrelevant. It's been brought up in at least 75% of the college pre-games I've had this season.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I will respectfully agree to disagree. Have a great week.

These passive-aggressive responses do nothing to improve your play-calling.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The NCAA-Men's rule is similar. But if contact is to the torso, the legality of the stance is irrelevant.

Can you show me the rule that says contact to the torso makes legality of the stance irrelevant?

Just to clarify, if the same screen takes place, but she is rotated 90 degrees to her right, and her feet are in the same spot but her shoulders are 2 feet to the right of her feet and the contact is to the torso, is that legal?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Raymond

These passive-aggressive responses do nothing to improve your play-calling.

That's not passive aggressive. I'm telling you I don't agree with you. Go take a nap.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

That's not passive aggressive. I'm telling you I don't agree with you. Go take a nap.

Being an a****** won't improve your officiating either.

You been making smart-ass comments the entire thread so don't be surprised when you get blowback

I'll still be working tonigh,t tomorrow, and Wednesday after which I'll be happy to take a nap.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk