Telling people that I can agree to disagree and not being butthurt over it (i.e. telling them to have a great week) is called being an adult. I realize it's hard to believe someone would do that anonymously on a message board, but that was my intention. I'm not sure where I was an "a******". Not once did I attempt to be a "smart-ass." I was being civil while disagreeing. You could give it a shot sometime when you disagree with someone, instead of being a bull in a china shop like you always are when people don't bow to your superior opinions.

Now, I'll tell you again and I mean this wholeheartedly. I hope you have a great week and don't let a little spirited disagreement about one play ruin your day.

Thank you for saying this. Arguing this point got me banned from a certain Facebook group. :)

You posted the above three days ago. Please hold true to your word.

The NCAA might come out and give some sort of a "this is how we want it called" ruling. Until then, there's little point in any of us further re-hashing our positions--they are clear to all involved.

Bob,

Are both players in this play moving the same path and direction?

I gave my answer in post #14.

Further, "there's little point in any of us further re-hashing our positions--they are clear to all involved. "

What does this have to do with anything. Your logic implies that a player must continue moving in the direction they are going if another player is about to intersect the path that player 1 is on. That's just ludicrous. There is no rule that says a player cannot stop, and if they do then all contact is their responsibility.

This wasn't a traditional screen in how the screening rules are applied. The above logic would mean that players can only move in straight lines and cannot stop until they hit an immovable item, like a wall, or the stands.

Then I guess we are done here. I am happy that is resolved.

Not really, but irrelevant. Verticality, if you want to hang your hat on that one, is about extending outside for space towards your opponent. This screener in this play is leaning her torso AWAY from the opponent.

And no matter how may times you want to claiming, this screener did NOT stick her butt out. The video shows that clearly. All she did was come to a stop by sticking her feet out (away from the defender) to be able to stop (like a jump stop).

The video just not support what you're saying happened.

If her feet are away from the defender, doesn't that mean her torso was toward the defender?

Since this dead horse keeps getting thumped I will contribute one last time. There was a "screen" in the play. The player just did not STOP for no apparent reason, like Deecee says. So whether or not the players are traveling in the same direction AND path are relevant. A player screening a moving opponent must allow time and distance. If the players are traveling in the same direction on the same path then the trailing player is responsible for the contact, time and distance are not a factor. If an official calls a foul on this screen and the coach asks for a justification, I think it is reasonable to tell the coach that the screener needs to give her time and distance. If you think that they were on the same path, headed in the same direction then it is a no call.

Of course there WAS a reason she stopped, however your logic implied that a player CANNOT stop because then ALL contact with said player is that player's fault.

That logic simply isn't true. The contact was legal by every standard and this is one of those plays where the defender needs to be upset at her teammates for not communicating with her. Blind screens only apply to instances where it's not physically possible for the defender to see the player setting the screen. If turn my head away from the offense as a defender I will do 1 of 2 things. Eventually get blindly screened AND benched for playing crappy defense.

That would apply if the screener had moved into the path of the defender. The screener did not move into the path of the defender. The screener simply stopped. So I'm guessing if the Tenn #21 had the ball on this play, you would have called a PC foul when she stopped and the defender crashed into her.

No more than a player with a wide stance taking contact in the torso. It isn't relevant.

Yes, it was a screen. Every element of what it takes to be a legal screen was met. Allowing time and distance is about getting INTO the path for the screen, not stopping once you're in the path. The screener was in her path for at least 3 steps (of the screened player) before contact happened....way more than what is required.

Not the same thing at all. If the contact is on the torso of the player with the wide stance, the stance doesn't change anything. In this case if the screener is vertical it totally changes when the contact occurs, plus it adds the weight of the screener to the force of the collision, even if the screener didn't embellish the contact a bit, which I think she did.