Illegal screens?

[Layman]

Greetings all,

This is my first post here, so please go easy on me

I'd like to hear some informed opinions on a couple of screens that were set late in the Tennessee-Texas women's game on Sunday. Both screens were set by Mercedes Russell, #21 in Orange. Neither one was called by the game officials.

The first was a rather unusual situation because it involves a collision in the backcourt where the screener is not squared to the defender. The second one is a rather typical high ball screen situation. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights.

[UNIgiantslayers]

I think I'm going the other way on both of those. On the first, she put her backside out into the defender in my opinion.

On 2, she's leaning, AND she's too wide.

There are much more knowledgeable and experienced officials here than myself who I would defer to though. Just my $.02.

Welcome to The Forum! Excellent video clipping and embedding skills, you'll fit right in.

Ugh, I hate players like this that bring very shitty very close to illegal screens into the game.

I double checked the NCAA-W rules to make sure I had the right language. I believe the first is illegal because a player "Shall not take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction." (NCAA-W 4-5-3-c) It's important to not that the screener does not have to square to the defender being screened.

I believe the second is illegal based on NCAA-W 4-5-2-a: " The screener shall not lean into the path of an opponent or extend her hips into that path, even though the feet are stationary."

Obviously judgement and vision is a factor in both plays, and late in close games officials are much more likely to commit Errors of Omission versus Errors of Commission due to our wanting high certainty on high leverage plays.

[BryanV21]

I'm not a college official, men's or women's, but going by NFHS I'm calling offensive fouls on both. In the first she pushes her butt into the defender, and in the second she leans to her right into the defender's path.

The second one is tricky because yes it is illegal but the defender running into the screen throws her head back trying to sell a foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Legal screen in the first video and a block in the second video.

MTD, Sr.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Legal screen in the first video and a block in the second video.

MTD, Sr.

This is going to sound like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not. It's legal to move your body toward a defender during a screen? She stops and thrusts her hips backward into that girl.

[Raymond]

#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

[UNIgiantslayers]

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

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).

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

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 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....

[CJP]

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....

The rules do support a foul call here. The two players are not moving in the same path and direction (screener is moving parallel to the sideline and the player screened is moving about 45 degrees from the sideline direction). Time and distance should be allowed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

The rules do support a foul call here. The two players are not moving in the same path and direction (screener is moving parallel to the sideline and the player screened is moving about 45 degrees from the sideline direction). Time and distance should be allowed.

This is a statement right out of the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook, which is also a statement from the rules directly.

When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows down or stops and the player behind overruns his or her opponent.

Nothing in the rule talks about what angle degree or that they have to be straight behind them. This player was running at an opponent that was moving up the court. The Tennesee player did not change her direction and cause the contact. She did not see the opponent for some strange reason.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CJP

The rules do support a foul call here. The two players are not moving in the same path and direction (screener is moving parallel to the sideline and the player screened is moving about 45 degrees from the sideline direction). Time and distance should be allowed.

The screener is moving away from the defender and then stops. There is no rule that says a player cannot stop. It makes absolutely no sense that a player moving away from a Defender is how somehow responsible for the contact simply for stopping.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[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.