Illegal screens?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by wyo96

#1 is legal, the distance is not a factor as they were both going the "same" direction before #21 stopped and was ran into.

2 is illegal, but so close I can see why it was not called. She set wide and then "hipped" her.

Our supervisor has been very clear that he wants #2 type screens cleaned up. If they are wider than their shoulders, he wants them called regardless of whether they are stationary/don't lean.

[rockyroad]

Play 1: the only time her butt was "sticking out" was when she first did her little jump stop. By the time the defender ran into her back, she was standing pretty much straight up. Nothing illegal to call there.

Play 2: illegal as others have already said.

[bob jenkins]

I agree that 1 is legal and 2 is illegal. I can see that the camera-side official might be blocked out in #2 -- but the far side official can get it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Our supervisor has been very clear that he wants #2 type screens cleaned up. If they are wider than their shoulders, he wants them called regardless of whether they are stationary/don't lean.

That's okay if the contact is with the outstretched leg (as this probably would have been). But, if the contact is with the torso, then it doesn't matter how wide the legs are.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's okay if the contact is with the outstretched leg (as this probably would have been). But, if the contact is with the torso, then it doesn't matter how wide the legs are.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

The majority is wrong

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The majority is wrong

Sadly, that is not uncommon. :/

[deecee]

First one is legal and the second is not.

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

[walt]

#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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by walt

.

#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.

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

[JRutledge]

The first play is clearly legal. For one the defender ran into her. She obviously was not looking. They were going in the same direction. When players are going in the same direction, they can stop if they choose. Not sure what she was doing running without noticing her?

The second play looked outside of the frame and a hip check.

Peace