Illegal screens?

[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 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

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

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

[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.

[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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

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?

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Maybe a slight bit, but irrelevant. And so what. Neither of those have anything to do with the rules.

Was the screener in the path soon enough to allow the defender time to avoid contact. Yes....the defender took 3 steps into the contact. The screener was moving, but was already in the path and was moving away....which is legal. The screener just stopped moving...no rule against that.

The problem here is that the defender was running without looking where she was going. The screener did absolutely nothing wrong.

And the video just does not support your claim of embellishment. She may have braced for contact, but didn't embellish at all, not even close.