Illegal screens?

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I agree that it is impossible to tell for sure from the video whether it happened or not. I base my opinion on the way the defender goes flying through the air after the contact. It just seems like too much to have been caused by her own momentum without a little added oomph from the larger player. She saw the screener before contact. You can see the reaction on her face.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree that it is impossible to tell for sure from the video whether it happened or not. I base my opinion on the way the defender goes flying through the air after the contact. It just seems like too much to have been caused by her own momentum without a little added oomph from the larger player. She saw the screener before contact. You can see the reaction on her face.

I hope you don't normally call fouls based on how the allegedly fouled player reacts. All you have to do is watch her butt relative to the background. It NEVER moves back towards the right at all. She braces for the impact by stopping and planting her feet.

For that matter, seeing it again, the player being screened sees it coming and leans into it with her shoulder rather than pulling up and avoiding it. It "could" be a foul on her.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This screener in this play is leaning her torso AWAY from the opponent.

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by CJP

The player just did not STOP for no apparent reason, like Deecee says.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CJP

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.

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Why? Players are entitled to a spot on the floor and if they get their first it's theirs adding no other rule had been broken in the process.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

Why? Players are entitled to a spot on the floor and if they get their first it's theirs adding no other rule had been broken in the process.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

You apparently are not paying attention to the conversation if you think I'm advocating calling a foul on the player who stopped.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You apparently are not paying attention to the conversation if you think I'm advocating calling a foul on the player who stopped.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Sorry I'm confused who I am replying to.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

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.

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.