Illegal screens?
 

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.

<div style="width:100%;height:0px;position:relative;pad ding-bottom:56.442%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/02k4f/bjdlcr" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width:100%;height:100%;position:absolute;le ft:0px;top:0px;overflow:hidden;"></iframe></div>

<div style="width:100%;height:0px;position:relative;pad ding-bottom:55.918%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/99hl1/phfeux" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width:100%;height:100%;position:absolute;le ft:0px;top:0px;overflow:hidden;"></iframe></div>

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.

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.

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.

It's not clear if that happens.

I guess I'll have to disagree with you fellas. My opinion is her backside clearly thrusts backward. Either way, it was a dirty play and I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt on this especially since it's 80 feet from the basket.

#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.

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.

I'm just wondering: in #1 how are they judged to be going in the "same direction"? The screener was going north-south and the defender was running diagonally.

Also, #21 doesn't even get her feet set until the defender is right on her shoulder. You don't think she's late?

I also feel like the thrusts her hips backward to help create the contact. I realize this may not be super-obvious (and hence the color analyst thought it was not a foul), but IMHO she clearly moves her hips a little bit.

Thanks to everyone for chiming in. It's great to hear the feedback.

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.

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.

No, it isn't.

No, she doesn't. Use the floor/background as a reference. She simply stops and braces for contact. There is no part of her body that changes direction back towards the opponent.

Play 1 was a legal screen.

Also, welcome and good plays to discuss for your 1st post.

I used quotes for "same" because while not exactly the same direction, both were moving up the floor, 21 stopped, girl ran into her. Nothing to call. As others said I don't think the hips moved back, they moved upon contact. Don't need your feet set if you have legal position and she did.

Got me it’s not a matter of her moving into girl or not. She simply stops short but doesn’t give the defender time or space to react. Illegal screen.

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.

First one is legal and the second is not.

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

Thanks! This is exactly why I joined the forum. I knew I'd learn a lot.

Not relevant. You never have to give time for the opponent to react when a player stops. That is for moving INTO another player's path. When it is a matter of one player following another (same path/direction) the following player is responsible for contact if the player in front stops regardless of the time/distance.

The majority is wrong

Sadly, that is not uncommon. :/

#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

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).

On the first, here's how I see it.

The screener doesn't move towards the defender, she slows her movement away from her. This quickly closes the distance between them and works as a screen.

On the second: illegal but slight movement. I like to get those on occasion, but I could see passing here.

#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.

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

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 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

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.

Agree to disagree I do not believe the6nare moving in same direction or following same path. If they. We’re there would be an Oreo type hit ball moving forward, girl getting sandwich not a side on hit.

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

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

And Don't Think For A Second That I Won't Use It ...
 

Be careful. I've got a protractor in my pocket and I know how to use it.

1st is legal 21 just stopped. I don't think she stuck her backside out to make the contact. The player in gray just assumed 21 was going to keep running.

2nd is illegal and I wouldn't pass on it.

True or false . A person traveling east and a person traveling southeast are traving in the same direction on the same path.

Jeff:

You sound like me in quoting the Simplified and Illustrated Rule Book, :D.

And between Billy, a Chemist, and me, a Structural Engineer we have pocket protectors, mechanical pencils, and protractors covered.

MTD, Sr.

Slide Rulers ...
 

You forgot slide rulers. I've got one and I'm not afraid to use it. If they outlaw slide rulers only outlaws will have slide rulers.

But apparently not English. Remember to proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

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

BM - with all due respect I doubt your "slide ruler" is getting much attention from the moms on Friday night or Saturday morning at the youth games.....����������

Bob:

Yes, I know, LOL! I went back and corrected my grammar.

MTD, Sr.

Billy:

How could I forget slide rules. When I entered engineering school in September 1969, it was a right of passage for a student entering engineering school to buy his first slide rule. My first and only slide rule (which I still have and I kept by my side even as I went through my engineering career) as a Post Versalog 1460. I also a half size Post Versalog 1460 and a Post Trig Slide Rule.

When Mark, Jr., entered engineering school I went on eBay and bought him a Post Versalog 1460.

MTD, Sr.

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.

The defender ran squarely into the small of the screener's back; that won't change no matter how much you are upset about the play. Her a$$ & hips had nothing to do with the contact.

I'm not upset about the play. I just don't agree with you. Continuing to say the same thing that I don't agree with isn't going to change my mind. Appreciate your perspective though.

Video doesn't lie. Has nothing to do with philosophies or agreement or anything else.

I use video to get better, not to validate my opinions.

I'm not exactly extremely tech savvy and for whatever reason, my pictures are too big to post here. Here is a Google draw frame-by-frame. You're telling me in these pics, if she were leaning that much on a defender coming from her front (leaning in any direction, front, side-to-side), you aren't calling that illegal?

Maybe this will work

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Zp...o=w218-h226-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Lf...H=w224-h220-no

No because she stopped. And she ran directly into her back. She did not stick her butt out, she ran into her no matter what she did because the defender was not paying at all attention.

Sorry, but if that is your logic, it is not very good logic. And this is why you cannot show pictures because her feet a planted on the floor and the defender runs directly into her.

Peace

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

I will respectfully agree to disagree. Have a great week.

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.

These passive-aggressive responses do nothing to improve your play-calling.

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?

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

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.

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

Sorry I'm confused who I am replying to.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

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.

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. :eek:

Just so you aren't alone, I tend to agree with you. This is a bogus play and I don't think anyone would have a serious problem if it was called.

If we are talking about the play where the back was hit, yes I would have a problem if there was a foul call when the screener did nothing wrong. So speak for your position, not what everyone would think. I am not penalizing a big player because a player ran into them and they were not at all illegal in their positioning.

Peace