Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 1018201)

Illegal screen. Turning of the torso may have been to absorb contact, but he turned such that his torso (right shoulder) was moving forward into the defender at the time of the screen.

Originally Posted by zm1283 (Post 1018196)

The rule book even states that on a blind screen the player being screened may not see the screener in time to avoid contact and the collision might be severe but should be ruled incidental.

If you feel like the defensive player saw the screener and displaced him, push on the defense.

Originally Posted by Big_Blue_Wannabe (Post 1018195)

Whatcha got on this? And why??

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eDBuxgrZ52k" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1018205)

I am calling him for illegal screen. It’s going to be a nightmare trying to sell that to a coach.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1018204)

That is really splitting hairs.

Despite the turn, even if it was just a bit towards the opponent. I see that turn as a movement to protect himself from getting crushed. He even stepped away with the left foot.




This wasn't a blind screen, the defender was running forward right at it. Just because he had is head turned doesn't make it blind. It just means he wasn't looking where he was going. A blind screen is one set outside of the visual field and visual field is defined as behind the screened player.

Push on the defender.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1018207)

Um. No. Bad rationale.

Nothing by the book, but if you’re in the camp of “gotta call something” (which I probably would be here), it’s a push on the defender. To say he displaced the legal screener is an understatement.

Not hard to sell to the defender’s coach at all. Screener stood there like a tree. He might not be happy but I’m keeping that conversation very short and we’re moving on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1018205)

I am calling him for illegal screen. It’s going to be a nightmare trying to sell that to a coach.

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1018211)

I still believe it was a illegal screen just my take. Not scared to piss off a coach just saying it would be a hard sell.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1018212)

Let me understand your "logic". A1 sets a legal Screen, but you are going call a Blocking Foul on A1 because you do not want to deal with the "nightmare" of selling a Charging Foul against B1 to B-HC? :eek:

You do not want to know what I think of that kind of "illogical" thinking. By my standards, I am speechless right now.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1018216)

Look I like this site and most guys here seem nice. I have no problem having a discussion but not going to be treated like I am beneath someone. I clearly stated after that saying I feel it was an illegal screen and have NO PROBLEM explaining that to a coach but it would be a hard sell since the kid moved.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1018217)

You never explained why it is an illegal screen.