Screening
 

Whatcha got on this? And why??

https://youtu.be/eDBuxgrZ52k

Nothing.

Screener gave plenty of time and distance. Turned his torso to absorb contact. 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.

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.

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.

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

Embedding is your friend.
 

I am calling a foul on the defender. The screener was just trying to protect himself. Nothing hard to sell, he has a right to prepare for contact. And he did not turn directly into him.

Peace

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

Now that I watch it again, you're right. Push on the defender.

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.

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.

By what rule is that an illegal screen?

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.

You never explained why it is an illegal screen.

In my mind the kid moved toward the defender. I have no problem with him going back a little for impact but he goes up. Just my opinion

Push through the screen.

What was the call in the OP?

I don't think it's that hard of a sell. The screener turned his shoulder into the defender.

I did not intend to speak down to you but the veterans in the Forum will tell you that I am the 'bulldog' in the Forum with to respect to the Guarding and Screening Rules. In other words I take it very seriously and will take to task any one who plays fast and loose withe two Rules. And the faster and looser one plays with either of the two Rules the more irritated this 'bald old geezer' gets.

MTD, Sr.

No worries and not mad. I am here to share but also to learn from the older guys who have more knowledge then me.

Push on the defense.

Also Randa - if every other veteran, after seeing a video, have the same call and you are the only one that see's things different it would be safe to say that your call and/or logic is wrong. I would say this applies to anything in life.

I have let plenty of hard screens go when set legally, but I don't think this is legal. The screener can brace or move back to absorb contact, but they can not turn their shoulder into the defender's chest/neck area.

I will say its close and I think reasonable officials could come away with 3 different calls here (illegal screen, no call, or push by defense) based on how they interpret the screening rules.

And in this case the screener moved towards the defender, he didn't lean away.

By rule, the screener may turn or brace for contact, but I'm not sure the screener braces here (even after watching slo mo). IMHO, the screener delivered a blow by turning his shoulder into the defender. So, Illegal screen

Hard to tell from this angle, but it also looks like the screener's legs might be set pretty wide as well. Food for thought.

Why would that matter if the contact is not with the legs? If the contact is with the torso, I would not care if the legs are wide. The legs only come into play if there is some leg contact. But you got through a player's chest and you were legal otherwise, not sure we should consider that part of the stance.

Peace

I am sure. We shouldn't.

I had about 30 seconds to watch between classes and didn’t get a great look. From my one look, I thought maybe there was contact by screeners knee. Upon second viewing, that was incorrect. My apologies for inconveniencing Jenkins with my idiotic quick take.

there is no rule that says contact with an offensive players shoulder is a foul on the offensive player. all he did was turn to avoid the contact (which was pretty hard IMO). There is no expectation that he stand there and take it like a "man" (or woman).

On bit of a side note....

Generally speaking, there has to be contact for there to be a foul. Given that concept, I think there should be reform that penalizes illegal things that don't have contact, but affect the defense. This is close to being a good example. If someone sets a screen with their feet wider than deemed by the rules, they should be penalized, specifically if it affects the defense. If there is contact, the call is easy. Now, if the defense runs, because of the wide stance, in an adverse pattern to avoid contact, I think the screener should be penalized. I'm thinking violation. Without contact, we have excessive elbow swinging being a violation. Why not a new one for an illegal screen without contact.

Stupid? Genius? Other acts that might be treated similarly?

What about a player attempting to block a shot such that the shooter has to adjust to get around it. If not for that, the defender may have very well hit the shooter's arm. Are we calling something on that because the shooter had to adjust and, in the process of doing so, avoiding creating a foul on the defender and missed the shot?

You don't avoid contact by turning into the object that is coming at you.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Defensive foul. Screener didn't turn his shoulder into the defender or initiate contact in any way, simply turned to brace for the train heading his way.

That is a move by the defense, not the offense. I am discussing an illegal screen by the offense.

The point remains. If we're going to call what-ifs, where does it stop?

I think we watched 2 different videos. The contact was happening no matter what. The offensive player didn't turn into the defender. That defender was making a beeline to the screen, and had no idea the screen was even there.

Exactly. The screener knew he was going to get trucked and get the defender's head right in his chin, so he turned his head and shoulders to brace himself. This is not an illegal screen.

Nothing, becuase it's legal.

Not sure what you mean. It stops when a player does something illegal that negatively impacts another player. Your previous play described something that was legal.

Just make a call. Do it for the kids. They are all going to get horrible hurt if we don't.

And a screen that moves or has a stance too wide but doesn't cause contact is also legal.

Um, no kidding, that is what could use a change. Originally indicated in my post some time ago.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know. I'm just wondering how far you want to take the idea. Hence, my question about a defender who disrupts the shooters shot without making contact such that it would be a defensive foul if there were contact.

Your idea, at least if I'm understanding it, is to make something illegal that, without contact, influences the ability of an opponent to make a desired play but elected to deviate from a desired path while, if the opponent hadn't avoided contact, there would be a foul.