Illegal Screens

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's the boys' technique, girls like to protect themselves a little higher.

Then I suggest arms crossed, hands on opposite shoulder, because, every alternative I've seen leads to either the lean in push or the chickenwing chuck.

[riden]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Then I suggest arms crossed, hands on opposite shoulder, because, every alternative I've seen leads to either the lean in push or the chickenwing chuck.

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by riden

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

They are not allowed to extend their arms, so what is being taught is illegal.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by riden

I see your point BUT

The argument is, even if the technique is perfect it is illegal.

From what I see, these girls have very good technique and are not leaning.

The way I envision it as long as they don't overtly extend their elbows out beyond their shoulders or use their elbows to chuck the other player this stance is perfectly legal.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The way I envision it as long as they don't overtly extend their elbows out beyond their shoulders or use their elbows to chuck the other player this stance is perfectly legal.

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

[riden]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

The first contact with the defender is with extended arms, I could further argue that this doesn't meet the natural position part of the rules either.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

That works as a guideline, assuming they are in a natural position. I think your screeners are legal.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by riden

But because their knees are bent (semi-squat), the arms are over their toes.

The cylinder should go from toes to your butt in that position, correct? And the arms, while in front of the body, are still over the toes.

This is really the basis of the disagreement

I have seen this used. As long as the arms give when contact occurrs I would allow it as long as the arms where flexed very little. I would have to watch specifically for it to be sure, but I suspect the arms flex out some as part of absorbing the contact when the arms are initially kept against the body. However I have noticed a subsequent action that I wouldn't allow. When contact does occurr, hands are relleased, with the elbows staying extended. That creates a bit of a "|V|" shape where the defender is between the elbows. The defender is then placed at an illegal disadvantage IMO when that happens.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

As long as the arms give when contact occurrs I would allow it as long as the arms where flexed very little. I would have to watch specifically for it to be sure, but I suspect the arms flex out some as part of absorbing the contact when the arms are initially kept against the body.

Sam, what the arms do after the contact doesn't have anything to do with whether the screen is legal or not. The position of the arms and where the contact occurs will determine whether the screen is legal or not.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

They are extending them infront of their body, not out to the sides...knees bent leaning back arms out, but not beyond their toes. Think the I Dream of Genie pose.

I read that as arms extended nearly a foot in front of their body.

Maybe you see them extending their upper arms & elbows out in an exaggerated stance. If that's what it is then I agree it could be illegal. What I envision is they are in a natural stance - their arms do not have to be held as flat as possible against their chests to be legal.

As long as they don't chuck the player coming at them or the player running by them they are fine.