Screen question with video

[TRef21]

I have illegal screen. The Screener did not allow a normal step will setting the back screen.

[tjones1]

How did you get the link to work?

[CoachP]

Thanks for the input so far. The official said she had plenty of time to avoid the screen and called a foul on blue.

I argued it was a blind screen from behind and she only had one step.

But, we now have the advantage of slo-mo.....

I didn't do anything tjones, somehow it's just not working for you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Thanks for the input so far. The official said she had plenty of time to avoid the screen and called a foul on blue.

I argued it was a blind screen from behind and she only had one step.

How many steps does she need?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How many steps does she need?

One step. I don't think when gold set her screen, she allowed blue for her normal step. When gold was set, blue was in the process of her step.

[rockyroad]

Certainly not a foul on blue...I would probably go with a no-call and at some point in the near future talk to that gold player about setting better screens...but no way is that a foul on blue.

[SamIAm]

First off, if you want this officiated closely, you will have to give up a foul call here and there as the official will be looking at the floor instead of the play.

I have no whistle on this play in regular time.

Oops! (I deleted a line here concerning the coach's understanding of a blind screen. After reading the coaches later response it made this line moot.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

One step. I don't think when gold set her screen, she allowed blue for her normal step. When gold was set, blue was in the process of her step.

That's the right rule reference, but now I'm confused. In your previous post, you said "she only had one step". Now, you say she wasn't allowed her step. Whichever it is will determine the "right" ruling -- and mabe the calling official missed it -- s/he didn't have the advantage of the replay.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's the right rule reference, but now I'm confused. In your previous post, you said "she only had one step". Now, you say she wasn't allowed her step. Whichever it is will determine the "right" ruling -- and mabe the calling official missed it -- s/he didn't have the advantage of the replay.

Originally Posted by CoachP

I argued it was a blind screen from behind and she only had one step.

Yup.
Bob, that's what I typed.....boy did that come out wrong at 7 am.

Blue was using her "one step" as the screen was set. And yes, slo mo has it's advantages, maybe I can upload it at full speed when I get home tonight and let you guys look at game speed.

But also what I am hearing (in the responses) is "no call" or "illegal screen". At what point (what has to happen) for the "no call" to change to "illegal screen"?

For all the "illegal screen" responses, if #40 blue goes thru gold in this clip, is it still an illegal screen?

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Thanks for the input so far. The official said she had plenty of time to avoid the screen and called a foul on blue.

I argued it was a blind screen from behind and she only had one step.

But, we now have the advantage of slo-mo.....

I didn't do anything tjones, somehow it's just not working for you?

I don't even think she had a step. Either way, I wouldn't make the call on blue, and if I made a call we would be going the other way.

[tmp44]

No call or illegal screen....


...definitely not a foul on blue.

[Bad Zebra]

Looks like gold screener #14 shifted laterally but allowed a step, albeit a small one. As gold #30 started to drive, blue #40 closed the gap quickly at the point of impact. I go with a no call in real time, which was my gut after watching it the first time.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I hope that JR is reading this thread because I am going to request his opinion on my post because he has been at this even longer that I have.

1) The video appears to be at less than regular speed. With that in mind, A2 set a legal screen against B1 who is guarding A1.

2) Any ruling I give will be the same for NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, and FIBA.

3) NFHS R4-S40-A1 states: A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

4) The phrase "without causing contact" refers to illegal contact by the player being screened.

5) Based upon what I saw on the video, I would have ruled that A2 set a legal screen and the contact by B1 was not a foul. Why, you ask is B1's contact not a foul? NFHS R4-S19-A1 states: A person foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A person foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead. NOTE: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or an airborner shooter. While B1's contact with A2 caused A2 to fall down, notice that B1 stopped as soon as she made contact with A2; B1 did not move through A2.

6) On a personal note, I do not believe an official ever has a "no call." A "no call" means that an official saw something illegal and decided not to penalize it. Either nothing illegal happened or something illegal happened and it must be penalized.

MTD, Sr.

[REFVA]

I looked at it about 10 times and the slow mo basically tells me it was more like two steps, i didn't think it was one step. Other than the screen being behind her I would go with no call, then I also think there was a little academy award on the fall. SO I go with not call.. and in most cases the less experienced officials will blow the whistle and go with a illegal screen. JMO