It is one thing to get consensus here on the board, but that means nothing in the actual games that are being played. You can teach the correct method of setting a screen and still some ref will interpret the actual play differently. I am sure that is frustrating to you as a coach, I know it is frustrating to me when I sit in the stands and see a ref call something drastically different that what I saw or to see a ref kick a rule interpretation. But teaching correct technique will help in the long run. Now if we did your games ...

I do think very little of this has to do with how officials interpret the rules. Officials do not all have the same judgment. If you noticed some people were not accurate about how many steps were actually taken before actual contact. So either way it goes it is not all about rules knowledge. There are people that cannot process what they see and what the rules say. This is why taking a test does not prove how you officiate.

Peace

Oh,no,no,no,no...I wasn't really after a consensus, but clarification, as I had this called a foul on blue #40 in the game. After saving the video to slo-mo on the computer and trying to compare it to 4-40, I was getting confused.

These 2 days of posts helped a lot.

I have a 30 free trial to the site that hosted the clips....maybe I can find some blarges, reaches and over the backs for you guys to hack over.

And no, Mick won't do any of my games. I even offered to pay the $5 for the Mackinac Bridge.

The ref in the clip was doing a good job of watching the ball, because I don't think he ever saw the screener until she hit the floor. Thanks, JRut & JR, for putting my thoughts into words on this. JR, when you figure out what video Blind Zebra is looking at, can you let us know??

CoachP, add me to the 'NO CALL' list. I think I stated that in my other post in the other thread (slo-mo) also.

Jmo but I don't think that you need to change anything re: teaching unless the officials in your area are consistent about calling fouls for <b>all</b> contact during screens.

The one that clearly shows that time and distance were not given, not my fault that you don't understand the rules and how to properly apply them.

The screener moved up and into the defender mid-step and then fell down from very little contact.

The only thing you got right was that it should be a no-call.

If it is going to be called a foul, it's a block on the screener.

The one thing it isn't, is what was actually called.

If this was an illegal screen, then I have never seen a legal screen my entire career. Now you can say this was illegal, the screen was completely still at the time of contact and the defender took steps toward the screener when the screener completely stopped. If you are calling this illegal, every trip up the court on a screening team would have a foul. Most of the time screens are not set this well. And at the very least the contact was minimal and insignificant. If the player was cleared out by the defender, then they would not have fallen with their feet in the same place. They would have been thrown out of the way.

Peace

You are absolutely correct.

The screener re-sets her screen a couple of times and the last one was when #40's left foot was in the air and the contact occured as her foot returned. Absolutely not allowing time and distance.

Pause it and really watch it this time.

The screener re-set her screen as #40 took a step, she was mid step at the point of contact.

As I've said many times, this contact doesn't deserve a foul either way, but if one is going to be called it has to be on the screener, who did not give time or distance.

BZ,

I looked at the video three or four times each time I looked at it. First of all the falling of the screener was exaggerated or a flop. The defender did not even continue running through the screen. Once she made contact, she stopped moving. So even if the screen was not completely legal (which I do not agree with but for the sake of argument), then the contact did not pass the test that I have for what should be called. All contact is not a foul. The defender would have to try to keep going forward rather than hardly moving after they felt the other player.

I totally think the contact was legal and if there was any foul to be called it would have been on the defender not the screener for the reasons I stated above.

Peace

no-call. Period. Screener was not hindered from performing legal screening action, blue didn't play through. Screen was legal.

Coach, what level of varsity is this? the action seems a little lackadaisical. I expect more intensity at the varsity level.

Uh...Varsity....you know 12th grade on down and such?:D

MHSAA has 4 classes based on enrollment, A,B,C and D. We would be a D if we were members.

But, we are members of a Michigan Christian school organization and have our own state tourney. But, we have had a couple D3 players in our conference and a D1 a few years ago.


Believe me SO DO I!!!!
But those homer officials ;) kept calling fouls on us....so we laid back...a little.
Nobody fouled out all season, but 3 in this game.
We were coasting at this point in the game with a 15 point lead.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when they make comments like <i>"This is NFHS rules and the defender clearly didn't take <b>2</b> strides."</i> :D

When they say something like that, it really <b>is</b> obvious that they don't understand time and distance principles under the rules and how to properly apply those principles.

Yep, she didn't take 2 strides.

She didn't take one stride either.

The contact occurred during her first step after the screener re-set her screen, but hey keep being wrong if ya want to, no skin off my nose.

Whether it was one stride or not is a judgment call.

Thinking that 2 strides was necessary though under NFHS rules is simply not understanding time/distance principles correctly under those rules. That was exactly what you tried to claim SeanFitzRef was guilty of.

Just saying....:)