Screen video part 2
 

Sorry for dragging this into another thread. Here is the real time clip of the previous video from the beginning of the play thru the report to the table.

The hot assistant getting the stop sign is MrsCoachP, so be nice.:D

<a href="http://www.mydeo.com/videorequest.asp?XID=1073&CID=89242">real time screen.wmv</a>

I wasn't sure at slow speed, but at full speed, this is definately a legal screen.

While blue #40 does give a bit of a hip bump to the gold player, I think it's part of her normal motion and she does a good job of stopping upon contact. Legal play all around to me.

This was very legal and not any contact I would call on a screen. Then again this looks like kiddy ball on the girls side and when they look at each many officials seem to call a foul.

Secondly, I do not know that the official even gave the stop sign. If that might have been more of a "sit down" motion rather than a stop sign.

Peace

Clean screen. That asst. coach looks cute i wish i could see her face

ART. 5 . . . When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance need not be more than two strides.

100% illegal screen, and certainly not enough contact to call a foul on the defender had it been a legal screen.

Are you referring to the h.s. book? In NCAA it's no more than a step.

That is the NFHS rules and the defender clearly didn't take 2 strides, I don't think she took one so it's an illegal screen under NCAA rules too.

In either case the contact wasn't enough to even have a call.

Looks like a no call to me...

I disagree with your call and the rules assumption that you used to make it. Two strides is a <b>maximum</b> under NFHS rule 4-40-5, not a <b>minimum</b>. What you didn't mention or account for was that the distance allowed by the screener <b>may</b> legally be less than 2 strides. It can be <b>ONE</b> step by rule. NFHS rule 10-6-3(c)--<i>"A player who screens shall not take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. This position will vary and <b>may be ONE or two normal steps or strides from the opponent</b>."</i>

In the video, the screener definitely gave a step imo, and the player being screened wasn't running at full speed either, necessitating 2 strides to be given. It's a completely legal screen with a no-call for the contact. No-brainer imo.

Btw, the NCAA rule is the same as the NFHS rule. NCAA rules 4-57AR101 and 10-22AR220 both say <b>"one OR two strides"</b>.

Again, two strides aren't mandatory under NFHS rules. The call is determined partially by the speed that the player being screened is moving. If the player being screened is not running at full speed, one stride allowed may be both sufficient and legal. The FED rules citation is above. See case book play 10-6-3SitC also.

Not at that point in the clip you didn't!

This is Varsity.....allbeit not AAA.....there are hoops in places other than big cities!:rolleyes:

.......and I have no clue what the second half of your sentence was trying to say!

I have viewed this video many times also, pausing it when I think the feet yellow 14 are set. I then look at the position of blue 40 and her feet at that point. In every case where I pause, B40 is in the middle of her step and when she finishes that step, the contact occurs. Originally, I thought this was a no call. The more I think about it, I am inclined to call an illegal screen. I do not think B40 had time or distance to react to the blind screen and the contact cause an advantage for the offense.

I don't have audio capability at work, but it appears the official is calling a pushing foul on blue #40. So, the ref in the video apparently thought the screen was legal and blue #40 was trying to push through...is this interpretation of the clip correct?

From the perspective of the camera, the screen looked clean and the contact looked incidental. I'd like to think I would "no-call" this, but I would be more inclined to understand a blocking call on gold #14. IF the foul call was on blue...then I guess gold really sold it! :D

The call made was a push on blue #40.

Looks like I am running about 15-16 people going with no call.
About 7 illegal screens.
Nobody saw a foul on #40 blue as of yet.

Thanks for all the input. I am now getting a better understanding from all the discussions on how to teach this sitch.

Which is BTW, in Michigan, girls are switching from Fall to Winter next season.

If this is varsity ball, then these are some very small looking players. I am not sure I understand the "big city" reference. You obviously have not seen basketball in many rural areas. They are just as big if not bigger on the girl's side in rural parts than in the city.

And think you for reminding me why I do not work girl’s basketball.

Peace

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....:)

I posted the rule and said, "Clearly she didn't take two strides, she didn't even take one," you incorrectly jumped to the assumption that means she needed two strides.

Show me where I said, she has to allow her 2 strides?

:rolleyes:

But BZ, what almost everyone is saying is, the screener was set enough in this play for it to be legal, because of the speed of the play. I know and understand the rule, and understand its application in real time basketball. The defender took one complete slide step (WATCH THE RIGHT FOOT) as the screener got set (WATCH HER LEFT FOOT). I think the slide step counts as a stride, no? And as JRut said, if this is an illegal screen, we better all blow our whistles until we're blue in the face, because I've seen much worse not called.

Oh yeah, I'm done with this one. Agree to disagree.

It was a fair enough question....there are people who refer to a game as a "Varsity" game just because the players are 16-17 years old...not necessarily with any relationship to a school team or a comparable skill level. I've even heard of some that refer to much younger teams a varsity games....as in middle school varsity.

That is true...my humblest apologies to Juulie!

...Michigan hoodlum.

I'd love to ref your games. Schedule permitting, I'd do it for the cost of the bridge, and you would get what you paid for. :)

I initially had an illegal screen. 4th time through I decided that the screen was set in line of sight (peripherally) from the side and that at least one step was allowed before contact.
I recognized that #40 barely flinched when she knocked #14 to the floor (Obvious to me that #40 didn't consider little #14 to be much of a factor).

Too, I figger the official had a real fine angle that the telephoto distorted.

Now, to judge the flop or the displacement of the legal screen I would have had to have seen the rest of the game to determine if #40 was a bully in part of the game, or if #14 had been shying from contact, or if #14 had been taking a beating for part of the game.

If #40 is a clean player and #14 is a flopper then maybe the thing gets no-called.

#40 is a bull in a china shop and that is probably the first time ever she has ever tried to stop when hitting a screen. She's learnin'.

There is a chance I'll be in Dumb Bear in November now that we switched to winter. Right now its a slim chance. When/if it is certain, I can let you know and if you want some preseason tourney work, you can give Dennis a holler!

That's cool. Have you ever seen a playing floor marked up like that, with all the bright multi-colored lines?

Nope, the 2 times I've been in their gym, they had the tarp out. Big conferences/dinner of some sort.

Having seen it in real time, I can see the push on blue #40 or even a no call (sorry MTD). I say this knowing that we have the advantage of looking at it many times over and knowing something is coming.