Legal pick?

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is a reason you “call out” screens to your teammates.

Peace

I watched the play a few times and from the camera angle I don't see that it is an obvious foul or an obvious no call. I could really be fine with either call and T and C had a better look at it than us. The screener appears to be in a good position as far as timing and distance, but she also appears to lean a little at contact. We all know that the game looks different from the floor tahn it does from the stands. Tough play either way. I don't agree that you call a foul purely for game management, you call what you see. We all know there can be contact without a foul. I think Rut hit it on the head in that there should be a teammate there to call out the screen, especially at that level of basketball.

So, my definitive decsion after watching the tape is, "hell if I know."

[zeedonk]

From my (newer official) perspective, I'm probably calling that and going the other way every time. I understand that these are college players and even at the HS level, I think I'm still making that call. I think I see enough forward movement from A2 combined with the shoulder turn (slight as it may be) to turn the ball over.

I'm not so concerned with the contact (violent, excessive etc) because if she didn't move forward and turn the shoulder, I'm probably not calling it. The argument that she can brace herself for contact holds water with me, but I think I see more than that, or at least A2 operating under the theory of "I'm gonna get hit pretty good, so I'm going to brace hard and give a little back".

My impression at first view at full speed was foul on offense. Given the movement, intentional or not, of A2, if I let it go, things get out of hand pretty quickly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

My impression at first view at full speed was foul on offense. Given the movement, intentional or not, of A2, if I let it go, things get out of hand pretty quickly.

Games only get out of hand if you do not know how to deal with situations. They do not get out of hand because of one call or non-call. The violence of this play was caused because the defensive player never saw the screen. It was not caused by a slight lean at the time of contact. Actually without the slow motion replay, it was hard to tell how much lean if any at all. Because time and distance was clearly given, the screen was just not vertical and within the screener's space.

What are you going to do if you have a legal play and the violence was the same? How are you going to keep the game from getting out of hand if you have a legal play and the team on defense is still upset? I say this because most situations I have handled with my partners almost never take place based on how much air I put into my whistle.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

JRut,

I think if I have this much contact on a play, odds are there is a foul on somebody... but not always.

I worked with a guy once who told me that if there was a player down on the floor, there had to be a foul on somebody. I asked him if he had ever seen a player running down the floor just trip over his own feet with no one else around him. He said, "Gee, I never thought of that."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I think if I have this much contact on a play, odds are there is a foul on somebody... but not always.

Odds figure into it about as much as game management does. Nada! Zip! Iow, you can't depend on either; they're both completely irrelevant.

Quit over-thinking the play and simply call what happens. Each play is different; each call is different.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs... odds are there was a foul on SOMEONE...

But that's not my thought process at time of call... I'm more reacting to what happened in front of me.

I have seen that play several times where the screener does nothing illegal and a fouls should not be called. It is not about odds, it is about what happen on the play. And the NCAA has used plays like this as an example with legal screens and they did not want a foul.

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have seen that play several times where the screener does nothing illegal and a fouls should not be called.

Duh... If the screener does nothing wrong then of course it's not a foul. That wasn't the case in this situation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about odds, it is about what happen on the play. And the NCAA has used plays like this as an example with legal screens and they did not want a foul.
Peace

Yes we know. If the screen is legal they don't want a foul. It's not rocket science.

BTW I've included a link to a clip from the NCAA mandated clinic where they talk about this.

https://www.eofficials.com/controlpa...ontentID=41128

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Duh... If the screener does nothing wrong then of course it's not a foul. That wasn't the case in this situation.

Then stop telling people what needs to be called based on the violence of the contact. If it is a foul it is a foul. If it is not, it should be passed on. It is that simple. When you tell people that the violence of the contact has to be addressed and you are sending the wrong message. And that is the point and why I disagree with all this "game management" mess and "the game is going to get out of hand" crap.

BTW, I have seen the referenced and I have attended the meetings as well. I do not need a link to something I have already seen.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Yes we know. If the screen is legal they don't want a foul. It's not rocket science.

No, but when you add completely irrelevant factors to the call like hard screen, tied ball game, player injured, second half, star player, game management, what the coach/players/fans think, etc. etc., you're trying to make it into rocket science.

That's the point that people are trying to get through to you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs... odds are there was a foul on SOMEONE...

And I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs, there are NO odds involved. It either IS or it ISN'T a foul.

The "odds" are completely irrelevant when it comes to the decision that has to be made. Similarly, "game management" is completely irrelevant also to the play being discussed in this thread.

Even if your thoughts about the "odds" favoring a foul are correct, how would that be relevant or germane in any way to this particular play or any screening play for that matter? Even though the "odds" might say that it should be a foul, so what? Whatintheheck good will the "odds" do for you in the cases when there ISN'T a foul being committed?

Btw, what ARE the odds that there is a foul on someone when heavy contact occurs? 51%-49%? 99%-1%? Or should we take a poll every time it happens?

Jmo again, and I know that you must be getting sick of reading it, but you're over-thinking the hell outa this call. You simply "read and react". The hardest part to learn is what to look for in these type of screening situations....time and distance, verticality, moving/leaning, exaggerated stance, blind or not, foot in a boundary line, etc....and to do it in a hurry-up bang-bang type of situation. After you master those(and I'm not sure that we ever completely master them), you're doing yourself a dis-service by adding irrelevant factors to make what can be a tough call even tougher.

Btw, all JRut is doing is saying just about the exact same thing but in a different way. And he's not the only one doing so in this thread.