Legal pick?
 

Check it out. Have your speakers on to hear the announcer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9rYa...eature=related

Foul. Rutledge will most certainly disagree. :)

Illegal block. The player setting the pick is moving forward out of her vertical at contact.

It is a violent play. Nobody will say a thing if you call a foul on that play.

That wouldn't be the reason I would call the foul. I have seen plenty of violent collisions on legal screens, and I would've been wrong to call a foul just so "no one would say anything".

In this case, the screener did not provide the required time/distance before stepping in the path of the opponent. My guess is it caught the new T by surprise, since it was secondary defender. This would've been a good call by the C.

It was only a foul because the screener did not stand still at the moment of contact (body, not feet). But to suggest that there was a lowered shoulder would be an exaggeration.

I guess you would call a foul not because of what the player did, but because the player was possibly hurt. The result of what happened to the defender should have little or no relevance to the call. This was a smaller player running into a bigger player. She would have likely had the same result no matter if a foul took place or not. There is a reason you “call out” screens to your teammates.

Peace

First, the talking head is an idiot to make the statement that the official did not see the contact.

Second, B2 had acquired (I hope I spelled that word correctly.) her position legally: she gave proper time and distance in relation to the moving A2. Keeping in mind that we are all seeing this play at actual game speed this what I also say. B2's body did not sway from side to side to cause contact with A2. B2 did stick her chest out prior to A2 making contact with her. Keeping mind that a player who is setting a screen can brace themselves against imminent contact, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to B2 in this play. She did not push out with her hands and arms in an effort to push A2 nor did I think her sticking our her chest was an effort to push A2; it was an effort to brace herself against immenint contact by A2. Therefore, I have this as a legal screen by B2 and there is no foul by A2 because B2 was not displaced. This is pretty much a text book legal screen against a moving opponent.

MTD, Sr.

Severity of contact is <b>NEVER</b> a factor in determining whether a block is legal or not.

See NFHS rule 4-40-7.

When you are "bracing" yourself, you don't lean toward the oncoming player, which in my opinion she does (obvious in slow motion). Let's focus on the game management of the play. If you think that a no-call in this situation is good for the game, then by all means I would like to hear what kind of explanation the coach gets. I imagine this crew was in hot water the rest of the night.

Mark,

I completely agree with you. The only reason I think it was a foul was because I saw the replay. Live speed, it was suspect at best and I see why a foul was not called. This is after all another 50/50 play that is really hard to call when live, especially for a single official to handle. And the C would likely not be looking at this play, because all the other players have released to the FC.

Peace

The text book says <b>"The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart."</b> That's rule 4-40-2(d) in the NFHS textbook, Mark. Sticking your chest <b>INTO</b> an opponent is <b>NOT</b> bracing for contact; it's being out of your vertical plane.

Look, I haven't seen the play yet (stupid firewalls), but are you saying you'd call a foul just for game management purposes, even if the rules did not call for one?

Let's change this play and assume for a second that B2 had position, had stood there since the end of the 2004 Olympics, and A2 crashed into B2, falling to the floor but did not so much as make B2 flinch. What's your call?

Normally I would agree with this blanket statement. :)
However, they might be correct - there is a chance the T was straight-lined. If you look at each replay, there is a relatively straight line from the official to the ball handler, to the defender, then the screener.

I disagree; I thought she was still moving into the path of the defender at the moment of contact. I also have to agree with the Jurassic One in that the screener poking out her chest is no different than hip-checking a cutter on the way by - both moves are illegal due to the rule he cited.

Jeff - on your point about the C releasing downcourt - I did look at the play again, and you're right that all the other players had passed half court, and the C was following them. It would be a good call for the C to make if there were a few more players in the backcourt, but you're right that the C might not be available to hang back that long to get that call.

The fact that we had to look at the play in slow motion (from two angles BTW) should tell you and everyone something.

And as I said, you are more worried about the result of the play, not whether it was legal or not. I would feel better if you just said it was illegal. Game management really has nothing to do with this play. At the very least it does not on a clip we see of one play.

Peace

The violence or lack thereof notwithstanding...

The screener makes a forward motion with her torso that is clearly not just bracing herself for contact.

Illegal screen.

As mentioned before, there is zero percent chance of getting in trouble by blowing your whistle here. Not because of "game management", but because it's the right call, and everybody can see it.

Had she just stood there it would have been a good screen, albeit a tough one (for that defender, anyway). The extra motion was unnecessary and illegal.

Agree the T may have been straight-lined, but I'm thinking his height, along with the rather large height difference between the screener and defender, should have presented the necessary look at the illegal torso action. But full speed, who knows.

"Make all your errors errors of omission" - John Clougherty

I think this is overall well said. The "laying into" the defender by the offensive player is an unnatural move or overt move. She is not bracing herself she is trying to add a little extra to her screen. That is not a legitimate basketball move or play.

I agree that the game management reason is not the best statement to make here but I understand what he's saying. You could def be wrong on this play but be right cause no one is going to say a word.

Final verdict from me: illegal screen in every sense!

Okay, I just saw the replay, and it's an easy call on A2. Looking at the point of contact, her legs are nearly 45 degrees from the floor as she leans into the oncoming player. Bracing for contact does not include a body check.

My first thought was a possible intentional foul; when illegal contact (and this was) gets excessive (this might be), it can be an intentional regardless of "intent."

BTW, I still don't know what exactly "game management" is. Some cite it to justify not calling a technical foul. Others cite it when claiming they never have to call a technical foul. Still others cite it when calling a foul on what should, by rule, be incidental contact. Note again for the record, this play does not qualify as incidental contact, IMO, because A2 was obviously leaning into her and in real speed, it looks like she even used her arms to increase the level of contact.

Good game management is how you describe <b>your</b> own calls.

Bad game management is how you describe other official's calls.

And game interrupters are how you describe any call that you don't personally agree with.

It's true, it's true.

That would be a perfect example of bad game management.

Not a chance, IMO.

I see the body extending from the vertical as well as the arms coming away from the body. At minimum it's a personal foul. Excessive contact enters my mind - no doubt.

I had almost this same play in a game last year, except the defender (B2 in this situation) ran over the screener (A2). B2 was completely blindsided, but when she turned around they made contact and A2 fell over. Of course everyone was screaming but I let it go.

Edit: As for the video, there is no way it's intentional. It's VERY borderline in my opinion on whether it's even a foul or not. Hard to tell from the video.

Really? I couldn't tell from the camera angle if she extends her arms, or just leans her whole body. If she extends her arms like that on a blind screen, I don't see how you could argue against an intentional. It's well within the rules, IMO.

I don't speak for JR, but I think GM is real. However, I see it get tossed out as the reason for either bad calls (calling a foul when none should be called), no calls (on violations, for example) (wait, those are game interrupters, never mind), or ignoring unsporting behavior. It almost seems like it's used as a catch-all excuse for taking the easy way out.

I couldn’t be more adamant that you shouldn't call an intentional foul. When I watched it w/o the replays I thought illegal screen because she leaned into her a little bit. Certainly not much and certainly not enough to warrant an intentional. Yes it was a hard foul, but that’s what happens when players get picked off in the backcourt in most instances.

Game management thoughts.

We have a tie game at the 13:00 mark in the second half. If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

Calling the illegal screen as a common foul is the way to go in this instance. No way should it even be considered intentional.

So, you're saying you don't make a particular call because you're afraid the coach might not like it and be on your case?

If you're worried about making coaches happy, you're in the wrong business. Who gives a damn if we're questioned about <b>any</b> call that we make? The only worry we should have is to get the call <b>right</b>!

Game management has absolutely NOTHING to do with worrying about how the coaches, players or fans are going to react to a call.

And that right there would be my biggest gripe with the whole "game management" way of thinking. I can't even begin to count the number of times a supervisor or evaluator has used a line like" What do you think the coach thought of that call?" or "How do you think that looked to the blue coach?" - and then used that to lead into a discussion on their thoughts about "game management"...my response to those questions is -and will be - "I have no idea what they thought. It was (or wasn't) a foul and that's why I did (or didn't) blow the whistle."

No I said I'm going to make the right call which is an illegal screen. Calling an intentional foul would be questionable at best and would more than likely lead to problems the rest of the game if you came up with both arms crossed.

It’s game management in the since that an intentional foul would lead to cluster #$%!

I'm all about getting the call right. The right call is a blocking foul and no intentional.

I could care less what the fans think and I certainly am not on that court to make coaches happy. I call the game to the best of my ability and portion of that is making sure that I have great Game Management.

I was only going by what you stated:

If you would've said: "It's not an intentional foul because it doesn't meet the criteria of 4-19-3", I can live with that. But that isn't what you stated.

While I'm not necessarily arguing for the intentional call, I can see where it might be considered. Let's put it in a slightly different context: let's say green #12 is the ball handler and driving to the basket, and white #54 is the defender; with the exact same contact - would you still consider the contact, "certainly not much and certainly not enough to warrant an intentional"?

I can't even see why you would consider this as intentional. It literally never entered into my mind until I read it further down in the thread.

IMHO calling this play an intentional foul would be a text book example of bad Game Management.

In your other situation I would have to see it, but I would certainly lead toward a common foul.

Cool. Can you give me the page number in that text book where it says that?

Again, I'm not specifically arguing for the intentional call, I'm just saying that the reasons for calling or not calling it should be based on what the rule states is an intentional foul, not based on "game management". If you tell me it's not an intentional based on the fact it wasn't intended to stop the clock, or it wasn't neutralizing an obvious advantageous position, then I can accept those points because those deal directly with the rules. However, each time you have argued against the intentional foul call, your point is it would only be "bad game management". That's a lousy reason to make or not make a call.

Now, in my example of green #12 now being the ball handler, I might consider this contact to be excessive and warrant the intentional call (due to 4-19-3), hence the feeling some might have about the same call on the screen. I don't feel it warrants an intentional call because the standards are a little different between contact on a ball handler and contact away from the ball.

We both get to the same conclusion, but it appears you're taking a different route to get there ("game management" vs. rules-based). That route could get you in trouble if you follow it in other instances.

That is the beauty of game management, it isn't in the rule book. I think everyone would agree that the best officials in the game are those who exhibit outstanding game management skills.

Getting to this particular play, from a game management sense. What if the player that got laid out was the leading scorer and now can't play.... we have no call.... Now the coach from the team B ends up getting run and we have a retaliation situation from Team B and have to throw her.... All because we probably needed a whistle on that one play. We can go back to this play as the flashpoint that started the whole debacle.

My point is, that if someone gets laid out on a questionable screen. Everyone in the gym sees it. Don't split hairs on the A1 vs. B1 play. Referee with common sense. If you have a foul on this play and we look on the film and see maybe it was wrong.... I guarantee, nobody (fans, coaches, observers etc) will say squat during the game. There is a reason why rough play has been a point of emphasis since 1987.... no-calls on plays like this.

As always, my goal is to encourage the members of this board to think outside the box.

I've got an intentional flagrant - attempt to injure. She's outta here so quickly that I'd even have someone go start the shower for her.

And I completely disagree with your particular philosophy also.

Who gives a damn if the foul is on a star instead of an ordinary player? We're not working in the freaking NBA. Worrying about whether a star player is involved or not is as ridiculous as worrying about what a coach thinks about the call. And why should we also ever give a damn whether everybody in the whole gym saw it? Everybody in the whole gym...<b>except for the officials</b>....wants the call to be made in favor of their team. They could care less whether the call was <b>right</b> or not.

The only criteria needed to make the call is whether the block was legally set or not. If the player got laid out on screen that was legal, that's just too bad.

Nothing that you or mu4scott are talking about has got diddly-squat to do with game management in any way, shape or form imo. It's got everything to do with trying to avoid making a tough but correct call. Game management isn't involved in any way in this particular call. It's simply a matter of deciding whether the block was legal or not. If you think that the block was illegal, you just call the foul.

Sorry, but that's my opinion.

That's what you have on this play?

Calling this play properly has nothing to do with game management. It is really disappointing that people start using philosophies they clearly do not understand. This was a hard foul within the game of basketball. It was only a foul at the last millisecond before contact. If the screener just stood there, then no foul.

Game management situations are so the game does not get out of hand. The best example I can think of you have two players in the post grabbing and holding, you decide you are going to call fouls to clean it up. In other words you call fouls you might have allowed or that cannot be ignored because the players have raised up the intensity. This screen was just a hard screen. It took place because no one warned the defender there was a screen. The legality of the screen had little or nothing to do with game management. This is a play that would likely not happen again unless someone does not warn someone for another screen.

Peace

You said it yourself " Game management situations are so the game does not get out of hand." Watch the coach in the video and tell me that situation isn't heading south......

Using the scenario in the post that you described, game management is used to cease behaviors that lead to rough play, which you refer to as "cleaning it up."

If you don't think this particulair play (no call) could lead to a "situation getting out of hand" I feel sorry for you. Hard screen, player injured, tie ball game, second half = Sack up and call the damn foul or you are going to have a cluster @#$% for the next 13:00 minutes. You can't let it go and I challenge you to find any top D1 official who would think that's ok. The reason they would not think so is because your Game Management just went down the toilet.

No. I just wanted to see what you'd say. My call is in post #21.

And you're still missing the point. You can have a hard screen, player injured, tie game, second half.....and if the screen was legal, you have to sack up and no-call it, without worrying about what the coaches, fans, etc. think.

You make the call based <b>ONLY</b> on the legality of the screen. Game management has got absolutely <b>NOTHING</b> to do in any way with making the call. Nada! Zip! Zero!

Even if it was a legal screen? Would it be good game management to call a foul because someone gets injured?

I was the original poster of this video so here's my two cents. Although the quality of the video is poor, it appears to me that the screener was not fully set prior to contact and was shifting her body to the left into the other player. If I was the official and saw this, I would have called a blocking foul.

And no, I would not have called it intentional.

Dang it, I'm typing slow today.

I should have used the word "illegal" instead of "hard". I thought I had stated my position multiple times that it was illegal.

Some of you guys love to change around the scenario.

I've never said or thought what your implying.

Have you ever watched the game? Seriously, if that is your position then I have to wonder what you know about the game. I have seen more coaches get upset with their own team than ever get mad at the other team on a screen like this. I have even heard a coach or two blame their team for a player getting hurt on completely legal screens. And considering that I have seen a lot of basketball and never had a fight of any kind (knock on wood), I cannot think a single situation that every got out of hand in a game because of violent contact. I have seen games get close because of talk and usually holding and contact that is not very violent, then I have seen from violent contact. And if you know how to deal with players, you can stop a lot of things without blowing your whistle.

And considering that the screener only leaned slightly and did not throw and elbow or punch the player, the contact and the violence of that contact was not greatly enhanced by the last minute action. And the Purdue players came over to make sure the player was OK. That is not a sign of a dirty play.

So if the screen was legal, you are just calling a foul because someone got hurt? That is the very reason why I had a problem with your other position, because you are only concerned about whether someone got hurt and not what was illegal about the action. The game of basketball is a rough game. It is a game where contact can be violent and severe and not illegal. And if you are only calling fouls because of what the result was, then you and I will never agree on this or other plays.

Peace

Show me where a hard screen must be illegal? Show me where it says hard contact must be a foul?

Keep looking because you will not find such reference. Actually you will find references to severe contact as legal.

Peace

Yes, you have stated your position. And that's fine if you're making the call based <b>ONLY</b> on whether the screen was illegal or not. I really don't have that much of a problem if your opinion was that the screen was legal either. That's just a difference of opinion.

What I completely disagree with is that the severity of contact or whether the coaches/fans agree or disagree should have any bearing at all on the final call being made. I know that I'm simply repeating the same thing over and over...but game management does not enter into calls of this nature in any way imo. You're getting into over-thinking and over-analyzing things if you try to enter that into the equation.

JMO.

I would not call a foul simply on whether a player was injured. In my opinion, the screen is illegal. The no-call is compounded by the fact that the player goes down. We can debate semantics all day. If these officials feel good about their no-call, and can explain why there was a no-call to the coach, then I can live with that......

We can disagree on plays!!! that is fine....

What did I "change around"? All I did was ask a question based on your wording of "hard screen" in your post, which you did clear up with the response to JR.

My only comment all along has been in response to you saying you should call the foul because it's good game management. I think JR and I agree in that the call should be made because it's an illegal screen. Subtle difference, but a difference nontheless.

Of course making the proper calls helps in managing a game. However, you could make all the correct and proper calls in a game, and the game can result in a fight. I have also seen poorly-officiated games go relatively smoothly. All I'm saying is make the call based on the rules, not whether or not a coach will be on your case if they don't like your call/no call.

Stop generalizing. I’m talking about this particular play. This play had an illegal, hard screen, injured player, tie ball game in the second half. A whistle needs to be blown and the correct call is an illegal screen. Slice and dice it all you want, but that’s the correct call and replays show it.

Debate all you want with me about “Game Management”, but I know this is a bad example of “it” with a no call.

So let me ask you this. What if we have a blocked shot where a much smaller player is shooting and a much bigger player is defending? And the result of the block puts the smaller player hard on the floor and possibly hurt. Now are we as officials supposed to now call a foul because the team on offense felt there was a foul?

I am also not sure we can disagree, because you started your comments in this thread trying to suggest what I would think on this play. At the very least my opinions have been supported by rule, not just what I think. You have not supported many of your comments with any rule, just clearly what you "think" game management means or does not mean.

Peace

[B]"In this case, the screener did not provide the required time/distance before stepping in the path of the opponent. My guess is it caught the new T by surprise, since it was secondary defender. This would've been a good call by the C." [/QUOTE][/B]

Since it might have indeed "caught the new T by surprise", and since I was taught to "referee the defense", I understand the T should be watching the on-ball defender in his/her area. But would this serve as a teaching point to glance up quickly to see if there is a screener in the area? This may have gotten rid of the "surprise" factor for the T. Thoughts???

Similar play happened to me in 2-man last year. Call was blatantly obvious in my situation b/c the screener extended his arms during contact as if he were a linebacker tattooing a quarterback after an interception!

In my opinion (only entering my 2nd year, so I don't have the experience as others here), I feel it was an illegal screen not b/c of the severity, but b/c the screener wasn't stationary in her vertical plane and leaned out of her plane to set the screen. Foul? yes. Dirty/flagrant? No.

I have every right to bring up other plays when people use logic that is beyond what actually happen on this play. And if this screen was legal, then I wonder if you would not call a foul just because someone got hurt. Remember, I never suggested anything in this entire thread about if a player was hurt, but in response to the commentator (who is one of the worst) or comments from you and Tio about.

If you are worried about a game that gets out of hand on something that is not called, then you can compare any other no-call. If you do not like that comparison, then you should not be worried about what the crowd, coaches and players think. I have seen games get much more intense over plays that were actually called then plays that were not. I am trying to figure out what your standard is of making calls when you are so worried about what people think then whether the rules were actually violated. And the play in question was not so obvious without a shadow of a doubt. The only way I could clearly see this play was by the replay, not the live action.

Peace

Yep.

Following the rules is a good reason for making or not making a call.

How can it be a foul, if you don't call it? Iow, you are not seeing a foul, then passing on it, but rather you are seeing a situation and judging it not to be a foul. Semantics, but important semantics. Do we call things "by the book"? I would hope every time. Are there some situations that the rules allow us to use judgement? Of course, and it's using that judgement while following the rules "by the book" that is a form of game management.

Again, my response was to mu4scott's post that calling the foul was good game management; after all, we wouldn't want the coach to be on our backs asking for other close plays for the remainder of the game, right? I feel calling the foul is the result of the play being a foul. For me, good game management would then be not allowing the coach to continue being on our backs for the remainder of the game, whether it is by warning, T, ejection, or combination. We shouldn't make or not make calls based on what a coach might do, but make the calls based on what the players <B>did</B>. Do you see the difference?

relevant

not relevantnot relevantnot relevantnot relevant

This quote should be engraved on a plaque up on a wall in every official's house. I am not kidding.

Amen.

Peace

Sounds like good defense to me. There is no illegal contact.

I can explain a no-call on this play much more easily than on the video play.

Why can you explain that call to a coach and you cannot explain this contact? I had coaches think that legal screens like this were illegal. What is the difference? And remember, you brought into question what the coach thinks. I never said anything about making a call based on what a coach thinks.

Peace

I'm jumping in late on this one, but I've looked at the video several times, and I don't think this play is close. It's an illegal screen, not because the contact was severe, not because the game was tied or coach will be upset if I call it/don't call it. It's an illegal screen because it was an attempt to screen a moving defender, and the screener did not give the required time and distance (a minimum of one step) when the screen was set. Just my $.02.

I don't care what a coach thinks. Coaches are paranoid individuals.

I do care whether I can explain a call or a no call to a coach. I expect any official to be able to communicate why he did or did not call a foul or violation if the coach approaches us in a professional manner.

Amen!

Better get this engraved as well!

Once again changing the scenario. Well I wonder if you would call "this, if this happened" and "if this coach did this" you would do this.

Jrut... I'm talking about this play and no other. I don't give a crap what a coach thinks, but at the level I'm at and the level I'm striving to be at I had better be able to explain what I called. If not to the coach then to the assignor or commisioner of the conference. I wouldn't want to explain a no call or intentional in this situation.

I think we all pass on illegal situations on occasion. That's where the principle of advantage/disadvantage came about...

-Josh

Ok, I may be starting to tilt at windmills like other esteemed members, but my take on the above statement is we do not pass on illegal situations. We've simply judged them to be legal, perhaps due to advantage/disadvantage, since we did not make a call. If the contact/situation was truly illegal, then we <B>missed</B> the call, not passed on it.

We can't pass on fouls. We can pass on marginal contact.

If we pass on FOULS, we are picking and choosing which rules to enforce.

I'm not trying to split hair nor throw myself into a heated discussion (hence I've refrained from discussing the OP) but I don't think any of us can say we call absolutely everything by the book. For instance, do we call three seconds EVERY instance that someone is in the lane for three seconds? I would hope not. In fact I've been told more times than I can count (which admittedly isn't very high), that only a truly bad official would call it when it has no baring on the game. Just my 1-cent.

-Josh

Do you realize that many of us saw that movie before you were born? :D

It came out in 1988.

Not relevant. Look at the definition of "incidental contact."

If it didn't hinder the defender, it wasn't illegal and it shouldn't be called. It's not about passing on marginal contact. When there is contact, you need to decide three things.

1. Who is responsible. (A1, B1, or neither.)
2. Who is negatively affected by the play? (A1, B1, or neither.)

If the answer to either question is "neither," then it's not a foul regardless of the severity. If the answer to both questions is the same player/team, then it's not a foul. The only way it's a foul is if the player responsible is not on the same team as the player negatively affected by the contact.

If you do not care, why are you concerned about what is the result of the play? If the play was illegal or legal, that is all you should ever be concerned with. How a player gets hurt is not your concern. Even as a football official, it is not my job to make sure players are protected from being hurt. The game is a violent game and people get hurt. Basketball is a game of contact and people get hurt. That happens whether people do something illegal or not. Remember this was your words about the player getting hurt, not mine. I have only focused on the legality of the play and wanted you to clarify why the player being hurt had any relevance. And you did refer to what the coach would say. I am not the one that put those words on the screen under your name.

Peace

Okay, just to clarify some things. I agree this particular play is (at least) a personal foul on A2. That's an easy call, IMO. I can't tell from the angle, however, if A2 raised her arms into B1. It sure looks like it's possible, and if she did that on a blind screen, the severity of the contact absolutely makes an intentional foul valid by rule. It's a judgment call.

Game management comes into play in determining whether this play should be intentional or not, IMO. The term "game management" is being used here, and I've mocked it to an extent but also said it's a real thing. I should explain. You absolutely cannot determine how GM should come into play with just this one play; you need to see the whole game, probably from the court with the referees' perspectives.

If A2 has been getting rough, or anyone for that matter, a righteous intentional foul might be a good thing to settle things down. If this is the first sign of trouble, a standard personal foul would probably suffice.

Again, remember, by rule, an intentional foul can be called if the contact is severe enough; even if it doesn't match the other requirements. Think of a shooter going up for a shot and getting clobbered and run over by B1 trying to block the shot. If we're going to protect an airborne shooter expecting to get challenged, why won't we protect a defender on an illegal blind screen?

To claim it's bad GM to call this intentional without seeing the rest of the game is just, well, um, well.... I disagree.

If I make a call, I can explain it to a coach; period. I'm only concerned with whether I can explain it to an assigner or evaluator; not the coach. Coaches are easy to explain things to; just use single syllable words and speak slowly.

Someone that knows basketball isn't going to want to hear, "Because it was hard and someone could get hurt." Tell them to play chess. On this play, "she leaned into her" is sufficient to call the foul and all the other stuff is just going to get you into trouble with an evaluator; IMHO, of course.

I am not changing anything. I am trying to figure out why you and others care what a coach says about any play? This was your concern, not mine. And in this play I really give a damn what a coach thinks. Because the next screen might be completely legal and I might hear the next coach or the same coach complaining.

And if you call this intentional you are insane. Not only does this not fit anything in the rules that makes this intentional, you must have never seen the game of basketball. There is no way this could be intentional because the player was trying to set a screen, not take the player out. The screen was blind and if a teammate would have simply called out the screen, then the contact would have been minimal or non-existent at best. If I called that intentional or flagrant, I might not be talking very long to the supervisor. I would likely get fired or games taken away.

Peace

Rut, I'm only going to disagree so far as to say if the arms came up in a shoving motion prior to contact, I might go intentional on this. I couldn't see well enough from the video to tell one way or the other.

I like tio and mu4Scott's thought process but I would like for us all to refine or come together as a group and redefine "game management". This OP us not a game management foul. Rarely, if ever, should we call fouls as a game management tools. One of those rare sitches involves sending a shooter to the ft line on a marginal contact play in a 20+ point ball game with under 2 min left. Game mgmt should encompass "running the game" by knowing the score, team fouls, when the penalty is coming up, taking care of subs, knowing the clock status, approaching and addressing coaches in a professional manner, etc. This is game management. We must strive to get plays correct.

This play is an offensive foul. While I don't agree with an intentional foul here. I am going to be more aware of both the players involved in the play for the next coming min. This is also part of good game mgmt (knowing when the intensity changes and levels of anger b/w players has risen)

Snaq,

And this is why someone higher than both of us will make decisions about our careers and the games we will work. If you feel that is the right call than advocate that. I would never advocate an intentional foul or anything else on some slight movement at the time of contact. I do not care what the rules says in a black and white way, because all the interpretations I see about excessive contact, it is not based on a slightly illegal screen.

Peace

Can we at least agree that the play needs a whistle? I think an agreement between us might be a landmark achievement.

Surprise ???
 

Caught the new T by surprise? Amen. I've watched this video several times, knowing what to expect, and this screen still catches me by surprise. Imagine how surprised the screened player must have been.

Jrut re-read the sentence. I said I wouldn't want to explain a "no call" or "intentional" because it would have been the wrong call.

We finally agreed on something!

Seriously.....
 

You obviously have a reading problem. ;)

Peace

I gotta say...

I'm surprised this thread is so long. :confused:

Nope, illegal screen. The screener was leaning towards the defensive person.....

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." :D

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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

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

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

Game management crap??? Hmmm I tend to think it's a very important part of my officiating duties on the floor. Hard fouls can lead to games getting out of hand. At least where I work. It's called retaliation and it's a very common thing.

So like I've said countless times this hard foul needs a whistle not only because it's a foul, but to control the game. That's game management in my book and "crap" in yours I guess.

As far as the link goes we all know you are the Grand Poo-bah of officiating. It was for others who may not have seen it.

You do not base game management on one call. And often you do not use game management practices only on what you call once. Did you hear of a fight during this game?

Then say it is a foul, what might happen as a result is not your concern. And if it is and you know how to officiate the entire game, you might not even need to call another foul. That might be a little over your head (sounds like it). Officials, whom pick one foul out of a game and start talking about game management, are the ones that really do not understand the concept. It is called “game management” not “one call management.”

We have no idea what happen before and no indication that anything got out of hand after the “non-call.” If you have such a link, then feel free to show evidence this game went into the tank (article, foul counts, technical fouls will all do).

It is clear you know little or nothing about officiating, or you would not be talking about game management in the context you are. BTW, college officials already are fully aware of the links to these and it has been posted several times on this site. Did you just stumble on the site? ;)

Peace

I love the Flintstones.

Peace

And I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs, there are <b>NO</b> 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 <b>any</B> way to this particular play or <b>any</b> 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 <b>ISN'T</b> a foul being committed? :confused:

Btw, what <b>ARE</b> 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.

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.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I gave two cents what fans or players thought. However, I had better be able to explain what I called to a coach on certain plays.

In my opinion you have to be cognizant of your game situation. It's not all black and white all the time. You think those factors are irrelvent, I do not.