Bilas

[Texas Aggie]

Perhaps stupid was a bit much (and not necessarily alleging he did, just saying he shouldn't), but he did go after the official first without checking on his player. I know the trainer was on the player, but I'm not sure you can say his first priority is his player's safety if his first action is going after the official.

Edit (after watching it again): Don't forget: the announcer (when the area is out of TV view) said that "(Coach K) is very upset about that screen." So, I'm wondering what he did that we didn't see?

[jdmara]

Wow...That's what happens when the screen-er has a little more mass than the screen-ee. The collision was brutal. Yikes. Did he play later in the game? Any news on his condition?

-Josh

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Perhaps stupid was a bit much (and not necessarily alleging he did, just saying he shouldn't), but he did go after the official first without checking on his player. I know the trainer was on the player, but I'm not sure you can say his first priority is his player's safety if his first action is going after the official.

Edit (after watching it again): Don't forget: the announcer (when the area is out of TV view) said that "(Coach K) is very upset about that screen." So, I'm wondering what he did that we didn't see?

No call on the screen.

Coach K's actions were acceptable. I've got no problem with this exchange.

I imagine that the conversations the rest of the game were not nearly as civil

[zm1283]

That was completely legal. The screener "bowed" up a little to brace himself for the contact, but he didn't raise his arms up like some are saying. He simply put them in front of him to protect himself.

That looked a lot like a play that happened a few years ago at the Missouri Valley Conference tournament. It happened at about the same spot on the floor. Missouri State and Southern Illinois were playing. A kid named Tamaar Maclin from MSU (About 6'7", 250) screened Brad Korn from SIU (About 6'10", 240) and absolutely laid him out. I have a picture of him after the collision and he is flat on his back. It was brutal.

[daveg144]

If I'm on the court, I pass on it. However, watch the replay carefully and you'll see that the screener definitely moves sideways before contact. Check the position of his feet on the letters at the free throw line. After watching multiple times, I'm leaning towards an illegal screen, BUT we don't get that luxury and at speed, it looks legal.

You can also see the trail hesitate a second as the contact is made as he reacts to the play.

Like I said, I've got no problem with the no call, but watch it a number of times and see if you see what I think I'm seeing.

I sound like politician now, don't I?

[referee99]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Wow...That's what happens when the screen-er has a little more mass than the screen-ee. The collision was brutal. Yikes. Did he play later in the game? Any news on his condition?

He may have suffered a concussion -- that was the prelim info during the game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Tough one.....I'm going the other way on this with the luxury of replay. Screener shuffled slightly to left of defender.

I think collision surprised trail.

Fullor30:

What was so tough about this play? This was a casebook play. I would expect a first year official to recognize this as a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

[SamIAm]

With the benefit of replay - I see a foul. Screener, after turning at FT line moves three times. Initial sets up on one side of "the A on the floor". Moves to the middle of the A, then moves again to the other side of the A. The last moves give him "square contact" as opposed to glancing contact. Big difference in the effectiveness of the screen. Maybe I am disecting the screen too much, but once he is set to screen with a glancing blow, then moves with the defender not having a step to avoid (blind screen), I see a foul.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fullor30:

What was so tough about this play? This was a casebook play. I would expect a first year official to recognize this as a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

You're right, this is a textbook case play.

The screener does not give time and distance upon being set (for the final time).

The screener leans into the opponent's path.

Illegal screen.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Wow...That's what happens when the screen-er has a little more mass than the screen-ee. The collision was brutal. Yikes. Did he play later in the game? Any news on his condition?

-Josh

Concussion. Out indefinitely.

[fiasco]

Does anyone want to defend this:




as a legal screening position?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Does anyone want to defend this:




as a legal screening position?

Sure - last I checked, we don't use stop motion photography during games, and in any case, the players lean is not what caused the contact - the defender running at full speed right into him without warning is what caused the contact.

If I am going to call ever screen where someone moves AT ALL a foul, it is going to be a long game. Lokos ot me like the screener has set his feet to take the contact - the slight lean is incidental.

There would not even be a question about whether this is a foul except that someone got hurt.

[JugglingReferee]

Normally I'm in the boat where a single picture (of frame) isn't enough evidence to call a foul.

The picture awhile back of the contact on the shooter's arm is very tough to ignore as illegal contact.

As is this picture.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Normally I'm in the boat where a single picture (of frame) isn't enough evidence to call a foul.

The picture awhile back of the contact on the shooter's arm is very tough to ignore as illegal contact.

As is this picture.

I think this is an excellent example of how a single frame picture can very poorly represent what is going on, since it removes all the information about the momentum and speed of the players involved.

The Duke player did not get laid out because the screener is leaning forward slightly, he got laid out because he was running full speed into a stationary defender he never saw.

The picture over-emphasizes the lean, while completely ignoring the speed of the players involved (one basically stationary, the other running).

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I think this is an excellent example of how a single frame picture can very poorly represent what is going on, since it removes all the information about the momentum and speed of the players involved.

The Duke player did not get laid out because the screener is leaning forward slightly, he got laid out because he was running full speed into a stationary defender he never saw.

The picture over-emphasizes the lean, while completely ignoring the speed of the players involved (one basically stationary, the other running).

Momentum is exactly the point.

The Maryland player had a good deal of momentum going into the screen, precisely because he did not give the Duke player time and distance AND because he leaned into the screen.

Impact and contact is going to be much greater when you 1) Don't give time and distance and 2) Lean into the opponent's path.

That's precisely why the screening rules are there.

If the screener had set a proper screen, the impact wouldn't have been nearly as brutal. It would have been a glancing screen (since the screener initially set up slightly to the left of the Duke player's path and kept moving into the path before setting up), not a concussion-inducing screen.