Bilas

[JugglingReferee]

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).

You didn't mention anything about what would have happened if the screener was vertical. I'll tell you what it means: B1 would have had more time to avoid getting a concussion. His speed has nothing to do with him not having that opportunity.

I do think that the screener "gave something extra". I also believe that he leaned outside his vertical plane. I also believe that he was moving forward at the time of contact. Each one by themselves could be ignored, however, when all three occur on the same play, a foul is definitely a possibility!

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

You didn't mention anything about what would have happened if the screener was vertical. I'll tell you what it means: B1 would have had more time to avoid getting a concussion. His speed has nothing to do with him not having that opportunity.

I do think that the screener "gave something extra". I also believe that he leaned outside his vertical plane. I also believe that he was moving forward at the time of contact. Each one by themselves could be ignored, however, when all three occur on the same play, a foul is definitely a possibility!

I disagree - his speed would not have let him have the time to avoid the contact if the screener was perfectly vertical. You are talking about a difference of tenths of a second. The defenders speed was considerable, and the screener set what was a pretty routine screen, other than the violent outcome.

Certainly the only way an argument can be made that this *might* be a foul is by watching it happen over and over and over again, hyper analyzing every movement in slow motion. I am pretty sure we could call a foul on a lot of plays if we did that all the time.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I disagree - his speed would not have let him have the time to avoid the contact if the screener was perfectly vertical. You are talking about a difference of tenths of a second. The defenders speed was considerable, and the screener set what was a pretty routine screen, other than the violent outcome.

Certainly the only way an argument can be made that this *might* be a foul is by watching it happen over and over and over again, hyper analyzing every movement in slow motion. I am pretty sure we could call a foul on a lot of plays if we did that all the time.

You can't possibly know this.

Your hyper analyzing claim is taking things to the extreme...

[just another ref]

4-40-1d The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane.

This guy is significantly outside of his vertical plane. And the photo doesn't even show his forearm, which came up slightly.
I had a foul in the live shot. I have a foul now.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

You didn't mention anything about what would have happened if the screener was vertical. I'll tell you what it means: B1 would have had more time to avoid getting a concussion. His speed has nothing to do with him not having that opportunity.

Juggling, with all due respect how do you know that to be true?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by deecee

Juggling, with all due respect how do you know that to be true?

Simple physics.

[deecee]

So is Berkut's assumption.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

Let me add a "me too," although I have merely a math degree.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

Stationary is the key word. In the still photo the guy is at least 20 degrees away from vertical. He leaned into the contact, then also lifted his forearm at the point of impact. Subtle, perhaps, and size was a big factor in the play, but in my eyes, this guy delivered a blow.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

In regards to the rules, it doesn't matter how bad the impact was.

I have demonstrated, based on the video and the screen shot and the rules, how it was illegal.

Can you demonstrate how it was legal?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

In regards to the rules, it doesn't matter how bad the impact was.

I have demonstrated, based on the video and the screen shot and the rules, how it was illegal.

Can you demonstrate how it was legal?

1) It's not a blind screen.

2) Although not 90* to the floor, I'm not sure that the player fails the verticality test (but it's close).

As a practical matter, some leeway is given in determining the angle that still meets the "verticality" standard.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

Ah, the last rhetorical refuge of any desperate litigant. Sometimes referred to as "petitio principii," or "begging the question," it is more commonly known as the "Because I said so" fallacy.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It was a blind screen, so the screener has to give one or two strides after setting the screen. He didn't.

Also, you can't lean into the screen. He did.

It was illegal. Tough call at that speed, to be sure, but a missed one nonetheless.

Time and distance are not a factor when screening from the front or side. The screener must only be short of contact, which was clearly the case here. Great screen. Great play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by refiator

Time and distance are not a factor when screening from the front or side. The screener must only be short of contact......

Actually, this is true only when screening a stationary opponent from the front or side.