Bilas

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I agree with you, not only because he did raise his arms slightly, from a "protect the jewels" position to a "blocking" position, but because he took a step towards the defender just before the collision occurred. It's a small step, but sometimes that small step is enough to cause a major wreck.

I don't know what the NCAA rule is about blindside screens like this, but I believe under FED this would be a foul because of the way the defender and the screener were facing prior to the collision? I don't have my books here so I can't cite anything, but recall "instruction" from a supervisor on this.

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.

[btaylor64]

There is nothing illegal about this screen whatsoever, imo. the player does not step into the defender, but instead just "firms up" to accept the hard impact that is going to occur. Its a natural reaction of the body to firm up and brace for impact! He does not chuck the defender with his arms. Also, he gives the defender more than ample time to stop and change direction but really he doesn't need to due to the fact that this is not a back screen but a screen from the side therefore forgoing the option to allow him that opportunity. Legal screen. Great no call by Ray Natili.

on a side note, if you call that an illegal screen because you are reacting to possible "slight" movement and the fact that a player is down hurt then you have to call all "slight" movement the rest of the night and you know that aint happening!

[mbyron]

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.

That's not correct. The rule states that a blind screen must be set a step away from the screened player, not that the screener must move back after setting the screen.

I saw this live and just watched the replay. The screener moved a smidge at contact. Just because the screened player bumped his nose on the guy's shoulder (or whatever his injury was) doesn't mean it was a foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

The definition of screening is the same for NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA. And this was a legal screen all of the way. The screener braced himself for the impending contact, which is legal.

MTD, Sr.

[zeedonk]

I also saw it last night. I have to say, if I'm the T and I have to think about it, we play on... I agree that it's a screen to the side and not behind. As was properly noted in the game later on (maybe by Bilas) that the other guy who feels really bad about the play is Zoubek, who apparently was somewhere else in search of his game instead of calling out the screen for his teammate.

In my short experience, I try to anticipate the hard screen in cases like this. I'll keep focused on the screener to see if he or she gives me any reason to go the other way. Bracing for impact is not one of those reasons. An ever so slight lean forward is also not a reason, but I have to admit that a lean makes the call more difficult, as I interpret the slight lean to also be a brace for impact.

Of course, I have taken off my Carolina Blue shaded eyewear to be fair and impartial in this debate. Now that I am ready for next year's UNC/Duke assignment, I will be sure to watch out for this play and call it the way that Coach K wants it called, lest he complain!

[referee99]

I'm in the No Call camp on this one. Screener was in a legal position. He shifts his weight slightly, but left foot stays put, and he 'firms up' (h/t btaylor64) but did not violate any FED restrictions on screening.

[Texref]

Being a Duke "fan" I would have liked to have seen this called...by one his teammates to let him know the screen was coming. There was nothing illegal about the screen, as pointed out by MTD and BTaylor. Also for those saying it was a blind screen and he didn't give him time and space, the play originated at the low block and the screen was at the FT Line. Looked like the player had more than ample time to avoid it.

I would expect any coach to react like Coach K did in this instance. Their job is to stand up for their players when they get hurt. I'm sure he knows now (after watching the tape) that this was a legal screen. But who knows...

[Texas Aggie]

Their job is to stand up for their players when they get hurt.

It isn't his job to get stupid and make stuff up. This was clearly a legal screen. He should have been yelling at his players for not calling it out. They were in a man defense, right? Who's man was the screener?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

It isn't his job to get stupid and make stuff up. This was clearly a legal screen. He should have been yelling at his players for not calling it out. They were in a man defense, right? Who's man was the screener?

I didn't see him get stupid? I'll go back and watch it again though. It looked like he just came out and yelled something at the officials and then tended to his player. I didn't see the game live though, just the clip above.

I also said, if you read my post, that the Duke players should have been calling the screen out. There was nothing illegal about it.

**Edited to add: Nope just watched it again and didn't see anything stupid out of Coach K. Like I said though, I didn't see the game live so I don't know what else he did. It would not shock me if he did do something stupid though! Again, based on the video above, Coach K didn't do anything out of line. It looked like he was asking why it wasn't a foul and then showing the ref what he saw. Nothing stupid or not to be expected in that scenario.**

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The definition of screening is the same for NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA. And this was a legal screen all of the way. The screener braced himself for the impending contact, which is legal.

MTD, Sr.

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.

[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.

[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.