Bilas

[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.**

[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

[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?

[mutantducky]

no way was that an illegal screen. sure maybe there was a nudge but even without it, the blow still would have been hard.

[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.