Bilas

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.