Bilas
 

pulled a Bilas tonight. Vasquez of Maryland drew his fifth on a PC foul, which looked like a pretty easy call to me. As they started the replay, Bilas said, "That's a tough call. Henderson is.....well, he is outside the box, where it would be. It's still a tough call.......for your fifth foul......but a good call."

very analytical

That's why they pay him the big bucks! :rolleyes:

He also called this:



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/erpPU04ZrcY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/erpPU04ZrcY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



a legal screen.

"That was a legal screen. He put a little bit into it, but you've gotta expect that." Jay Bilas

He even mentioned, it's legal, unless he raised his arms. Appears to me that he did raise his arms. I thought it was a foul. Not an extremely dirty foul, not a flagrant foul, but a foul.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...:p

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.**

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?

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

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 :D

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.

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?

The Duke player did not return to the game.
 

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

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.

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.

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.

Concussion. Out indefinitely.

Does anyone want to defend this:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/i...i/Picture1.png


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.

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).

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.

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.

You can't possibly know this.

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

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.

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

Simple physics.

So is Berkut's assumption.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Counselor:

I say so because G2 met all of the requirements of the definition of screening. Furthermore, the late Ed Ferrigno, a former member of the NFHS Rules Committee and State Interpreter for Connecticut was probably the most knowledgeable person regarding guarding/screening in the country and I helped him give seminars on block/charge, so I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about guarding and screening too. So when I say that G2 set a legal screen you can pretty well take it to the bank.

MTD, Sr.

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

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

To this observer, it seems clear that reasonable people can disagree on the play. You may reject that notion (and you may even be correct), but fallacious arguments don't help anyone get anywhere.

The appeal to authority fallacy assumes that everyone's opinion is equal. This is another fallacy, probably the biggest one of this thread. I will take Bob Jenkins and MTD's opinion over just about anyone's here.

On the contrary. The appeal to authority fallacy tells us that it is the opinion, per se, not the holder of the opinion, that is important. Of course some opinions are going to be more informed than others, but we shouldn't give an opinion 'informed' status just because of who utters it. In other words, whether Bob or MTD happens to be correct is completely independent of Bob and MTD themselves. It is the idea that is important, not he who propagates it.

Again, agree or disagree with those deemed 'expert,' but don't do it because of a label or attribution. Do it on the merits of the case.

When we're talking black and white, yes, the merit of the case is pretty straightforward. Officiating, OTOH, is a series of various shades of gray. Because of this, the opinions given have to always be linked with the person making them and their authority, experience, etc. Sometimes authority is granted to a specific person (an assignor, commissioner, supervisor, etc.) and other times it's based on other, less tangible factors, such as reputation and experience.

I look at this play and I prefer to put myself in the position of the official making the call, real-time. The screener is relatively stationary, certainly so compared with the player who bounces off of him. Is a small lean (and whether the screener is not vertical for the purpose of the POV is debatable, even by the experienced people here) forward to me enough to pass responsibility on the contact to the screener? No. I would be happy to argue that this was mainly done to absorb contact. If this was a block/charge situation, I'd call it a charge/PCF in a heartbeat.

(I've worked with Bob and I know both of the gentlemen's resumes and knowledge and to say that carries no weight is a bit ridiculous, IMO.)

That is an argument that deserves serious consideration, if not full acceptance.


The above is not.

Look, of course Mark and Bob have more credibility than most commenters here. Those in the know begin reading those two guys' posts with more initial buy-in than with the posts of many others. But one of the things that makes those guys credible in the first place is their actual expertise, i.e. rules knowledge and breadth of experience, not their claimed expertise.

Put differently, I usually read Mark's posts and think, "that's a really well-argued point, and I agree." But Mark usually doesn't need to remind me that he's Mark Denucci, super-duper-expert, in order to persuade me. In this particular case, after doing what he usually does--present evidence, draw a conclusion based on simple deductive reasoning--he broke form and dipped into the expert well, a well which carries no weight with me.

I'm not even arguing the facts in evidence here, just advocating that people think about the facts and the attendant rules and come to a conclusion based on only those things. If that conclusion happens to square with Mark's and Bob's, good on 'em; but nobody should simply default to those guys' positions based on reputation.

So what you're saying is you're arguing about the argument?

Count it.

Well, if you are going to jump into accusations of fallacies, you should make sure you understand them completely.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, and that is not a logical fallacy.

The fallacy is a False appeal to authority, where either the authority in question is not an authority, or there is no agreement amongst authorities about the issue.

Lets go to the rulebook!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Well, A rulebook anyway.

Of course, some might say that referencing a source is a appeal to authority!

I apologize for being agressive and hard-headed in this thread, BUT, over my long career, I have observed that far, far, far, far too many basketball officials do an absolutely terrible job of applying the guarding/screening (block/charge) principles correctly. We as a whole do an absolutely terrible job of applying the rule correctly.

MTD, Sr.

Late to the party....no foul. Nothing the screener did, even if not absolutely stationary, caused or increased the amount of contact. At worst, he braced for the impending collision. The minor "lean" didn't put the screener more into the path of the defender at all. The only impact it had was to allow the screener to not get knocked on his backside when the defender ran into him. The defender was going to run sqare into the screeners chest with or without the minor lean....therefore, the lean was not relevant.

Camron:

Thank you! Thank you! Someone who thinks like me. You are not doomed.

MTD, Sr.