that is ABSOLUTELY an illegal screen. RSBQ (rythm, speed, balance, & quickness) also applies to a defender - if it is interrupted by an offensive player who has NOT establish a legal screening position...it is a FOUL.

if Les Jones wants to work next weekend, he better make that call - especially with John Adams sitting courtside.

btw -based on last nights game, Bryan Kersey and Brian Dorsey shouldn't wait for the "phone to ring" w/ an invitation to Houston...

I'm having trouble understanding how one sets a screen while their feet are off the ground and passing the ball. Maybe you could help me?

+1

I'll take this side.

I'm not sure how you call a block. What real advantage was gained by the defense?

Now, an illegal screen foul or just a foul? The contact definitely freed up the offensive player to take an unopposed shot.

The way I see the replay, he throws the pass and immediately realizes the defender has a clear path. He throws himself into that defender to clog up the path.

Great call from the C.

Passing the ball and having one's feet off the ground don't preclude a player from attempting to set a screen. As JRut said it appears Taylor threw his body into the defender. He was attempting to set a screen, IMO.

Does it matter? If he is trying to prevent the actions or affects the movements of the opponent, what we call it is not relevant in the bigger picture.

Am I alone in that thinking?

Peace

If thats your call, go with it my man ;) Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

Not just his call.

I always watch these replays without sound, so I have no idea whether the announcers agreed or not.

Haha this is true...I forgot to make the clip without sound like I try to do.

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

ya know what, you're completely right man, how dare me try to make a joke of such a serious moment...shame, shame on me I tell ya!

Lots of chatter on the internet about a technical foul called early in the second half in the SDSU/UConn game for a bump during a time out. Link at the bottom with a video; I don't know how to imbed.

On a more extended replay, they showed the entire play. SDSU scores a basket. Connecticut calls a TO. One of the SDSU players comes over to woof at Connecticut's walker -- getting into his face. He then backs off, but then on the way to the bench lowers the shoulder and gives him a bump. During the commercial, the crew apparently went to the monitor (as reported by the announcers -- you didn't see it on tv). They called a T.

I think seeing the whole play in context it's an easy T. But I also think there's clearly some embellishment on the part of the Connecticut player.

Is Kemba Walker a flopper or just a great player? - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

Yep, he embellished, which may have served to draw the officials' attention and take them to the monitor. Even without the flop, it's at least a borderline T and therefore a stupid move.

Whether you consider it a screen isn't relevant. That's what it was. Even if it wasn't his intent, the result was an illegally screened defender.