Make The Call: Illegal Screen

[Da Official]

By rule....definitely ok with the call. Taken by itself I probably wouldn't have called it. I'm thinking the screener was a repeat offender or there had been some illegal screens before this play and the L was looking and ready to bust the next illegal screen. I say that because the Lead came out so hard you would have thought the defender got knocked to the floor or something egregious had occurred...

[bainsey]

To me, it looks like the L was a bit straighlined at the point of contact. Any chance he thought there was more contact than in actuality?

[Camron Rust]

There was only that small amount of contact because the defender was trying to get around the screen rather than run into it. The fact that there was still contact and the defender had, as a result of the movement, been rerouted to a much less preferable line is all I need to call that foul. Had the screener been stationary, the defender would have not had to go so far around.

Requiring a defender to be knocked over or dramatically off course (on a screen that is part of the actual play) to get an illegal screen call is just not fair to the defense.

[tref]

Talk about setting the standard! Sorry partner but I cannot mirror that call...

Lets ask ourselves exactly how was the defender disadvantaged?
The player he was attempting to get to made the extra pass to the corner. IMO the defender wasnt getting there had it been no screen at all.

Even if I've had conversation with the player/coach about him moving on the screen, this is not the one I'm making an example of.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

Talk about setting the standard! Sorry partner but I cannot mirror that call...

Lets ask ourselves exactly how was the defender disadvantaged?
The player he was attempting to get to made the extra pass to the corner. ...

But also look at it as how it affected the defenders ability to react to the 2nd pass. They were in a zone and he was responsible for challenging that corner jumper. That bump put him off-balance and made it impossible to recover to the corner. IMO, that screen was designed to keep the defender from the 2nd pass, not the 1st.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But also look at it as how it affected the defenders ability to react to the 2nd pass. They were in a zone and he was responsible for challenging that corner jumper. That bump put him off-balance and made it impossible to recover to the corner.

I saw that & still feel like the shooter in the corner would've been wide open anyway.
Just not enough for me... I prefer my off-ball calls to be bigger than that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

I saw that & still feel like the shooter in the corner would've been wide open anyway.
Just not enough for me... I prefer my off-ball calls to be bigger than that.

Away from the play, easy lay-off on this type of contact. But on the ball, to me, it's 50/50 and I'm thinking earlier plays may have influenced this particular call.

[tref]

I hear ya! Yes, watching an entire game & then breaking down plays based on the game trumps breaking down a single play when we have no idea what occured previously. I'm not complaining, because some film is better than none. IJS

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I saw that & still feel like the shooter in the corner would've been wide open anyway.
Just not enough for me... I prefer my off-ball calls to be bigger than that.

And I prefer getting the good ones like this so we can maybe avoid the "bigger" ones to begin with.

And all this talk about "marginal" contact (not from you, but in this thread) is driving me crazy. There's no such thing, contact is either "incidental" or "illegal," and the level of contact (from marginal to severe) often has nothing to do with whether it's illegal or not. This is a classic freedom of movement play, IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I prefer getting the good ones like this so we can maybe avoid the "bigger" ones to begin with.

And all this talk about "marginal" contact (not from you, but in this thread) is driving me crazy. There's no such thing, contact is either "incidental" or "illegal," and the level of contact (from marginal to severe) often has nothing to do with whether it's illegal or not. This is a classic freedom of movement play, IMO.

Snaqs, in the conference that play came from there is most definitely "marginal contact" at play in discussions about fouls.

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by tref

Talk about setting the standard! Sorry partner but I cannot mirror that call...

Lets ask ourselves exactly how was the defender disadvantaged?
The player he was attempting to get to made the extra pass to the corner. IMO the defender wasnt getting there had it been no screen at all.

Even if I've had conversation with the player/coach about him moving on the screen, this is not the one I'm making an example of.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this call... I wouldn't want to be making illegal screen calls all night long if we were going to set the bar here.

I think the contact was marginal at best, and I would talk to the kid about keeping his screens legal next time. I don't think this is anything to go get...