Illegal Screen or Not

[canuckrefguy]

An illegal screen, but not a big one - and no advantage gained.

I'm not even sure I'd classify that as one of those "I don't wanna see that again" calls.

I will say that the C's body language doesn't exactly say "I'm engaged and I'm on top of things". But if the L is going to poach something eight feet from his partner, it had better be something a lot more egregious than that.

[Camron Rust]

I'm not so sure the illegal screen that was called was necessarily the everyone seems to think it is. There was another screen that occurred just outside the lane on the lead's side where the defender was trying to get out to the shot. The camera angle wasn't the best to see how much contact did occur there but is it possible that was the one called? (That is the one he should have been looking at).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

especially when there were 4-5 players in the L's PCA when the whistle blew.

We're looking at different plays! I only count 2 players in the L's primary at the whistle and they are not even engaged. There are 3 or 4 players weaving through the very top of the L's primary, but they all move through until just 2 are left when the whistle blows.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not so sure the illegal screen that was called was necessarily the everyone seems to think it is. There was another screen that occurred just outside the lane on the lead's side where the defender was trying to get out to the shot. The camera angle wasn't the best to see how much contact did occur there but is it possible that was the one called? (That is the one he should have been looking at).

I see it now, Camron, but there's no way that's what he called. He never once looked at that kid. In fact, he walks right past that kid, staring at the kid on the opposite side of the lane to report.

And even if that was the screen he called, it wasn't a much better call than the one on the other side of the lane.

[JugglingReferee]

To me, it doesn't matter which call anyone is talking about. I don't see any illegal screen that I'd call from any position on the court.

After looking at it again, the only possible I.S. could be on 54 Red, and it's a piss-poor call, imho.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

We're looking at different plays! I only count 2 players in the L's primary at the whistle and they are not even engaged. There are 3 or 4 players weaving through the very top of the L's primary, but they all move through until just 2 are left when the whistle blows.

...

The Lead may not have had any competitive match-ups in his primary but his secondary look should have been to help the Trail off-ball once the play moved to the Trail's primary. The C only had 3 players, he shouldn't have needed any help.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not so sure the illegal screen that was called was necessarily the everyone seems to think it is. There was another screen that occurred just outside the lane on the lead's side where the defender was trying to get out to the shot. The camera angle wasn't the best to see how much contact did occur there but is it possible that was the one called? (That is the one he should have been looking at).

The play you are referring to is nothing. The screen did not even impede the defender.

The play in question is the C's play although he still had a count as the player started to pass to the shooter. Looking at his head position, there is no way he saw the screen taking place only a few feet away clearly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

The play you are referring to is nothing. The screen did not even impede the defender.

No, but it did reroute him.

The defender had to take a different and longer path to the shooter as a result. The only question which is not really clear form the video is how much contact there really was on that play. If there was contact that caused him go go around, then it should have been called. Unfortunately, it appears the lead was not looking where he should have been and we'll never know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, but it did reroute him.

The defender had to take a different and longer path to the shooter as a result. The only question which is not really clear form the video is how much contact there really was on that play. If there was contact that caused him go go around, then it should have been called. Unfortunately, it appears the lead was not looking where he should have been and we'll never know.

Did the contact reroute him or did the player reroute himself? That is my question.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did the contact reroute him or did the player reroute himself? That is my question.

Peace

I'm not even sure if there's contact. But say there was, I can't ever see that being called regularly at any high level of play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I'm not even sure if there's contact. But say there was, I can't ever see that being called regularly at any high level of play.

+1

That is why I said, "rerouting himself." I am not convinced there was any contact and I am not convinced that any contact was the reason he took that route.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I'm not even sure if there's contact. But say there was, I can't ever see that being called regularly at any high level of play.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

+1

That is why I said, "rerouting himself." I am not convinced there was any contact and I am not convinced that any contact was the reason he took that route.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did the contact reroute him or did the player reroute himself? That is my question.

Peace

Which is why I said.,,,

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only question which is not really clear form the video is how much contact there really was on that play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

An illegal screen, but not a big one - and no advantage gained.

Then it's not illegal; it's incidental contact.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then it's not illegal; it's incidental contact.

do you have a problem with marginal contact vs incidental?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

do you have a problem with marginal contact vs incidental?

Marginal contact can still be a foul. By definition, incidental contact is not a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

do you have a problem with marginal contact vs incidental?

Only insofaras "marginal" contact is not defined.

All contact is either incidental or illegal. Marginal contact is no different, it's still one or the other.

Marginal contact is nothing more than either:
a) Illegal contact that is close to being incidental.
or
b) Incidental contact that is close to being illegal.

I'm not sure what other useful definition of "marginal" there is, or if you mean something different by the term.