Illegal Screen or Not
 

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ltvo2PDKdCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

First off, agree with the illegal screen or not? Should this be the center's/slot's call? Does the lead have his eyes in the correct area?

1) I think it's a pretty weak call. Technically, the screen is not stationary, but it has nothing to do with the play; there's no advantage at all.

2) Definitely should be a whistle from the C, if there's going to be a whistle.

3) I don't have a problem with the L making a call in this type of situation (although, as I said, I think was an incorrect call). There's no competitive match-up in the L's primary, so I think it's ok to expand your vision to the opposite block. In fact, he almost initiates a rotation before the ball wide.

The screener definitely goes wide and creates enough contact to separate his player from the defender, so I don't have a problem with the call. The center needs to have the whistle here.

Just curious and learning ... so if the offensive player who is freed up by the screen gets a pass at the low block instead of an outside shot being taken, you wouldn't think advantage gained?

You answered your own question, didn't you? :)

I guess, but I was asking you the question since you didn't see any advantage gained. How about if the shot missed and the freed up player had the ball drop in his lap and easily scored, do you feel that an advantage was gained then too? I guess what I'm getting at is do you really wait for an obvious advantage gained on this type of play before you get it?

If I'm observing this game I'm finding the L on this play and asking him why he put a whistle on a play that was a good 15 feet outside of his PCA and in front of the C...especially when there were 4-5 players in the L's PCA when the whistle blew.

Was it a foul? Yes. The defender was bumped off his path and the C should've called it. However, the whole thing is blown apart for me by the L reaching that far to make a call in front of one of his partners that wasn't a felony.

I think that was very weak. For one the defender goes around the screen and I am not convinced the contact really had any effect on the play or was really there. If you are going to call that screen, make it be there. I should not have to look at the video several times to decide which players were fouled or if there was any contact at all.

It seemed like to me he was looking to make an illegal screen call and stopped watching his competitive match-up that was in front of him. I guess the only way I would really be able to evaluate that call would be to see other screens in the game called or not called.

Peace

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.

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).

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

Isn't the C a little too high? Where is the L?

Regarding the screen, not a huge IS in my opinion. However, I do think I pass on too many of these.

I think you have to let the C officiate in his area on this one. I don't see anything here for which I'd reach into my partner's primary to call.

interesting discussion
 

I agree from the C it doesn't look huge...however, I am guessing from the L the way the player leans and uses his shoulder/elbow, it looks much different. Not a huge advantage, but I want this one. Again, the way the shoulder/elbow come into play this looks like one to get to keep it from getting rougher later..

IMHO

The way you worded your question changed the scenario completely by adding an immediate advantage.

Well, isn't that what we do on all contact before calling a foul?

There it is.

I wonder whether the lead official was saying "knock off the elbowing" that call. Yes, there was an elbow on Red 54. Did it create a significant advantage? I don't think so. Just the same, should we consider whether that contact is worthy of Red losing the ball?

Additionally, we don't know what else happened in that game prior to that point. Maybe they had trouble with on one of those players previously, were watching them closely, and were not going to let anything go.

Thanks for helping Snaqs ...

Not sure what you mean by "adding an immediate advantage". I'm in agreement that there really is no immediate advantage gained in this video, primarily because an outside shot was taken and the foul was called stopping play. However, an offensive player did get free from his defender because of the illegal screen and I'm simply asking if that's not enough to put air in the fox40? Otherwise, I'm letting this screen go, the freed up offensive player ends up scoring an easy bucket 14' away from the screen and I'm kicking myself for not getting it when it happened.

BTW, I'm all for a very patient whistle and seeing the whole play. It's just this off ball stuff that I'm wrestling with and wanting to be consistent.

If that play made you think "Oh my God!", then it needed a whistle from the Lead. If it just made you think "Hmmm. Better watch that guy", then it didn't need a whistle.

No, it wasn't even close to an "Oh my God" play and I wouldn't have a problem letting the screener know that he was a bit wide on that play at the next opportunity. I was just responding as if we needed to either make or not make the call based on the video. As with all video, we have no idea what the game or this player has been like prior to the call, which all factor into the overall situation.

He's okay. 3 feet (i.e., one stride) on either side of the FT line extended is fine. Given where the action is he was in a good spot to see whatever happened.

It was explained to me this way long ago:

"oh sh**" = pass
"of f***" = whistle

:D

Moving Screen ...
 

Illegal screen. Would have liked to have seen the optional bird dog signal here, because it took me three viewings to catch the illegal screen on the weak side of the court. The player that used the screen did get to move across the lane to the strong side, and would have been momentarily open in the low post position to get an offensive rebound if the official had not sounded his whistle. I really wish that coaches would teach their kids how to set, and use, screens properly. It's so easy to teach. Set the screen and don't move. Use the screen by going shoulder to shoulder past the screener. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

I meant that you changed the scenario from what was in the video by making the "freed" player receive a pass. That completely changes it, and scrapper never said he wouldn't call that.

If a freed player gets a rebound, I'm not overly worried about that. If he catches a pass immediately after the screen, get the foul. If he catches a pass after the defense has had time to recover, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that one either.

OTOH, if you've been warning a player, getting something like this could just as easily straighten him out.

As long as officials say "illegal screen, but not enough contact to warrant a whistle", why would you expect coaches to teach it another way.

I saw two screens. 1) screener facing our view, opposite the ball, with the screener leaning to his left to insure contact

2) at end of video, screen on the shooter's defender, just enough to make the defender go around, giving the shooter an open shot instead of a contested shot.

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.

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

A screen can be illegal by rule and not produce contact to warrant a foul. Defenders often try to just go around a screen and not run like normal. Coaches need to teach defenders to keep running or going to their spot instead of just avoiding a bad screen. Maybe then they would get a foul called.

Peace

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.

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.

You are right, but not every term is defined or rulebook based. But is very common to describe contact as marginal and marginal usually means there is no foul or wait to see if the contact affects the play. This was simply used to describe what probably should have not been called.

Peace

I get that, and I don't have a problem with the word itself. I won't use it with coaches, however, because it doesn't mean anything. Others can probably use it to good effect.

For me, it's far easier to say the contact was incidental, or to tell a coach that "it didn't even slow your guy down, Coach."

I would have have used the term. Marginal means it is not definite either way. Then again I probably would not say either, I would just say I do not have a foul. Again, no right or wrong here.

Peace

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

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

Which is why I said.,,,

In order:

1- I don't have this as an illegal screen based on the evidence here and out of context.

2 - To me at best this is a marginal call at best so to make a marginal call outside of your area with lots going on in your own seems like a) a d-bag move to throw your partner under the bus b) something has occured earlier in the game to make the screening issue hyper sensitive


Based on what I'm seeing on the video the screener extends beyond his body. I don't see that any contact occurs that impedes or disadvantages. (from the angle of the video anyway).

In our area if that is an illegal screen you are going to be calling 25+ player control fouls a night.

Like everything, if you call 2-3, 25+ will not happen

(Disclaimer: This is not saying this one should or should not be called)

My thoughts exactly. If you call 2-3, normally, that's all you need. At most, you may get to 5 or so.