That's how I saw that play also.

Well it does have merit. You say we are paid to call the game, but that is a difficult call when you have a player with the ball and have to watch the screen in a two person. In a three person system someone else saw that play start, develop and finish. The on-ball official is in a very tough spot and often sees the very end of a play, not the thing middle or start. And I know most of my screen calls are when I do not have the ball near the play and I am not the on-ball official. It still is sad that schools who claim to focus on safety would not put their kids in the best situation to have all contact called properly.

Peace

I don't deny it's more difficult but in these situations, at least, it's not impossible. Most of mine in 2-person are off-ball as well but I can remember a few in 3-person this season when the ball was in my primary and I looked off because either the ball handler wasn't be guarded at all or the opponent was a decent distance away. If no one is bothering the kid with the ball we should be in the habit of looking at the next possible problem area (within reason, of course).

It appears these are all in the same game. And we have 3 players with a lot of contact and the first play even involved a player with the ball falling and nothing was called. These kids are bigger and faster than they were even 20 years ago and there is more motion offenses as well. These plays all would have been helped by a third. And these are the plays that could be highlighted if I wanted to illustrate why you need 3 instead of two.

Peace

#1 Illegal...time distance not met.

#2 Illegal.

#3 Legal. Was there in plenty of time and stopped letting the defender come into him

APG:

I agree with you on Plays 1 and 3. But I would have a pushing/blocking foul on W14 against B25 before B25 can set his screen.

MTD, Sr.

First one is a coin toss for me. The defenders leg is extended beyond but I can't tell if the intial contact was chest and shoulder and then the D gets tangled in the leg on the way down or if the entanglement with the leg to the legal upper body contact.

2nd - illegal screen the only thing making contact is extended forearms

3rd - I don't have anything on the thrid one. Screener is set and braces himself never extends outside his vertical area. (imo). Very physical play but screener isn't doing anything illegal.

1. Legal - legs are 'wide' but runs smack into screener's torso area anyway.

2. Fifty shades of illegal.

3. Illegal - screener would have been good but eliminated the necessary time/distance by moving forward into the defender.

As for the 2-person/3-person argument - no question 3 whistles is better...but the screens all happen directly in front of trail. Even the second one, which is blatantly illegal, the Trail sees the whole play, but passes - he even shakes his head to confirm he is passing.

May I suggest reviewing the screening rules? The wide base is not a legal position, and responsibility for contact falls on the screener.

Really? Just don't see that at all. He was back peddling down the court, stopped to let the defender run into him then continued backing down the court. I just don't see him moving toward the defender at all.

+1

Call it early and they clean it up.

ONLY if the contact is on the extended leg. If the contact is on the torso, the legs could be a far out as they can get them. The following could still be a legal screen depending on where the contact occurs...

http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/D...0&keep_ratio=1

I do believe it is an illegal screen but are you suggesting that a foul be called when a screen is was legal but ugly?

May I suggest applying the rules realistically instead of seeing everything in black and white? :rolleyes:

It's not a big move; the feet are set but screener makes a forward motion with his upper body; very slight, and definitely not egregious. A 50/50 one for sure. With T's floor-level view, might have a different opinion, not sure.