The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/94164-screening-plays-our-friends-dvboa.html)

zm1283 Mon Feb 25, 2013 01:59pm

The first one is illegal.

The second one looks illegal, but like others have said, it's a bad camera angle.

The third one is legal.

#olderthanilook Mon Feb 25, 2013 02:10pm

1. A2's feet are too wide, BUT the B1 does not contact A2's legs. Rather, he blows through A2's torso. For this reason, I say "legal" screen.

2. "Illegal". A2's arms are up at chest level with slight extension at contact. That's a no no.

3. "Legal". Tough to see the slight hip movement. Time and space seem to be fine. Defender was given one full step.

YooperRef Tue Feb 26, 2013 05:40pm

1. illegal (after repeated viewings)

2. illegal

3. legal

fullor30 Tue Feb 26, 2013 06:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 881626)
2 and 3 illegal. 1, although legs are extended, contact is centered and initiated by defender. I'm not calling that. That said,I'm not locking horns with anyone if someone sees it the other way.

After further review and copius notes, #1 illegal, #3 maybe not so, but I'm sure game situation, I'd probably call it.

Toren Wed Feb 27, 2013 01:08am

I would not have an illegal screen on any of those three screens.

AremRed Wed Feb 27, 2013 01:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 882150)
I would not have an illegal screen on any of those three screens.

Why not?

Toren Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanwestref (Post 882151)
Why not?

I thought the illegality of each one was marginal. Mostly I saw feet too wide, but it wasn't egregious in my opinion.

Also I felt the players were pretty well rehearsed in faking the amount of actual contact. This is pretty evident by the first screen, if you watch the offense on that play, he throws his body back like he got clobbered by the defense and he even hits the ground.

JRutledge Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:50am

I had to look at this again and changed my mind.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 882201)
I thought the illegality of each one was marginal. Mostly I saw feet too wide, but it wasn't egregious in my opinion.

Also I felt the players were pretty well rehearsed in faking the amount of actual contact. This is pretty evident by the first screen, if you watch the offense on that play, he throws his body back like he got clobbered by the defense and he even hits the ground.

I went back and looked at them again and I think the only one that was really illegal was the second one. The first one the contact happens with the torso and not primarily the legs.

The second one was illegal based on the fact that he extended his arms which I feel caused a lot of the contact. There might have been some embellishment, but not much IMO on this play.

The last one I first thought was illegal, but it appears he was preparing to be run into and was bigger and the contact was more retreating then extending.

Peace

billyu2 Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 882205)
I went back and looked at them again and I think the only one that was really illegal was the second one. The first one the contact happens with the torso and not primarily the legs.

The second one was illegal based on the fact that he extended his arms which I feel caused a lot of the contact. There might have been some embellishment, but not much IMO on this play.

The last one I first thought was illegal, but it appears he was preparing to be run into and was bigger and the contact was more retreating then extending.

Peace

In the second one, if you look closely, the defender initially starts to go down by tripping over the screener's right leg/foot. Whether that foot is extended too far is hard to tell because of the camera angle. I agree the extension/contact of the arms makes it an easier call.

I agree on the third. More a case of a smaller player running into a much bigger dude.

REFANDUMP Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 881472)
Only illegal one I have is the 2nd one...and on the first play I have a defensive foul on the defender after the screen.

We have a winner !!!

JRutledge Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 882215)
In the second one, if you look closely, the defender initially starts to go down by tripping over the screener's right leg/foot. Whether that foot is extended too far is hard to tell because of the camera angle. I agree the extension/contact of the arms makes it an easier call.

I agree on the third. More a case of a smaller player running into a much bigger dude.

The angle is not great and I can surely see that POV. It just is more obvious than the other two for sure.

Peace

JetMetFan Wed Feb 27, 2013 04:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 882205)
The first one the contact happens with the torso and not primarily the legs.

Could B1 trying to fight through the screen and falling over the spread legs be a factor in determining whether there's a TC?

bob jenkins Thu Feb 28, 2013 09:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 882280)
Could B1 trying to fight through the screen and falling over the spread legs be a factor in determining whether there's a TC?

IMO, yes.

Sharpshooternes Thu Feb 28, 2013 03:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 882280)
Could B1 trying to fight through the screen and falling over the spread legs be a factor in determining whether there's a TC?

I was just about to say this. So what if the initial contact was on the torso? If he is trying to get around the screen that has the screener's legs way wider than the shoulders, that is illegal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1