Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA

[zm1283]

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]

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]

1. illegal (after repeated viewings)

2. illegal

3. legal

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by fullor30

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]

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

Originally Posted by Toren

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

Why not?

[Toren]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

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]

Originally Posted by Toren

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by APG

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]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.