Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA

[Raymond]

All 3 illegal.

1st; leg extended

2nd: leg extended amd moving

3rd: hip check

Even in 2 man trail on ball was in position to see all 3.

[BillyMac]

First play. Is the screen against a moving opponent, and if so, is the proper time and distance given? Tough call, but in my opinion, yes, and no.

[Sharpshooternes]

I think all three are illegal.
The first, legs are too wide.
The second, i would probably pass on except for the arm extracurricular activity.
The third one, I could be swayed that it was legal. The reason I think it is not is that he didn't get set soon enough to provide room for the defender to stop as the screen was outside his field of vision.

[Bad Zebra]

All three illegal. First two, feet are MUCH WIDER than shoulder width apart...this was a point of emphasis in our assn. this year. Third one...screener appears to be moving toward defender at contact. Surprised there wasn't a whistle on at least one of them.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I think all three are illegal.
The first, legs are too wide.
The second, i would probably pass on except for the arm extracurricular activity.
The third one, I could be swayed that it was legal. The reason I think it is not is that he didn't get set soon enough to provide room for the defender to stop as the screen was outside his field of vision.

That is what I have.

Let me add that if the screen was judged to be legal (or it was not seen), then there should have been a whistle for a foul on the defnese when the dribbler tripped.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

First play. Is the screen against a moving opponent, and if so, is the proper time and distance given? Tough call, but in my opinion, yes, and no.

On the first play W23's right knee is extended into the defender's path, so time and distance is moot.

[ref3808]

Agree with those who see all three as bad.

[twocentsworth]

Each of these schools/AD's/coaches "deserve what they get" on these plays. Only having two officials (albeit not very good ones) means that "action areas" do not have the proper coverage.....

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Each of these schools/AD's/coaches "deserve what they get" on these plays. Only having two officials (albeit not very good ones) means that "action areas" do not have the proper coverage.....

I don't buy the two-person argument.

First, it's what we're paid to do.

Second, in all three situations the T was far enough from the contact that they could have "seen the whole play" as we're all told to do. The problem all three ran into - other than not putting on whistle on at least one of them - was focusing on the ball. The dribblers weren't under duress in any of those situations. If the Ts look at the next matchup/action area (i.e., the screen), miss a palm or travel but see a defender wiped out on a screen and know why the defender hit the deck, it's worth missing the violation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I don't buy the two-person argument.

First, it's what we're paid to do.

Second, in all three situations the T was far enough from the contact that they could have "seen the whole play" as we're all told to do. The problem all three ran into - other than not putting on whistle on at least one of them - was focusing on the ball. The dribblers weren't under duress in any of those situations. If the Ts look at the next matchup/action area (i.e., the screen), miss a palm or travel but see a defender wiped out on a screen and know why the defender hit the deck, it's worth missing the violation.

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

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

all 3 illegal.

1st; leg extended

2nd: Leg extended amd moving

3rd: Hip check

even in 2 man trail on ball was in position to see all 3.

+1