Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA

[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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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

[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.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree with all of this. #1 has a wide stance but the wide stance isn't the problem, the contact occurs with the torso primarily, so I would agree with the no call.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

The second, i would probably pass on except for the arm extracurricular activity.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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

I think the second one is the most clearly illegal and I don't see how you could pass on it. Forget the arm activity, the screeners right leg extends and trips the defender. How are the forearms the only thing making contact when the right leg clearly trips the defender?

The 1st and 3rd I can see room for debate.

The 1st play I would lean toward being illegal followed by a clear blocking foul on the 2nd defender. Hard to believe they had no whistle on that play.

The 3rd play I would lean toward legal.