Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA

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

Sharpshooternes wrote
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.

JugglingReferee

APG wrote
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.

Same.

JRutledge

The first one I would like to see a different angle as it appeared the screen was legal where the contact mostly took place.

Second one was illegal. The last one was illegal.

Peace

Raymond

APG wrote
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.

On play #1 please tell me how W23 is in a legal stance when he set the screen? B2 trips over his extended knee. How can you deem this legal?

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
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.

JRutledge

BadNewsRef wrote
On play #1 please tell me how W23 is in a legal stance when he set the screen? B2 trips over his extended knee. How can you deem this legal?

The contact mostly took place with the torso of the screener. So I would suggest that the extended knee was irrelevant to the contact on some level and that the defender was already falling. And if the screen was illegal, I am not so sure that it was because of the "stance" itself. It looks to me like he pushed him out of the way, which is why I would like to see the other side of the screen to say for sure I would make that call.

Peace

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

twocentsworth wrote
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.

Welpe

JRutledge wrote
The contact mostly took place with the torso of the screener. So I would suggest that the extended knee was irrelevant to the contact on some level and that the defender was already falling. And if the screen was illegal, I am not so sure that it was because of the "stance" itself. It looks to me like he pushed him out of the way, which is why I would like to see the other side of the screen to say for sure I would make that call.

Peace

That's how I saw that play also.

JRutledge

JetMetFan wrote
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

JRutledge wrote
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

JetMetFan wrote
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

Camron Rust

#1 Illegal...time distance not met.

#2 Illegal.

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

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

APG wrote
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.

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.

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.

canuckrefguy

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.