Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA

[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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

You might want to look at #1 again...the screener also threw his shoulder into the defender in addition to being late.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You might want to look at #1 again...the screener also threw his shoulder into the defender in addition to being late.

I dunno, Camron - if he does, it's about the same level of "throwing" of the body that occurs in play #3 IMO

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I dunno, Camron - if he does, it's about the same level of "throwing" of the body that occurs in play #3 IMO

Not at all. I think the guy in #3 just stopped and stood up. The screener in #1 drove his shoulder into the defender. The screen in #1 was bad for 2-3 reasons. That is just one of them but puts the icing on the cake.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not at all. I think the guy in #3 just stopped and stood up. The screener in #1 drove his shoulder into the defender. The screen in #1 was bad for 2-3 reasons. That is just one of them but puts the icing on the cake.

The guy didn't "just stand up". His chest area "clearly" moves into the defender.

And by "clearly" I mean about as "clearly" as the alleged shoulder in play #1.

In neither play is the alleged movement really obvious. That's why I think they're both 50/50 types of plays.

In the end, both plays #1 and #3 are going to be passed on and called - in both cases I'm willing to bet peoples' opinions are going to be split.

[Terrapins Fan]

I am not saying call something that is not there, it is there, call it.

Just like an offensive foul, call it, they change the way they drive to the basket. Instead of dropping their shoulder, they go vertical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

The guy didn't "just stand up". His chest area "clearly" moves into the defender.

And by "clearly" I mean about as "clearly" as the alleged shoulder in play #1.

In neither play is the alleged movement really obvious. That's why I think they're both 50/50 types of plays.

In the end, both plays #1 and #3 are going to be passed on and called - in both cases I'm willing to bet peoples' opinions are going to be split.

Assume they both did as you describe. They're still not the same.

The screener in #1 was shifting it out to the side to create contact that may not have otherwise occurred...the shoulder in combination with him sticking the leg out AND not giving time/distance, at a iminimum, makes the contact worse than it would have been and maybe even created contact that shouldn't have been.

In #3, that defender was going to run into that screen no matter what. His teammates needed to alert him to that screen. What little shift the screener may have made didn't really change what was going to happen.

Clearly, neither was called in the videos. I just think that #1 is a must get and #3 is marginal.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Assume they both did as you describe. They're still not the same.

The screener in #1 was shifting it out to the side to create contact that may not have otherwise occurred...the shoulder in combination with him sticking the leg out AND not giving time/distance, at a iminimum, makes the contact worse than it would have been and maybe even created contact that shouldn't have been.

In #3, that defender was going to run into that screen no matter what. His teammates needed to alert him to that screen. What little shift the screener may have made didn't really change what was going to happen.

Clearly, neither was called in the videos. I just think that #1 is a must get and #3 is marginal.

A lot of people have said that time and distance are an issue in #1. Maybe I'm not interpreting time and distance right or maybe the fiba rules are written differently.

If you feel the guy defending is moving when the screen is set (and I'm not) then he needs room to step between 1 and two steps.

If you feel the defender is stationary when the screen is set then assuming he can see laterally he has no expectation of time and space.

[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.

[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?