Screening plays from our friends at the DVBOA
 

There are three of them on the clip. Thoughts?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s2puU3OEPoA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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.

Time And Distance ???
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Same.

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

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?

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

Agree with those who see all three as bad.

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

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.