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.

That's how I saw that play also.

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).

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

#1 Illegal...time distance not met.

#2 Illegal.

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

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.

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.

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.

May I suggest reviewing the screening rules? The wide base is not a legal position, and responsibility for contact falls on the screener.

Really? Just don't see that at all. He was back peddling down the court, stopped to let the defender run into him then continued backing down the court. I just don't see him moving toward the defender at all.

+1

Call it early and they clean it up.

ONLY if the contact is on the extended leg. If the contact is on the torso, the legs could be a far out as they can get them. The following could still be a legal screen depending on where the contact occurs...

http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/D...0&keep_ratio=1

I do believe it is an illegal screen but are you suggesting that a foul be called when a screen is was legal but ugly?

May I suggest applying the rules realistically instead of seeing everything in black and white? :rolleyes:

It's not a big move; the feet are set but screener makes a forward motion with his upper body; very slight, and definitely not egregious. A 50/50 one for sure. With T's floor-level view, might have a different opinion, not sure.

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo, especially in slow motion. Nevertheless, a tough call either way.

Odd Reference ...
 

I did not know that canuckrefguy was a gal who does a lot of reading. Who woulda guessed it?

The Forum Should Prohibit Violent Images ...
 

I'm in a lot of pain just looking at this image. All kinds of pain, in a few different places.

hehe :D

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

amen!!!

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.

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.

The first one is illegal.

The second one looks illegal, but like others have said, it's a bad camera angle.

The third one is legal.

1. A2's feet are too wide, BUT the B1 does not contact A2's legs. Rather, he blows through A2's torso. For this reason, I say "legal" screen.

2. "Illegal". A2's arms are up at chest level with slight extension at contact. That's a no no.

3. "Legal". Tough to see the slight hip movement. Time and space seem to be fine. Defender was given one full step.

1. illegal (after repeated viewings)

2. illegal

3. legal

After further review and copius notes, #1 illegal, #3 maybe not so, but I'm sure game situation, I'd probably call it.

I would not have an illegal screen on any of those three screens.

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.

I had to look at this again and changed my mind.
 

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.

We have a winner !!!

The angle is not great and I can surely see that POV. It just is more obvious than the other two for sure.

Peace

Could B1 trying to fight through the screen and falling over the spread legs be a factor in determining whether there's a TC?

IMO, yes.

I was just about to say this. So what if the initial contact was on the torso? If he is trying to get around the screen that has the screener's legs way wider than the shoulders, that is illegal.