Oakland vs Youngstown State (video and article)

Originally Posted by johnny d

Mark, you are only partially correct. The rule states the player running through the screen has to stop or attempt to stop. I am sure the people who wrote the rule realize there is no way the screened player can instantly stop once he makes contact. If the screen was legal, this should be considered incidental contact.

Can't we use the same ""to" versus "to and through" language to officiate this play?

I have a defensive foul for running through the (in my opinion) legal screen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Can't we use the same ""to" versus "to and through" language to officiate this play?

I have a defensive foul for running through the (in my opinion) legal screen.

Legal screen?

[maroonx]

Anyone agree Bader's step back dribble behind the 3point arc is a travel violation?

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by maroonx

Anyone agree Bader's step back dribble behind the 3point arc is a travel violation?

No, he still has his dribble when he takes the step back and gathers while airborne. Legal jump stop.

Originally Posted by maroonx

dribble

Originally Posted by maroonx

travel violation

Just think about having both these phrases in the same sentence.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Legal screen?

Yes, that's what I wrote? You sound confused?

[johnny d]

He and others would be confused because the screen was not legal.

Originally Posted by johnny d

He and others would be confused because the screen was not legal.

It is close, but I think the screen is legal. I do not think the screener violated NCAA 4-34-3a or 4-34-3c.

Perhaps the defender should have been more aware of where he was going instead of being so focused on the ball.

[maroonx]

He does not have a dribble. His dribble stopped. Picked up ball and stepped back. Feet did not land at the same time. Defense was good. defense put at disadvantage by allowing dribbler to violate.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

It is close, but I think the screen is legal. I do not think the screener violated NCAA 4-34-3a or 4-34-3c.

Perhaps the defender should have been more aware of where he was going instead of being so focused on the ball.

So you don't like the blind screen rule, so defenders shouldn't get protection from it?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So you don't like the blind screen rule, so defenders shouldn't get protection from it?

Liking or disliking the rule has nothing to do with it. I will admit that the more I watch the video, the more it looks illegal.

Is it possible the Trail keeps holding his arm up hoping C could help out with this screen's legality?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by maroonx

Anyone agree Bader's step back dribble behind the 3point arc is a travel violation?

Nope (assuming it is the play by #3 on the right end of the court on the far side that occurred shortly after the illegal screen part of the ciip).

I don't think he picked up the ball until after he jumped...allowing him to land on either or both feet.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by maroonx

He does not have a dribble. His dribble stopped. Picked up ball and stepped back. Feet did not land at the same time. Defense was good. defense put at disadvantage by allowing dribbler to violate.

Your discription of the play is a travel, but that's not what happened. Look at it again.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Give a guy a break. My beloved Penguins lost and we are beating this play to death.

MTD, Sr.