The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 03, 2014, 06:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 226
Still no sure either way... The super slo mo appears to confirm a correct call. I don't think the defender's left arm extends, it looks like that's the offensive player's right arm flying up? I think I probably call it live, but would be definitely reviewing after the game.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 03, 2014, 08:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
It doesn't from our point of view. But if you are going to call a screen illegal because of the amount of contact, then it does matter why that contact took place. It is not a foul just because the contact is violent or severe on the player setting the screen. And he was responding to the comment that suggested a foul was illegal only because of the nature of contact, not the legality of the screen.

Peace
Agree.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 03, 2014, 08:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,078
Given the speed of the defender, I would require 2 steps on this one. The screen was barely there by 1 step....so it was too late to be legal.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 11:29am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Not sure what that has to do with it being legal or not.
Agreed. She's not there in time, and there is no rule that requires the defense to call out the screen in order to get this call.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 01:07pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,585
I honestly do not think the defender was going that fast. Then again this is why it is a judgment call.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 01:24pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Given the speed of the defender, I would require 2 steps on this one. The screen was barely there by 1 step....so it was too late to be legal.
Don't have my rule books at work with me, but do you have a rules basis for requiring 2 steps? Or are you simply saying that in your judgement the defender would have needed two steps to avoid this contact?
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 01:37pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
Don't have my rule books at work with me, but do you have a rules basis for requiring 2 steps? Or are you simply saying that in your judgement the defender would have needed two steps to avoid this contact?
In fairness to the discussion, that was an interpretation. I am not so sure there was a specific requirement beyond that point of view. I just do not agree that 2 steps were required in this specific play.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 02:05pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
Don't have my rule books at work with me, but do you have a rules basis for requiring 2 steps? Or are you simply saying that in your judgement the defender would have needed two steps to avoid this contact?
4-40 ART. 5

When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her stationary position. The position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 02:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
Don't have my rule books at work with me, but do you have a rules basis for requiring 2 steps? Or are you simply saying that in your judgement the defender would have needed two steps to avoid this contact?
My judgement....that the speed was sufficient enough to require two steps as "can" be required by the rule posted by BNR.

Why two steps in this case? If the defender going going fast enough to cause that big of a collision they must have been closer to the higher end of the speed than the lower end....thus 2 instead of 1.

In general, I think officials are very poor at applying time and distance on screens. More times than not, it is incorrectly treated as if it were defender on a player with the ball....whoever gets there first wins as long as the screener is not still moving at the time of contact when the defender should be required to be there 1-2 steps before the defender.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:15pm.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 02:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB/PEI, Canada
Posts: 777
I don't believe that her speed was so great that if she'd been aware of the screen (head on a swivel, teammate called out etc) that she would have been capable or planting that foot that hits the ground to alter course or stop momentum.

She doesn't get the benefit of two steps for being out of control or unaware. She is just required to have enough space to stop or change direction which I believe she had.
__________________
Coach: Hey ref I'll make sure you can get out of here right after the game!

Me: Thanks, but why the big rush.

Coach: Oh I thought you must have a big date . . .we're not the only ones your planning on F$%&ing tonite are we!
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 02:46pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams View Post
I don't believe that her speed was so great that if she'd been aware of the screen (head on a swivel, teammate called out etc) that she would have been capable or planting that foot that hits the ground to alter course or stop momentum.

She doesn't get the benefit of two steps for being out of control or unaware. She is just required to have enough space to stop or change direction which I believe she had.
So you're completely ignoring the verbiage of the rule? If it doesn't apply to her, who does it apply to?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 02:55pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
So you're completely ignoring the verbiage of the rule? If it doesn't apply to her, who does it apply to?
Doesn't sound like he is ignoring verbiage to me...sounds like his judgement of the distance required to change direction or avoid contact is different than Camron's (and yours?).
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 03:02pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
Doesn't sound like he is ignoring verbiage to me...sounds like his judgement of the distance required to change direction or avoid contact is different than Camron's (and yours?).
I would accept that variance in judgment if not for this line:

"She doesn't get the benefit of two steps for being out of control or unaware".

So she wasn't running fast enough (according to his post), and she was blind to the screen (also according to the quote above). So I'm wondering what situation it would take for the screenee to get the benefit of 2 steps.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 03:02pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,585
And that is the crux of the entire discussion. Do you feel the player has enough time to move, stop or change direction? I believe the player does have enough time to change directions. The defender was not running at full speed forward. She was shuffling and back pedaling. And the reason that it matters if someone called out the screen, because if they did get the screen called out, IMO the defender could have gone around or stopped to avoid the contact all together. But as stated, this is a judgment call. It does not mean someone could not disagree.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 04, 2014, 03:04pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
I would accept that variance in judgment if not for this line:

"She doesn't get the benefit of two steps for being out of control or unaware".

So she wasn't running fast enough (according to his post), and she was blind to the screen (also according to the quote above). So I'm wondering what situation it would take for the screenee to get the benefit of 2 steps.
Running full speed going forward (and used to be the interpretation shown in the S&I book). I do not think a player is running at maximum speed going backwards and shuffling to the side.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Screen/Technical video--your thoughts? cmb Basketball 58 Fri Mar 29, 2013 01:57pm
Legal/Illegal Screen or No Call APG Basketball 23 Thu May 31, 2012 10:17am
Legal moving screen Sharpshooternes Basketball 13 Mon Apr 16, 2012 04:39pm
Running Through a Legal Screen SmokeEater Basketball 24 Wed Jan 25, 2006 02:11pm
Legal Screen Pass Grey Hare Football 14 Mon Nov 14, 2005 02:02pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1