Illegal or legal screen (Video)

[Texref]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[JRutledge]

I honestly do not think the defender was going that fast. Then again this is why it is a judgment call.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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