Illegal or legal screen (Video)

[SNIPERBBB]

On second look, it could be borderline on time and distance and slightly leaning forward.

[bob jenkins]

Did she give a moving defender time and distance to avoid the screen?

[Texref]

Bob, I believe she did. I do see her "firming up" right before contact but not moving towards skylar. Howeve the angle is not the best and it's a brief clip at that.

[JetMetFan]

Illegal. The opponent needs to be able to take at least one regular step from the moment the screener legally sets the screen (in this case, when she stops moving). That didn't happen on this play.

No time/distance AND the screener extends her left arm after contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

No time/distance AND the screener extends her left arm after contact.

That's what I see also.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's what I see also.

If the video were just a bit more clear you might even be able to make a case for a flagrant foul for elbow contact above the shoulders.

[Nevadaref]

This clip is an example of the difference between the men's and women's games. On the men's side this a hard, but legal screen. On the women's side this will almost always be called a foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The opponent needs to be able to take at least one regular step from the moment the screener legally sets the screen.

That's for a stationary defender. Diggins was actually a moving defender, and at the speed she was moving, she probably should have been afforded two steps.

If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed and distance of the defender.

Bottom line? Illegal screen.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's for a stationary defender. Diggins was actually a moving defender, and at the speed she was moving, she probably should have been afforded two steps.

If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed and distance of the defender.

Bottom line? Illegal screen.

Remember, I said "at least" . It could have been two steps/strides:

WNBA Rule 12-B-III: "A player who sets a screen shall not...(3) assume a position so near a moving opponent she is not given the opportunity to stop and/or change direction before making illegal contact...the speed of the opponent being screened will determine what the screener's stationary position may be. This position will vary and may be one or two steps or strides from her opponent.

It's a matter of judgment but I'll agree in this case two probably would've been good.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This clip is an example of the difference between the men's and women's games. On the men's side this a hard, but legal screen. On the women's side this will almost always be called a foul.

I've seen it called in NBA games but there shouldn't be a difference. The wording in the WNBA rule book is exactly the same as that in the NBA rule book.

[Nevadaref]

There is no difference in the rule, but there is certainly a difference in how the whistle is blown and the expectations of the players, coaches, and supervisors.