Illegal or legal screen (Video)

Texref

Skylar Diggins Wiped Out By Crystal Langhorne Screen - YouTube

Someone please embed. I couldn't find, albeit I didn't look too hard, the thread on how to embed directly.

Seattle storm game right at the end of the 2nd quarter if other footage available. I don't see what defender did wrong from the highlight.

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.

[deleted]

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

BillyMac

JetMetFan wrote
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.

Raymond

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

That's what I see also.

Camron Rust

BadNewsRef wrote
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.

JetMetFan

BillyMac wrote
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.

Nevadaref wrote
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.

Pantherdreams

I'm ok with the time and distance allowed. But I feel like the left arm extension and pop on the play that we are a little blocked out on by the camera angle until the end of the play is the deal breaker.

I've got a foul.

But if she'd just held her ground and not extended into her I'm probably ok with a no call.

JRutledge

I call as many fouls on illegal screens as anyone, this looks legal to me. The screener is preparing for the contact and it appears no one called out the screen for the defender.

I got nothing. And I think the fact that this is a women's game is why this was called. The defender was not moving that fast and you can give them one or two steps and this was enough time and distance IMO.

Peace

grunewar

I just continue to find it fascinating that even with the comfort of slow motion, repetitive instant replays, we can continue to have differing opinions on the same call......and that's why this is such an interesting and enjoyable avocation on the court, real-time, where we don't have such a luxury.

Appreciate all the insights as to what call you would make and why in this, and other circumstances.

pfan1981

JRutledge wrote
I call as many fouls on illegal screens as anyone, this looks legal to me. The screener is preparing for the contact and it appears no one called out the screen for the defender.

I got nothing. And I think the fact that this is a women's game is why this was called. The defender was not moving that fast and you can give them one or two steps and this was enough time and distance IMO.

Peace

With all that contact, wouldn't you have something? I agree, it is a legal screen. In our area, we were instructed to watch for teams blowing up screens. I believe this clip meets that criteria. Shouldn't the defender be punished with a foul?

pfan

Blindolbat

JRutledge wrote
I call as many fouls on illegal screens as anyone, this looks legal to me. The screener is preparing for the contact and it appears no one called out the screen for the defender.

I got nothing. And I think the fact that this is a women's game is why this was called. The defender was not moving that fast and you can give them one or two steps and this was enough time and distance IMO.

Peace

This for me. I think our angle on the reply was better than what the calling official had, so I don't think the left arm came into play on her call at all.

IUgrad92

jrutledge wrote
i call as many fouls on illegal screens as anyone, this looks legal to me. The screener is preparing for the contact and it appears no one called out the screen for the defender.

I got nothing. And i think the fact that this is a women's game is why this was called. The defender was not moving that fast and you can give them one or two steps and this was enough time and distance imo.

Peace

JRutledge

pfan1981 wrote
With all that contact, wouldn't you have something? I agree, it is a legal screen. In our area, we were instructed to watch for teams blowing up screens. I believe this clip meets that criteria. Shouldn't the defender be punished with a foul?

pfan

The level of contact has nothing to do with the legality of a screen. If a screener is setting a legal screen, it certainly cannot be a foul on the player setting the screen for sure. And the only one technically displaced is the defender and that would only be a foul if you determine they were not given the correct time and distance.

Peace

rockyroad

pfan1981 wrote
With all that contact, wouldn't you have something? I agree, it is a legal screen. In our area, we were instructed to watch for teams blowing up screens. I believe this clip meets that criteria. Shouldn't the defender be punished with a foul?

pfan

How does this play fit the definition of "blowing up the screen"??

The only thing blown up here is the defender...