Illegal or legal screen (Video)
 

Skylar Diggins Wiped Out By Crystal Langhorne Screen - YouTube

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/y_Ihhp5aXeA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
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.

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

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

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.

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.

Two Steps ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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.

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

An inexact science..........
 

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.

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

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.

+1

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

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

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

I stopped reading here. If you're starting with a premise that "all that contact" should be part of your criteria, then you're doing it wrong.

Illegal. Not enough time/distance given for the defender, screener was still moving forward within that window.

Did she in anyway blow up the screener before getting knocked on her ass?

Not sure what that has to do with it being legal or not.

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

What did the defender do wrong?

Slo-mo of the slo-mo (video)
 

There weren't any other angles of the play but here's a slo-mo of the slo-mo so we can comparison shop...


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/H1E8PuMvT3c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Illegal Screen ...
 

Agree. Watching this video over, and over, including some stop action, I believe that from the time that the screener stopped moving forward, the defender was allowed about 7/8 of a step to change direction, and attempt to avoid contact with the screener. At the speed that the defender was moving, I believe that the screener should have allowed the defender the two step maximum (dictated by rule), allowing the defender the time, and distance, to change direction, and attempt to avoid contact with the screener.

I don't see a problem with the forearm. Bad angle for me, and maybe the screener was just protecting herself, or maybe the forearm moved up as a result of the impact resulting from the contact.

I'm gender neutral on this. I'm calling it the same way in a boys, or girls, game.

Agree ...
 

... and it amazes me that we can get anything right, on the court, in a real game, in real time.

How do we all do it? And get paid for doing it? And get invited back to do more games?

Or this version of the question: What did Diggins do to put Langhorne at a disadvantage?

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.

Agree.

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.

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.

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

Peace

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

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.

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.

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?

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. :confused:

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

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

I guess in my mind the situation that I'm giving full 2 steps to is a situation where the player has no chance to see or stop in time so I'm giving them the maximum time to have something communicated or for them to change their route or angle. Ie a player back pedaling hard but couldn't possibly see a screener coming directly at their back. This screener should be giving two steps of room.

This does bring up a point about "blind screens" that's been rumbling around in my head. Obviously players can't run around with their eyes closed but when I think about blind screens I've always interpreted that as a screen that is set to a players back where they are incapable of seeing the screen. If a player positions themselves in another periferal vision but the other just doesn't see them because they are not aware I don't see that as the same thing.

In the case of the OP she is not looking in the direction she's running I don't consider that a "blind screen".

I was always thought that a player who is backpedaling is not looking in the direction he is running. ;)

Don't "blind screens" apply only when the player being screened is stationary? If so, that's not applicable in this play.

You are correct.

The difference between a blind screen on a moving opponent and a blind screen on a stationary opponent is how much room the screener must give the opponent. If they're moving, it's the standard one to two normal steps/strides relative to the opponent's speed. If they're stationary it's one normal step (whatever "normal" may be).

Panther you're right: This wasn't a blind screen because it was set to the defender's side. If she doesn't see it, that's her problem but the time/distance part of the equation still applies.

Let's Chat About Screens ...
 

NFHS 4-40 Screen
ART. 1 A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact,
delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same
path and the same direction.
d. The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance
approximately shoulder width apart.
ART. 3 When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side (within
the visual field), the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
ART. 4 When screening a stationary opponent from behind (outside the
visual field), the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward
without contact.
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.
ART. 6 When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and
direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made
because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns
his/her opponent.
ART. 7 A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual
field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the
opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled
as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact
and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if
he/she has the ball.
ART. 8 A player may not use the arms, hands, hips or shoulders to force
his/her way through a screen or to hold the screener and then push the screener
aside in order to maintain a guarding position on an opponent.

Note: I looked this up online: The visual field refers to the total area in which objects can be seen in the side (peripheral) vision while you focus your eyes on a central point. It doesn't say anything about the direction that the body is facing, it's based on the direction that the eyes are focused. If a player has their body facing north, but has their head turned 180 degrees around like an owl (extreme example not based on reality), then their visual field is the peripheral vision on either side of south.

Is this (below) the NFHS "definition" of a blind screen?

4-27 Incidental Contact
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which
does not constitute a foul.
Art. 4 A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In
cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent
contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact,
provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

Once again, I see little about the direction that the player's body is facing, it seems to be more about the direction that the eyes are facing.

Billy,
Consult your NFHS Casebook. There is a play in it which states that screens from the side are within the visual field and only screens from behind are "blind."

Thanks ...
 

I tried a casebook search for the word "screen" and couldn't find any such play. That doesn't mean that it's not there, it must means that I can't find it.

I also did a casebook search, and a rulebook search, for the word "blind" and nothing came up.

Here's one which addresses your body and head direction while running question.

10.6.11 SITUATION D:

A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1.

RULING: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for *contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to *contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1. (4-40)

I am going to vote for illegal screen on this play. The rules don't say you have to be full run to give the two steps. ... In an open court situation like the one in this play and moving as fast as it was is enough for the two steps. But as everyone says this is what naked this a judgment call

In The Pudding ...
 

... Which seems to support my contention that, in determining whether, or not, a screen is "blind", it's the direction of the head (eyes and visual field) that's the determining factor, not he direction of the body.

(I'm still looking for Nevadaref's case play that differentiates between screens from the "side", and screens from "behind".)

It has been established before that the "central point" (using the terminology from the definition you posted above) is, for basketball, based on the body's direction. A player doesn't gain extra rights by looking away from where they might expect a screen or defender. The blind spot is the spot where the head can't be turned to see...which is based on where the body is facing.

Billy,
You had it all along! The definitions which I thought were in the Casebook are actually contained within the Rules book. The articles above tell you that the front or side is within the visual field and that from behind is not.
Although these articles are for stationary opponents the definitions provided for what constitutes the visual field apply to moving players as well.

Field Of View ...
 

Where has the NFHS "established" that central point is based on the body's direction?

Peripheral vision, i.e., field of view (in basketball terms), is not measured based how far the head can be turned, but, rather, by how much can be seen, right, left, up, down, without turning one's head.

If one defines peripheral vision based on the ability to turn one's head, then the peripheral vision would be in excess of 360 degrees, and there would never be a blind screen. Never. Ever.

Parenthetical ...
 

Politely disagree. You view the definition as the NFHS defining field of view based on front, and side. I view the definition as the NFHS defining front, and side, based on the field of view. I can see how you could interpret it one way, your way. Can you see how one may interpret it another way, my way? I'm not 100% sure that my way is correct, but I have yet to see any contrary citation.

If a player has an opportunity to see (within their visual field, let's, for sake of argument, say it's 90 degrees to the left, and to the right, of the direction that they are looking) a screen based on which way their head (not their body) is turned, then, in my opinion, it's not a blind screen.