VIDEO: Wild Wisconsin finish

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have a legal screen. The player runs into a player that is basically standing there.

I cannot tell if there was contact on the shot or the player tripped. It looked like a frantic sequence to the basket.

The final play looks like a clear PC foul. The issue seems to be if the basket would have counted anyway. But hard to tell with no audio and no foul being reported.

Peace

I don't agree. Red #34 starts with both feet by the 3-line and at the last second over-steps (beyond shoulder width) into the path of the opponent leaving him virtually no time/distance to stop or change direction.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I don't agree. Red #34 starts with both feet by the 3-line and at the last second over-steps (beyond shoulder width) into the path of the opponent leaving him virtually no time/distance to stop or change direction.

The rule does not require that the feet be in stone. The contact mostly took place because the defender did not see the screen coming.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule does not require that the feet be in stone. The contact mostly took place because the defender did not see the screen coming.

Peace

I've got an illegal screen on 34. he steps with that left foot late. tough to tell on video but when a player does that the top half also moves that direction. at the exact moment of contact he may very well have been stationary but not soon enough for my liking.

take a look at 34 on the next inbounds play. he puts two hands on his guy and shoves him. if i didn't call the screen illegal id likely be wondering if he got away with one…i wouldn't pass on this one. two hands on a player and a shove is stupid on his part.

can't tell if the guy got clipped on the other end. could have been the angle he was at…charge call at end looks like good call.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule does not require that the feet be in stone. The contact mostly took place because the defender did not see the screen coming.

Peace

But the legality of the contact is based on whether (a) the screener gave the moving defender time and distance and/or (b) was the screener's foot/leg within the framework of his body. Whether the defender saw the screen coming or not is not an issue in this particular situation. You as well as others feel the screen was okay. My initial reaction was "illegal." Subsequent breaking down of the video by frame hasn't changed my opinion. But this is a great play for discussion for sure!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by billyu2

But the legality of the contact is based on whether (a) the screener gave the moving defender time and distance and/or (b) was the screener's foot/leg within the framework of his body. Whether the defender saw the screen coming or not is not an issue in this particular situation. You as well as others feel the screen was okay. My initial reaction was "illegal." Subsequent breaking down of the video by frame hasn't changed my opinion. But this is a great play for discussion for sure!

Yes, but there has to be displacement. There has to be something caused by the screener. Moving a foot a little is not IMO a violation of the rule or te spirit of the rule. And if I have to slow it down to make a determination, then it was not obvious that a rule has been violated. And the screener did nothing that stood out as something clearly illegal.

Peace

[frezer11]

Screen is hard, and someone hits the deck which makes it look bad, but I'm also OK with it. I think that if the exact same action is done and the defender doesn't fall, then this isn't nearly as big an issue.

Only call/mechanic I could do without is the OOB early. As for the PC, you need to sell that call here. I think I would more likely hit my whistle a few times, come off the baseline toward half court and give one strong sell, rather than the multiple, but point is still made.

Also on a separate note, I'm hoping the white HC has a nice sit-down conversation with that little sawed-off assistant who just seemed to escalate things.

[rockyroad]

I would love to know if the assistant coach got any discipline from the school or the league for his behavior after the PC call was made. Being that far out on the court and giving the big wave-off repeatedly is not something any coach should be doing, but especially not an assistant.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, but there has to be displacement. There has to be something caused by the screener. Moving a foot a little is not IMO a violation of the rule or te spirit of the rule. And if I have to slow it down to make a determination, then it was not obvious that a rule has been violated. And the screener did nothing that stood out as something clearly illegal.

Peace

I'm not concerned with the width of the legs -- the contact was in the torso and the leg width didn't have a single thing to do with the player running into that screen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm not concerned with the width of the legs -- the contact was in the torso and the leg width didn't have a single thing to do with the player running into that screen.

Exactly. The screen could be doing the splits for all I care....if the contact is in the torso.