Cavaliers-Bulls game 5

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I think it all stops if the illegal screen is called at the start of the play, but that's just me.

That was marginal at best.

[scrounge]

I didn't think it was an ejection-worthy offense, at least not after replay showing it was more of a reaction to throw off a leg lock. T's for both or downgrade to FF1, but not an FF2. And kinda shocked there wasn't a T issued for whoever the Bulls player (Butler?) that came flying in afterwards to push the pile.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by scrounge

..... And kinda shocked there wasn't a T issued for whoever the Bulls player (Butler?) that came flying in afterwards to push the pile.

That really stood out to me also.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That was marginal at best.

1. Marginal doesn't exist. Either it was legal or it wasn't.
2. Here is the NBA's rule on screening (stop me if this looks familiar):

A player who sets a screen shall not
(1) assume a position nearer than a normal step from an opponent, if that opponent is stationary and unaware of the screener’s position, or
(2) make illegal contact with an opponent when he assumes a position at the side or front of an opponent, or
(3) assume a position so near to a moving opponent that he is not given an opportunity to stop and/or change direction before making illegal contact, or
(4) move laterally or toward an opponent being screened, after having assumed a legal position. The screener may move in the same direction and path of the opponent being screened.

In (3) above, 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 to two normal steps or strides from his opponent.

#3 and #4 would be the issue. Gibson created the contact as he was resetting himself. The contact with took place as Gibson's right foot was about to land, so he was moving laterally and he didn't give Dellavadova a chance to stop or change direction.

The fact he finished the play by shoving him to the floor, which may have been a common foul (you'd really have to watch a replay to determine whether the ball was dead), and then kicking him is just the icing on the cake.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

1. Marginal doesn't exist. Either it was legal or it wasn't.
...

Marginal exists in conversations I've had with NBA officials.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

marginal exists in conversations i've had with nba officials.

+1

[JRutledge]

Marginal also means to me that if it is not obvious, it probably should not be called.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Marginal also means to me that if it is not obvious, it probably should not be called.

Peace

Which is the context the word is often used in. It's not always about the amount of contact, but was the effect on the play "marginal".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which is the context the word is often used in.

I know, that is why I find it odd that someone would use the terms he did as marginal is often used in our vernacular.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which is the context the word is often used in. It's not always about the amount of contact, but was the effect on the play "marginal".

Marginal in that...he was sort of legally/illegally prevented from getting to his desired spot on the floor? That's what I'm concerned with more than anything, based on the way the screening rules are written. He sure as heck was prevented from staying with the BH/D which created a speed/quickness mismatch on the switch.