Moving Screen

[Zeke]

Back in the day it was the job of the screener to set the screen and the job of the driver to accept the screen or reject it. If the driver accepted it he was to brush up against the screen as he drove.
It seems the drivers are not driving close enough to the screener and the screener tries to make up the gap. I still have teeth marks on my butt for moving on a screen.
Have the coaching theories changed on setting the screen and the responsibilities of boh screener and driver? Miles got called twice yesterday and Brian use to get called frequently.

[Ichabod Drain]

Back in the day it was the job of the screener to set the screen and the job of the driver to accept the screen or reject it. If the driver accepted it he was to brush up against the screen as he drove.
It seems the drivers are not driving close enough to the screener and the screener tries to make up the gap. I still have teeth marks on my butt for moving on a screen.
Have the coaching theories changed on setting the screen and the responsibilities of boh screener and driver? Miles got called twice yesterday and Brian use to get called frequently.

I highly doubt they are coaching it any differently now. The first foul Miles got yesterday was definately a foul but the second was not. By definition it may have been a foul but it was the kind of foul that happens on almost every possesion and never gets called. I'm guessing maybe after the first one the referee got it in his head to keep an eye out for it again.

But as I said before i highly doubt the coaching theory of it has changed.

[DukieInBrasil]

Back in the day it was the job of the screener to set the screen and the job of the driver to accept the screen or reject it. If the driver accepted it he was to brush up against the screen as he drove.
It seems the drivers are not driving close enough to the screener and the screener tries to make up the gap. I still have teeth marks on my butt for moving on a screen.
Have the coaching theories changed on setting the screen and the responsibilities of boh screener and driver? Miles got called twice yesterday and Brian use to get called frequently.
Absolutely correct. The guards are not using the screener correctly and are leaving a gap that is far too wide between them, this is what gives the big the urge to move laterally to "rub" the defender off.

[Devilsfan]

I'll take it with pleasure as long as he leads a break and finishes with authority. He was moving more last night than I've seen in 4 years. Keep up the great play Miles, we need it!

[-bdbd]

I highly doubt they are coaching it any differently now. The first foul Miles got yesterday was definately a foul but the second was not. By definition it may have been a foul but it was the kind of foul that happens on almost every possesion and never gets called. I'm guessing maybe after the first one the referee got it in his head to keep an eye out for it again.

But as I said before i highly doubt the coaching theory of it has changed.

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

Yes, that is exactly what I saw. Curry was knocked to the floor not because he ran into the screen but because the screener blatantly ran into him.

[DukeDevilDeb]

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

Did you mean Curry?

[MCFinARL]

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

Probably serves him right for being on the court in the first place! ;)

[MChambers]

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

Jeff still has eligibility?

[Zeke]

Moving screens are often just simply "judgement" calls. Both were close, and could have gone uncalled, but neither seemed out of left field either. My gripe is with ref consistency. Look, every crew calls a game a little uniquely. K recognizes that and coaches to the game's reffing style each time out (I have heard Bilas and other speak to this point - part of what makes K great). But you have to be able to count on their consistency within a given game, and at both ends of the court. Go back and look at the last ten seconds of the game and tell me that Capel doesn't get hit with a moving pick even more blatant than the Miles calls. Problem was they just often won't call it in a game-ending circumstance like that - kinda like the body blow Singler took in the final few seconds of the NC game two years ago vs Butler.

That gets to my 2nd pet peeve - the "good no call". If there is a foul, it should be called. The rules should not vary from one game to the other or one part of the game to another. I have a suspicion that the refs ignore some calls because there are so many fouls it would slow down the game and eventually hurt TV revenues.

[allenmurray]

That gets to my 2nd pet peeve - the "good no call". If there is a foul, it should be called. The rules should not vary from one game to the other or one part of the game to another. I have a suspicion that the refs ignore some calls because there are so many fouls it would slow down the game and eventually hurt TV revenues.

If the refs called everything that technically is a foul games would take 5 hours. The "good no call" really translates to an official using good judgement. There is a human element to officiating.

[devildeac]

Jeff still has eligibility?

If Jeff was hit with a moving pick, he would have also been hit with a T for being out on the floor during the course of play ;-) .

[MChambers]

That gets to my 2nd pet peeve - the "good no call". If there is a foul, it should be called. The rules should not vary from one game to the other or one part of the game to another. I have a suspicion that the refs ignore some calls because there are so many fouls it would slow down the game and eventually hurt TV revenues.
I think the book is named Scorecasting, and it's sort of an economist's view of sports. As to refereeing, it suggests that officials don't want to be seen as influencing the outcome of games. Thus, in baseball, on a 3 ball, no strike count, the umpire has a wide strike zone to avoid calling a base on balls. In basketball, they tend not to call fouls in the final minutes of games. They also tend to favor stars on 50-50 balls.

I'm not defending the conduct of the officials, but I do think this is a good explanation for why this happens.

[Olympic Fan]

If the refs called everything that technically is a foul games would take 5 hours. The "good no call" really translates to an official using good judgement. There is a human element to officiating.

The rule of thumb that Fred Barakat brought to the ACC in the early 80s -- and by Hank Nichols nationally -- is whether a technical violation gives one player an advantage or not.

The refs are taught not to call "technical" violations that have no impact on play.

[DukieInBrasil]

The rule of thumb that Fred Barakat brought to the ACC in the early 80s -- and by Hank Nichols nationally -- is whether a technical violation gives one player an advantage or not.

The refs are taught not to call "technical" violations that have no impact on play.

But they call the 2 hands on the dribbler all the time, as a point of emphasis, even if it has no impact on the play. Hard fouls that physically impede a defender or rebounder tend not to get called at the end of a game, see 2002 Duke vs IU, Boozer rebound or 2010 Duke vs Butler moving screen to blast Singler out of the play or 2012 Duke vs UVa moving screen to blast Curry out of the play. I'm sure there are many thousands of other cases from other years and other teams.

[Reilly]

The rule of thumb that Fred Barakat brought to the ACC in the early 80s -- and by Hank Nichols nationally -- is whether a technical violation gives one player an advantage or not.

The refs are taught not to call "technical" violations that have no impact on play.

That's interesting. I'd heard the "is an advantage gained" language for so long now that I thought it was literally part of the definition of a foul. It's not:

Section 1. Personal Fouls
Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an
opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by bending his
or her own body into other than a normal position or by using any unreasonably
rough tactics.
Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his or her hand unless such
contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental
to an attempt to play the ball.
Art. 3. A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit the
freedom of movement of the opponent in any way.
Art. 4. A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than vertically
so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the
arm(s) occurs.
Art. 5. A player shall not use the forearm and/or hand to prevent an opponent
from attacking the ball during a dribble or when trying for goal.
Art. 6. A player may hold his or her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of his or her own
face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent charge by an
opponent.
Art. 7. Contact caused by a defensive player approaching a player with the ball
from behind is pushing; contact caused by the momentum of a player who has
tried for goal is charging.
Art. 8. A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the
dribbler’s path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an
opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a reasonable
chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact.
Art. 9. When a dribbler passes an opponent sufficiently to have head and
shoulders beyond the front of the opponent’s torso, the greater responsibility for
subsequent contact shall be that of the opponent.
Art. 10. When a dribbler has obtained a straight-line path, the dribbler may not be
bumped, pushed or otherwise crowded out of that path. When an opponent is able
to legally obtain a guarding position in that path, the dribbler shall avoid contact
by changing direction or ending the dribble.
Art. 11. The player intending to become the dribbler shall not be permitted
additional rights to start a dribble or to execute a jump try for goal, pivot or feint.
Art. 12. A secondary defender as defined in Rule 4-61 cannot establish initial
legal guarding position in the restricted area for the purpose of drawing a player
control foul/charge when defending a player who is in control of the ball (i.e.,
dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try. When illegal
92 RULE 10 / FOULS AND PENALTIES
contact occurs within this Restricted Area, such contact shall be called a blocking
foul, unless the contact is a flagrant foul.
a. When illegal contact occurs by the offensive player leading with a foot or
unnatural, extended knee, or warding off with the arm, such contact shall
be called a player-control foul.
b. When a player in control of the ball stops continuous movement toward
the basket and then initiates illegal contact with a secondary defender in
the restricted area, this is a player control foul.
Art. 13. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or
flagrant 2 personal foul.
Art. 14. Illegal contact with an elbow that does not involve the swinging of the
elbow shall be considered a foul unless the contact is incidental per Rule 4-40.
Art. 15. A player shall adhere to the rules pertaining to illegal contact, including
but not limited to, guarding as in Rule 4-35, rebounding as in Rule 4-55, screening
as in Rule 4-60 and verticality as in Rule 4-76.
Art. 16. A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent while the
ball is live (includes fighting).

Rule 10, p. 91

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR13.pdf

[nocilla]

If Jeff was hit with a moving pick, he would have also been hit with a T for being out on the floor during the course of play ;-) .

Well, it depends on how far the pick-setter moved. If he moves into the sideline area, where Coach Capel has the right to be, then the technical would probably have to go to Daniel Ewing.

[Reilly]

- Nice to see the arc/no charge call last night (at a crucial time for Duke, too).

- a friend complained about Virginia's last (?) timeout: Virginia made bucket, Mason got the ball quickly to inbound, and Bennett seemed to run on the court and called timeout ... my friend's sense is that refs are much more liberal these days at granting the scoring team the timeout there than they used to be ... Mason had the ball yet Virginia was awarded the timeout ... I like the international rule of timeouts only on dead balls.

[Lennies]

Miles seemed to be setting his picks with his legs spread wide. That makes it really easy to draw a foul off of him.

[greybeard]

Absolutely correct. The guards are not using the screener correctly and are leaving a gap that is far too wide between them, this is what gives the big the urge to move laterally to "rub" the defender off.

The three of you might well be correct, but I think the way the defense plays the screen set out on top for a dribbler might dictate the space the dribbler leaves between himself and the screener. When coming laterally off such a screen, the dribbler will undoubtedly encounter the screener's defender, a big space eating guy on a show. The show is designed to slow down the dribbler, so the dribbler's defender can catch up. In last night's game, UVa took the "show" up a notch--the screener's defender came way outside the screen that had been set. In that circumstance, cutting off the screener's shoulder on the dribbloe would have resulted in a charge.

The play on shows is usually for a deft dribbler to swerve a bit and nulify the show or if the impedor slides out to split the defenders and penetrate. Against UVa, the dribbler swung wide to try to blow past the help defender. Thes guys were all out committed to "stopping" the dribbler that the help defender moved even further out on the show and completely stayed with the dribbler, even bodying them up, until the dribbler's defender was completely in position to replace.

So, I do think that the dribblers in this instance were coached to go higher past the screen, try to beat the help defender or create enough confusion between the two defenders when the on ball defender caught up to be able to split the two and create a five on three situation.

UVa stopped both these options most of the time, but not without cost. It takes an awful lot out of both defenders to play that way, and to do so when Curry and Rivers made both really scramble to prevent a breakdown. Tired legs--why did that guard miss so many open threes? Also, commiting so much defense so far from the basket left Mason, and in the second half, a second low post presence, with one on one coverage. The first half Mason was relatively stationary and the long UVa guy did a great job of denial.

The second half was a different ball game. Mason became a pro-active receiver, the guys with the ball were looking for when he had or was about to break open, they got him the ball in a way that his athleticism was already put into play, already resulted in a minor defeat of his defender's best hope at defense, and UVa found themselves very vulnerable inside. K did real, real good here folks, and, to their credit, his team completely got the half time changes and executed terrifically. And, when it became helter skelter in a half court set, or when there was an obvious opening, Duke's exterior guys did not hesitate and hurt UVa badly. So,that second half, Duke scored in precisely the two ways that UVa had game-planned to defeat.

Had Mason finish that beautiful reverse move, made 50 percent of his free throws, and Kelly finished on half of the five or six good opportunities in and near the paint in the second half that were misses, Duke I think would have had mid double digits going into the last 5 to 7 minutes of the game. The Duke guys played GREAT and were doing just what they had been told to do, at least as I see it.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

This is not really a big man issue. It's the guard's responsibility to use the pick correctly. The defending big man is not always stepping up/hedging against our guards. Just watch and you will see our guards (Cook especially - I commented on this in a different thread) dribbling high over the pick and ending up with nothing - their defender barely have to fight over the pick if at all. If the defending big man hedges out very far, then it's up to our guards to read this and either split the defenders or look for his big man rolling to the hoop. Easier said than done, I know, but the pick and roll is as basic as it gets. First play I learned in JV basketball. We just don't execute it well - at all.

[feldspar]

If the refs called everything that technically is a foul games would take 5 hours. The "good no call" really translates to an official using good judgement. There is a human element to officiating.

This. Technically speaking, 85% of the screens Miles sets are illegal. He doesn't get set, he sets up way too wide and sometimes he pushes off on the opposing player he's screening.

But in today's game, that's just the way players screen. Most of the screens set in today's game are illegal. So are the officials going to call all of them? No. Are they going to even call most of them? No. Nobody (especially us this year!) wants the game to devolve into a free throw shooting contest. So they have to call the ones they feel like, in their judgment, affect the players the most. That's what you saw last night on the calls on Miles. I didn't record the game to go and look back at the end of the game regarding what -bdbd was talking about in the last part of the game. But from what I saw, Miles put himself in position to pick up those fouls on the illegal screens, no question.


The rule of thumb that Fred Barakat brought to the ACC in the early 80s -- and by Hank Nichols nationally -- is whether a technical violation gives one player an advantage or not.

The refs are taught not to call "technical" violations that have no impact on play.

John Adams, the current grand poobah of NCAA officiating, has been speaking out a lot lately about the philosophy of officiating. Actually, he's been speaking out about turning it from a "philosophy" to more of a "science." And, with that, turning away from the advantage/disadvantage principles that have been used so much over the last 15-20 years and going to the RSBQ principle -- calling fouls based on whether contact affected the Rhythm, Speed, Balance or Quickness of the opposing player. In essence, Adams would like more fouls called during the game. Statistically speaking, the number of fouls per game has gone down significantly in the last 15 years or so, because officials have been taught to judge a play largely on whether or not they felt a player was put at an advantage or disadvantage on the play. Adams wants to move away from this and move more toward the NBA's way of doing things (and, whether you believe it or not, the NBA refs are absolute pros at calling the game according to the NBA rule book). It's just a different way of looking at things out on the court, but it's going to take a while for it to really incorporate itself across college basketball as a whole, especially because a lot of the camps that officials go to in the summer are still teaching adv/disadv principles as if they were sacrosanct.

[wilko]

John Adams, the current grand poobah of NCAA officiating, has been speaking out a lot lately about the philosophy of officiating. Actually, he's been speaking out about turning it from a "philosophy" to more of a "science." And, with that, turning away from the advantage/disadvantage principles that have been used so much over the last 15-20 years and going to the RSBQ principle -- calling fouls based on whether contact affected the Rhythm, Speed, Balance or Quickness of the opposing player. In essence, Adams would like more fouls called during the game. Statistically speaking, the number of fouls per game has gone down significantly in the last 15 years or so, because officials have been taught to judge a play largely on whether or not they felt a player was put at an advantage or disadvantage on the play. Adams wants to move away from this and move more toward the NBA's way of doing things (and, whether you believe it or not, the NBA refs are absolute pros at calling the game according to the NBA rule book). It's just a different way of looking at things out on the court, but it's going to take a while for it to really incorporate itself across college basketball as a whole, especially because a lot of the camps that officials go to in the summer are still teaching adv/disadv principles as if they were sacrosanct.

Great!! I'd love to see THIS.
Advantage/disadvantage is a load of hooey. If a player advances the ball the ball across mid court uncontested and palms the ball - it should be a turn over! NOT making that call puts the the other team at a disadvantage for following the rule when they advance the ball.

Basketball has gotten away (nearly too far way for my tastes) from being a technicians game and more about physical toughness. If we had a Pete Maravich in the college game CURRENTLY, how long would it take us to notice with the amount of bumping that's allowed?

Prolly a bad example because a transcendent talent always gets noticed, but the point stands in so much as it would be harder for him to do what he did TODAY based on the current playground philosophy so prevalent in games.

[Reilly]

If RSBQ were the order of the day, how many fouls would've been called against Butler in the '10 champ game? It really seemed to me they take advantage of the "the refs cannot call everything" mentality ....

[Newton_14]

If RSBQ were the order of the day, how many fouls would've been called against Butler in the '10 champ game? It really seemed to me they take advantage of the "the refs cannot call everything" mentality ....

No more than would have been called against UVA last night. Andre, Austin, and Seth have to be really sore this morning given all the illegal screens they fought through last night. I sat is Section 7 up behind UVA's bench, so all the wing screens in the 2nd half were right in front of us. I was amazed at how many times it happened with no call. UVA ran it over and over again and the big screening them was "hipping them" to death. It was crazy. I try to never complain about ref's as most times they get it right, but last night was pretty bad. They were calling touch fouls on Mason and Miles, and letting the UVA bigs kill our guards screening them. UVA's inside defense was very physical as well. Mason got thrown to the floor on a rebound attempt right in front of the ref with no call. K was on the ref's much more last night than normal. Not sure how much of that was visible on the TV telecast, but he ripped the little short, balding ref the entire game and rightly so. The Harris kid benefited greatly from the curls off the wing screens which made it very tough for our guys to stay with him.

[devildeac]

No more than would have been called against UVA last night. Andre, Austin, and Seth have to be really sore this morning given all the illegal screens they fought through last night. I sat is Section 7 up behind UVA's bench, so all the wing screens in the 2nd half were right in front of us. I was amazed at how many times it happened with no call. UVA ran it over and over again and the big screening them was "hipping them" to death. It was crazy. I try to never complain about ref's as most times they get it right, but last night was pretty bad. They were calling touch fouls on Mason and Miles, and letting the UVA bigs kill our guards screening them. UVA's inside defense was very physical as well. Mason got thrown to the floor on a rebound attempt right in front of the ref with no call. K was on the ref's much more last night than normal. Not sure how much of that was visible on the TV telecast, but he ripped the little short, balding ref the entire game and rightly so. The Harris kid benefited greatly from the curls off the wing screens which made it very tough for our guys to stay with him.

I was really trying to keep quiet about this but glad you posted your thoughts. I thought the Plumlees and Ryan got called for several touch fouls on Scott last PM and Mason appeared to be mugged most of the times he set up in the low post and worked his way to the rim. I don't K was so much upset about this as he was the illegal screens the UVa bigs set, mostly with hip checks and extra wide stances. He appeared especially demonstrative after Miles 2nd illegal screen (and 5th PF, IIRC) that really appeared minimal. Even the one PF called on Scott (who really is a fine player) was changed to #32 instead so I believe he ended up with 0 fouls according to the CIS scoreboard. Yea, yea, I know we won but the crowd last PM was really peeved at some of the contact not called on UVa last PM, mostly in the 2nd half, as K was as Newton pointed out above already.

[Zeke]

No more than would have been called against UVA last night. Andre, Austin, and Seth have to be really sore this morning given all the illegal screens they fought through last night. I sat is Section 7 up behind UVA's bench, so all the wing screens in the 2nd half were right in front of us. I was amazed at how many times it happened with no call. UVA ran it over and over again and the big screening them was "hipping them" to death. It was crazy. I try to never complain about ref's as most times they get it right, but last night was pretty bad. They were calling touch fouls on Mason and Miles, and letting the UVA bigs kill our guards screening them. UVA's inside defense was very physical as well. Mason got thrown to the floor on a rebound attempt right in front of the ref with no call. K was on the ref's much more last night than normal. Not sure how much of that was visible on the TV telecast, but he ripped the little short, balding ref the entire game and rightly so. The Harris kid benefited greatly from the curls off the wing screens which made it very tough for our guys to stay with him.

This is why I think there is no such thing as a "good no call" - it's really a missed call. It shouldn't be up to the ref as to what rule to enforce. That's what leads to official corruption.as was in the NBA several years ago (and no one recognized it for years).

[feldspar]

This is why I think there is no such thing as a "good no call" - it's really a missed call. It shouldn't be up to the ref as to what rule to enforce. That's what leads to official corruption.as was in the NBA several years ago (and no one recognized it for years).

There are lots of great no calls. You're implying that all contact should be a foul. That's not the case. Contact that has a major impact on a player's RSBQ should be penalized, but contact that has no impact should be a no-call. With ten players running around in a finite space, there is going to be contact.

[gumbomoop]

If the refs called everything that technically is a foul games would take 5 hours.


Technically speaking, 85% of the screens Miles sets are illegal. He doesn't get set, he sets up way too wide and sometimes he pushes off on the opposing player he's screening.

But in today's game, that's just the way players screen. Most of the screens set in today's game are illegal.

Over on the UVa post-game thread, I suggested that UVa's guys were better at executing their screens, meaning closer to legal than Duke's. I was gently corrected by Newton_14, and so decided to review the tape.

Having done so, I can see I was [mostly] wrong, and definitely wrong in implying that Assane Sene set "well executed" screens. First, I was struck by how many screens were set by both teams. Looking only at the screens certainly provided a different viewing experience. On a scale of closest to legal down to clearly illegal, and referring only to that single game, I'd say Mike Scott "best executed" his picks, whereas Sene's and Miles's often were either illegal or borderline so. Too much movement by Mason, too. Ryan's were closest to legal among our guys. Joe Harris set a good, legal, screen on Mason to give Scott the open look from the corner at the end.

I was also struck by how many screens were "offered" but not utilized at all by the dribbler, and by how often the illegal movement derived from the screener's desire to roll before "finishing" the job of screening. Further, it seems to me that if 4 or 5 of us sat in a room and reviewed screens in a non-Duke game, we'd disagree a lot, and would have to rely on the NCAA rule-book and super slo-mo technology to settle all disputes, of which a small % would actually be settled.

[Newton_14]

Over on the UVa post-game thread, I suggested that UVa's guys were better at executing their screens, meaning closer to legal than Duke's. I was gently corrected by Newton_14, and so decided to review the tape.

Having done so, I can see I was [mostly] wrong, and definitely wrong in implying that Assane Sene set "well executed" screens. First, I was struck by how many screens were set by both teams. Looking only at the screens certainly provided a different viewing experience. On a scale of closest to legal down to clearly illegal, and referring only to that single game, I'd say Mike Scott "best executed" his picks, whereas Sene's and Miles's often were either illegal or borderline so. Too much movement by Mason, too. Ryan's were closest to legal among our guys. Joe Harris set a good, legal, screen on Mason to give Scott the open look from the corner at the end.

I was also struck by how many screens were "offered" but not utilized at all by the dribbler, and by how often the illegal movement derived from the screener's desire to roll before "finishing" the job of screening. Further, it seems to me that if 4 or 5 of us sat in a room and reviewed screens in a non-Duke game, we'd disagree a lot, and would have to rely on the NCAA rule-book and super slo-mo technology to settle all disputes, of which a small % would actually be settled.

Thanks for the review and report. I still have not seen the TV tape yet, but watching it in person, it seemed like UVA ran way more screens than a normal game would have. I guess it is just the style of their offense, but I was struck by the amount.

Agree on the last point too. We all see plays differently sometimes, which is fine. Just the nature of the beast for a game with so much going on at once.

[feldspar]

Further, it seems to me that if 4 or 5 of us sat in a room and reviewed screens in a non-Duke game, we'd disagree a lot, and would have to rely on the NCAA rule-book and super slo-mo technology to settle all disputes, of which a small % would actually be settled.

You've just peeled back one of the many layers of why basketball officiating is so hard and why no one is ever satisfied with the way the three officials perform out on the court.