A Compendium on GSW Moving Screens

[e_blazer]

Found this on YouTube. Man, some of these are so bad they're actually funny. Bogut is in a class by himself for moving screens:

 

[TBpup]

It's embarrassing to the NBA profession that they continue to let so many of these go. Why even have the rule then?

 

[BBert]

What I'm wondering watching that is whether they would be more likely to get called for a moving screen, if their downfield blocking actually looked more like an actual screen. If they did the usual square up, hands folded at the crotch, but moving the feet a little bit while sticking the butt out into the defender, maybe the ref might notice. Instead, they never take a stationary position. They just keep moving like it's just a normal day in the park, and oh, a defender just happens to be in their path, stuck on their hip (or in their grip) while they are moving away from the player the defender was trying to guard. The refs just can't multi-task well enough to notice, apparently.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think a lot of teams probably do this.... it's just painfully obvious with Golden State because they have two of the best shooters in the game. If you give Curry or Thompson a clear shot, they're knocking it down.

 

[BBert]

What I found funny was in some of those there are two moving screens happening on the court at the same time.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Post that in the Worriers forum!

 

[Sedatedfork]

Bogut would make a good offensive tackle coach.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Bogut is in a class by himself for moving screens:

I've seen this video before, and you're right about Bogut. Where Hakeem had the Dream Shake, the Faux Off Balance Stumbling Backward Moving Screen is Bogut's go to move.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

They've been getting away with it for two years, so what are the chances the refs start calling it now? I'd say about ZERO percent.

This isn't like James Harden and his flailing and flopping that suddenly no longer works as well on the more experienced refs in the playoffs. These are the NBA darling, 73-win defending champions.

BNM

 

[Pinwheel1]

Didn't they make calling moving picks an emphasis for the refs 2-3 years ago? To the point where it was stopping the game too much? Maybe Kerr found some loop poll where if you never stop moving they don't see it as a hard foul.. I guess running interference is OK......

 

[rasheedfan2005]

I never noticed it was that bad. Slypokerdog damnit i hate refs.

 

[BBert]

Didn't they make calling moving picks an emphasis for the refs 2-3 years ago? To the point where it was stopping the game too much? Maybe Kerr found some loop poll where if you never stop moving they don't see it as a hard foul.. I guess running interference is OK......

Yes. They never get set. I complained about it last year with the Clippers just running guys out of the play.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Merge this thread!

 

[jlprk]

I've seen this video before

Merge this thread!

The video was posted on this board a few days ago, but I don't remember where.

 

[LuckyShot]

I think a lot of teams probably do this.... it's just painfully obvious with Golden State because they have two of the best shooters in the game. If you give Curry or Thompson a clear shot, they're knocking it down.

We don't do it. The worst I see someone like Plumlee do is occasionally stick his hip out a little, and he gets called for it. Ed Davis moves sometimes. But we get called on it enough that we can't do it every possession, that's for sure.

 

[e_blazer]

The video was posted on this board a few days ago, but I don't remember where.

Well, EX-CUUUUSE me! I didn't see it, and I think it's worth it's own thread in light of CJ's comments. But if a mod wants to do a merge, go ahead.

 

[jlprk]

Naah. It's worth a thread. Besides, it's unfindable.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually, not all moving screens are illegal.

This is the rule:

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 illegal contact cannot be avoided by the opponent without changing direction or stopping, 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.​

As I bolded, you can move during a screen, as long as it's in the same direction as the player being screened. Which means Bogut's "stumble-back" screens are actually legal by the rule, which is why they're not called.

The Warriors do have their share of illegal screens, but every team does. And some (like when, say, Draymond Green shoves his hip out at a player going around his screen) are technically illegal but the type of thing that every team gets away with because there's some wiggle room, like with a lot of rules...they're not 100% strictly enforced and it's a judgment call (like how much contact constitutes a personal foul). But the Warriors are the best, most watched, team and the team that probably sets the most screens, so they're the ones who draw the fan outrage, IMO.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

The Warriors do have their share of illegal screens, but every team does. And some (like when, say, Draymond Green shoves his hip out at a player going around his screen) are technically illegal but the type of thing that every team gets away with because there's some wiggle room, like with a lot of rules...they're not 100% strictly enforced and it's a judgment call (like how much contact constitutes a personal foul). But the Warriors are the best, most watched, team and the team that probably sets the most screens, so they're the ones who draw the fan outrage, IMO.

Minstrel, first off, I agree with you. However, I get the feeling you think this is going to make me feel better - it doesn't.

1) The Clips, and now GS are successful because they cross the line of legality giving their team a significant advantage, but they are careful not to cross it too far. Then, when they get calls against them, they are outraged - it's annoying.
2) The situation you describe involves TOO MUCH judgement by the refs, and has led to what one poster describes as "game management." This supersucks for a small market team without HCA.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, first off, I agree with you. However, I get the feeling you think this is going to make me feel better - it doesn't.

Well, I wasn't aiming to make anyone feel better or worse, I just thought I'd mention this for anyone who was confused as to why there isn't a call on every moving screen.

I can't speak to your first concern, as that's a subjective view that I don't share, but as for the second--judgment calls are pretty much inescapable in sports. The baseball strike zone is all about judgement calls (on the edges, which is pretty much where pitchers try to pitch). It's an old joke that in football, you could call a hold on every play if you were so motivated. Basketball, even excepting the screen rules (which you can see above are not simple), is extremely subjective when it comes to what constitutes a personal foul and what constitutes incidental contact or legal contact.

That subjectivity has always allowed fans to interpret officials applying their judgment (as they have to, to do their jobs) as part of a conscious (or subconscious!) effort on behalf of a team. I don't really see a way to prevent that, though. I personally don't think that there's a conspiracy (and believing that officials are managing the games at a meta level for ratings or entertainment purposes qualifies as a conspiracy).