A few people were arguing the davidson vs conditt collision moving screen foul.
Here's a nice condensed version of the rule:
Legal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent:
- Is stationary (within the vertical plane) when contact occurs.
- Has both feet on the floor when contact occurs.
- Time and distance are relevant.
- The screener shall be stationary, except when both the screener and opponent are moving in the same path and the same direction.
Illegal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent:
- Is moving when contact occurred.
- Does not give sufficient distance in setting a screen outside the field of vision of a stationary opponent when contact occurred.
- Does not respect the elements of time and distance of an opponent in motion when contact occurred.
- A player may not use arms, hands, hips, or shoulders to force movement through a screen or hold the screener and then push the screener aside in order to maintain legal guarding position.
If the screen is set within the field of vision of a stationary opponent (front or lateral), the screener may establish the screen as close to the opponent as desired, provided there is no contact.
If the screen is set outside the field of vision of a stationary opponent, the screener must permit the opponent to take 1 normal step towards the screen without making contact.
If the opponent is in motion, the elements of time and distance shall apply. The screener must leave enough space so that the player who is being screened is able to avoid the screen by stopping or changing direction.
The distance required is never less than 1 and never more than 2 normal steps.
A player who is legally screened is responsible for any contact with the player who has set the screen.
Based on those requirements. Here is what I would argue:
1) Conditt gave Davison 2 steps after the release of the ball.
2) Conditt was not in the direct path of the defensive player to his target
3) Conditt did not make ANY movement toward Davison
4) Davison changed his course to intentionally collide with Conditt. You can see where he takes a hard right off his left foot before planting his right and initiating contact with Conditt. It looks very intentional to me. The only excuse I could see for this would be that he was going to try to cut behind Conditt's defender, realized that he couldn't do it and tried to right his course AND in turn ran into Conditt that is allowed to have his space on the floor without being accosted by another player.
5) Davison DID get the call on the first contact, but continued to try to collide after the whistle (just shows what he was trying to do)
6) This was well in the field of vision of Davison, (Maybe not Conditt as he got run into from the backside)
7) Conditt's feet were "pretty" set until he was knocked off balance by Davison
THEREFORE, IF Conditt was not a screener, which is my contention based on all of the above points, then he is not capable of setting a moving screen and the action taken by Davison to cause that collision is a foul called displacement on HIM.
Please feel free to argue my points. Even if you aren't a Varsity BB coach.
www.ncaa.com
