https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6A3SRHVlM8&t=31746s
Discussion this with @OGxBENJI about this :
Would it be called if Elena would have grab the ball after all ?
@Woods ?
/discuss
1 Like
You mean instead of going to the goal?
I would say yes.
Yes, imagine @Elena grab the ball instead of @morganxvx ?
Manu âhadâ the ball, morgan challanged him and manu lost the ball, could we really called the slowing down of morgan an obstruction ? Should have he keep turning at the same speed and opening the way for manu to get to the ball quickly ?
kind of the same thing happened with me and tomas, then emmet took the ball, no obstruction was called.
@elena was about to grab sooner and this would have obstruction, but as I let manu go and the the ball is far from us, it s okay imo,
1 Like
Would there be a difference if both were chasing the ball instead of manu loosing it due to Morganâs block?
@elena was about to grab sooner and this would have obstruction, but as I let manu go and the the ball is far from us, it s okay imo,
Ah, true that.
Would be cool for the rule to change, cos I agree it is awkward. imo should be that the screening player is allowed to do so while the ball is loose (/in the other teamâs possession) but must stop as soon as their teammate gets possession.
3 Likes
yes i think the rule is fine but could be a refinned in a way such akward âno dont touch the ball yetâ situations dont happen.
i found it a bit weird , its not making the game very fluid/ natural.
same goes for the hooking obstruction , wich is a very weird one to work with imo.
as you say a well timed defense shouldnt be punished, unless the screening is too long i would just let the team touch it.
there is also a âwithin 3 meterâ concept that i have a hard time assessing especially when everyone is moving and the screen are not static
1 Like
At the moment when Morgan blocks Manu it is a fair fight for the ball, what else is Morgan going to do? Then the ball exits and Morgan removes the block. It was smart of him to take the ball himself because refs are quite strict with these situations. But I see no excessive, unnatural or oddly long block by Morgan. Elena was far away and had nothing to do with the situation, she wasnât even in the spot where the ball was going, but had to go there first.
Now, if Elena were closer to Morgan and Manu or waiting down the boards then it would be a much clearer situation and she definitely should not touch the ball.
1 Like
Below are all the relevant rule parts. I wonder if Manu is in possession or not?
- If yes, then it is very clear and Elena can definitely touch the ball (Morgan obeyed to both rules 6.1.3.1.4 & 6.1.3.1.4.1)
- If not, then according to 6.1.3.1.3.1 and 6.1.3.1.3.2 it would be an infraction if Morgan does not take the ball himself.
So the real question is: Is Manu in possession or not when Morgan puts his block? 
4.1. Possession
4.1.1. The player who made the last deliberate controlled touch on the ball with the mallet is
considered to be in possession. The player in possession is referred to as the Ball Carrier.
4.1.1.1. No player is considered to be in possession, or possession is forfeited, if either:
â The ball moves approximately 3m away from the Ball Carrier.
â The ball moves so quickly through a playerâs immediate proximity they cannot
make more than one (1) controlled touch on the loose ball.
â The Ball Carrier is unable to continue playing the ball with the mallet.
4.1.1.2. Possession is not forfeited by the Ball Carrier if a deliberate touch on the ball by an
opponent does not hinder the Ball Carrierâs ability to continue playing the ball with
the mallet and its proximity to the ball remains within approximately 3m.
6.1.3.1.3 When contesting a loose ball, all players challenging for possession must move
directly and naturally towards the ball or concede the ball.
6.1.3.1.3.1 A penalty is not issued if the nearest player to a loose ball utilizes a
âscreenâ within approximately 3m of the loose ball to safely gain
possession.
6.1.3.1.3.2 A bike interference infraction is called if the player challenging for
possession uses a screen to concede possession to another member of
their team.
6.1.3.1.4 A player who is not in possession is entitled to attempt a screen on the Ball
Carrier.
6.1.3.1.4.1 If a player in possession concedes or losses possession, that player can
no longer be screened.
1 Like
And please, the correct term is âinterferenceâ, in this case bike interference! âObstructionâ is no longer used in the ruleset! 
1 Like
yes django but does it makes the game more fluid in this case ?
i have another question : i get screened and i make a pass, i belive the other defender is allowed to cut the pass and intercept it before my team mate right ? even if im still being screened at this moment , right ?
How is this relevant? The question is what style of play is the one that we want to promote. One with a lot of âcheapâ moves like teaming up on a player? How is it more fluid if you have a ton of these situations, same goes for mallet interference by the way? It will make it the opposite of fluid if you allow cheap moves all over the place.
As I wrote above, I would not have made this call, even if Elena took the ball, definitely not with the positioning as it occurred. I also would argue Manu was the ball carrier at this time, even though it was borderline. So it was all fair play regardless.
If you give the ball away as a ball carrier that is your decision. This is also why 6.1.3.1.4. makes no definition who can go and get the ball. Anybody can if it was coming from the ball carrier!
i understand the spirit of the rule: the problem was never teaming up against one player , the problem this rule wants to solve is when one player cancel another one by insisting heavily on Screen ( or mallet hooking in the second case) and i think the rule has to be understood like this.
im happy if a ref understand it like you would , and not call this case but i would be piss if it was like the comentator did âah ? is she gonna touch the ball ? because she cantâ type shit.
on the ball carrier pass : if the call is completey different on a ball carrier pass , then does it mean that i can insist on my screening as a defender in that situation ?
i m trying to highlight the fact that the rule writting should focus on judging the fairness of the defense actions ( screen / mallet hooking intensity ) rather than who is picking up the loose ball. because in the end the rule aim at regulating these action but the way it was writtent it makes another player assume the responsability of another player action wich is confusing in live play.
i can also argue that manu possession is hard to tell for us but as morgan even more : as a defender morgan cant take a chance to see IF manu is going to control effectively the ball or not, people / ref cant expect morgan to âgo for the ball instead of manuâ in this situation because its not clearly assessed at the moment of the screening.
so I can screen the carrier but have to lift the screen as soon as the ball gets more than 3 meters away - regardless of what everyone else is doing. got it - thanks