Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
B. I don't think that rule was intended to address this situation. So, previously, the choices were to call it legal, or to use the "not covered in the rules" clause to extend the "defense must be in bounds to get a charge call" to this situation.
|
Bob,
If there's contact by the defender into the screener that merits a foul call, it should be ruled a block. The new casebook settles that. I get that.
What about if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in only incidental contact or no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen. Would that still be a deemed legal and result in a no-call? Or might you then rule a 9-3-3 violation for "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason"?
(Trying to get my head around this, I still have a hard time picturing why a screener standing on or over the endline offers any kind of benefit, ala Cameron Rust's point above. This change could not have been based on high demand from the customer base. I've never seen it, ever. It really doesn't seem to be that realistic of a play. But we're going to be asked this question, so....)