Quote:
Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Quote:
|
No, you are wrong. Time and distant are irrelevant in this case because the screen was a LEGAL screen. Time and distance are relevant for ILLEGAL screens. The answer is that it is NOT a foul on B1 as long as he tries to avoid/minimize contact once he knows it is there. In this case, the contact was severe and knocked the screener over, but it is still not a foul. To be ruled "incidental." Look it up.
|
I think you need to contact NF and tell them rule 4-39-5 is wrong. It sure says MUST allow T & D. And as Mark Dexter pointed out, T & D is what makes a legal screen. But, hey, there has been mistakes in the book before. [/B]
|
I think that the point he is making is that time and distance establish that it was a legal screen, and this clearly was. Time and distance do not apply to what a player hit by a blind screen may or may not do - that is a mis-application of the time and distance rule. If the screen is legal (i.e., T&D met), the applicable rule is not 4-39-5 as we have already met that requirement. Now the pertinent citation is:
10-6-3d
A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball.
Note that ouside the visual field, there is no reference to T&D - it does not apply to what the legally screened player may or may not do.