Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:08am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
#2 as described I have a foul on B1. The screen was not blind and even if B1 was not fully aware of A2, no attempt to avoid contact occurred.
|
How do you figure? What part of the situation tells you that the screen was not blind? Sounds like it was blind to me. No foul.
|
I read it as A1 and B1 side by side and not B1 backpeddling. I don't know what you consider blind but a screen coming from the front or side IS within the visual field.
From 10-6-3. 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 incidental contact PROVIDED THE OPPONENT STOPS OR ATTEMPTS TO STOP ON CONTACT AND MOVES AROUND THE SCREEN.
|
Does someone have to be running backwards to have a screen be blind? If the defender is running along with the dribbler and is looking and focusing directly on the dribbler, I can imagine he doesn't see the screen at all and "blindly" slams into it. That's how I imagined it. Are you saying this wouldn't be a correct interpretation of the rule? I'm thinking the visual field encompasses where the defender can see based upon where he's looking, not based on his body position.
|
10-6-3-a and b, give you the answer. 
|