Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
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.
|
I actually brought in my books today. 10-6-3-a and b only define screening for a stationary opponent. I don't see anything that really clarifies the "visual field" for a screen set on a moving player. I am still saying no foul, since by the description of the original play, the defender likely didn't see the screen at all.
|
Come on. The rules for a stationary opponent tell you what visual field means, BEHIND.
Even if it's not within the visual field it is NOT automatically incidental contact either.
|
If you read 10-5-3b carefully, you'll see that it never defines what visual field means. It implies that a screen set from behind is definitely outside of the visual field, but a screen in front or to the side
may be within the visual field. It specifically says:
A player who screens may not, when he/she assumes a position at the side or in front of a stationary opponent, make contact with that opponent.
If the screen is set within the visual field of a stationary opponent, ...
Nowhere does it say standing to someones side is within the visual field of the person being screened. It leaves it to the reader to decide what visual field encompasses, and I would argue that it depends on the situation. In this situation the defender never saw the screen because it was outside his visual field.