Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Is it just me, or do I see about a 50/50 split here? NFHS has screening contact as a point of emphasis, so I hope next year they are a little more clear on the rule and case book study on this. Sorry to be a "fence sitter," but I think people made pretty good arguments both ways on this one using the rule book/case book as their fodder.
Z
|
The case book Mark Dexter cited was not a screening situation. It refers to A1, who is always an offensive player in cases (as Tony pointed out later). It is an entirely different case when an offensive player takes a defender out, because you now have an unfair offensive advantage. B1 is trying to prevent A1 from gaining this advantage.
In the case of the blind screen, as long as B1 stops (by rule and logic) the advantage stays with the team that successfully set the blind screen. I have yet to see rule or case which indicates otherwise. If there is one, someone should cite it here.
With regard to the POE, it does not clearly distinguish between the blind screen and the visible screen. Excessive contact should be called whenever it is made to get through a visible screen. The difference is that the defender was given the opportunity to stop and chose not to do so, and therefore made a conscious attempt to go through the screener to gain an advantage. The blind screen is intended to surprise a defender and is set with the anticipation that hard contact may occur. After the contact, if the defender stops, they did not attempt to nor did they gain an unfair advantage through their actions.
I do not believe that the POE is trying to stop collisions on blind screens from occurring. You could set blind screens all day, run your fastest ball handler off them, and set quick defender B1 up for some cheap fouls.