Without opening the worm can, wasn't this a major discussion just a little while back?

The issue I want clarified is this. It is clear in the rules that A & B, neither of whom has the ball, are running down the floor in the same straight line, B behind A, and B crashes into A, the foul is on B. If, however, B is not moving in the same path as A, and A cuts in front of B, then time and distance are relevant - B must be given time to stop, or the foul is a block on A.

Where in the RULES, the pesky Federation rules, does it say - if it does - that the foregoing applies also to the relationship between A & B when A is a dribbler?

I hope this doesn't start WW3.

NFHS R4-S39 defines screening and how legal screens are to be set. The definition uses the word player. The definition does not describe a player as either defensive or offensive, nor does it describe a player as one with or without the ball. The rules by ommission define that any player, offensive or defensive, in control of the ball or not in control of the ball can set screens, and if the player does not do it per the rules the player is guilty of a blocking foul.

In order to 'convince' people about this increasingly devilish part of the game - the drawing of fouls almost at will, if in error - I have had to make the following point. In the action under consideration, B1 is NOT GUARDING A1, thus the laws of 'Screening' may apply. Would you agree that this is the correct distinction?

What Mark T said <U>and</U> 10-6 <U>and</U> 10.6.2 Situation B Comment.

Jeff
I know this is going to hold much water in a Federation game but there is a great explanation of it in the NCAA ilustrated rules. I was never able to defend this really well until I started doing college ball. If you get a copy the women's explaination is on page 129 rule 10-18,10-19,4-7,4-8.

Thanks for the reference.
 

I will check it out. I have the sense that this is one of those situations where the Fed rules have not been tweaked. Here is my ad hoc, un-rulistically formulated, exigesis. Whew. Enough with the big words . . .

__________

I think that it is appropriate to say that, in the situation under consideration, B1 is not guarding A1, that the action that caused the collision was a _screening action by A1_, and in a screen against a moving player time and distance are relevant - A1 must give B1 a chance (one to two steps) to stop. If, on the other hand, and in the official's opinion, B1 had been guarding A1, then, yes, of course, beating the player to the spot and squaring up would have been required of B1.

Dribblers, to my eye, are increasingly using swerving in front of players trying to get down the floor to be in a position to guard them as a way to foil them. A good dribbler can cause a foul of this kind almost at will, and, increasingly, I think they do. It is a minor travesty of the game to have that kind of power in the hands of the dribbler. Too much power, and not associated with the primary purpose of the game, trying to advance the ball and score. (I understand that drawing fouls is a strategic purpose, but I think that's a secondary issue).

Wow. The answer is online at
 

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Couldn't be much clearer. I am a strictly high school guy. I try NOT to learn college rules, because there are so many significant differences, but, in this case, I think the Fed rules have just not taken this on - unless there's a casebook ruling I am unaware of.

How great is this forum - all
 

catfighting aside!