We've all seen this play, right? B1 has run of endline for a throw-in. A1 fronts B1. B1 takes off quickly down the endline followed, of course, by A1 who runs into screener B2. Is this screen not set outside A1's field of vision?

Mulk

I would think,yes, that this would be outside the defenses field of vision. Interesting that you bring this up as a couple weeks ago I attended a local BB game and with 20 seconds left in the game - home team down by 2- the home team a planned this play in a previous time and drew a foul on the defense. A= Home

A1 is at endline for throw-in and A2 sets up alongside the endline about 6 feet from A1. A1 runs endline in direction toward A2 and B1 slams into A2 knocking him back. A2 was outside B1 field of vision. Foul on B1, A2 goes to line for free-throws. (Unfortunately, A2 missed and the game was lost.)

Look forward to responses.

It might be, but usually, sufficient time and distance are given so it still *might* be a foul (remember that contact on a screen can be severe, and if A1 doesn't try to push through the screen there's probably no foul; and the ball was unlikely to be inbounded to B2, so there might not be a disadvantage, ...)

Bob,

I guess my real question is does "outside field of vision" only refer to a screen that is set behind someone? For this play to work B1 is sort of hopping (not moving real fast) down the endline so that A1 does not have to turn and run down the endline because then he would see screener B2. A1 is moving sideways and does not see B2. B2's screen is legally set. When A1 makes contact, he stops or tries to stop. Inadverdent contact?

On a screen if the screenie displaces the screener there is supposed to be a foul isn't there? I would have a foul in this situation assuming that the screener was displaced.. and the time/distance requirements were appropriately met for the situation.

would you have a foul on the person being screened if the screen was set outside his field of vision?

Not unless the screenie tries to push through the screen. The screener has to expect some contact - if the kid is outside the field of vision, it might be severe contact, but no foul.

I would say that (a) this was not "outside the field of vision"; (b) even if it was it was legal (because A1 was given time and distance); and (c) probably incidental (as well as inadvertant) contact.

Ron, the screening concepts are outlined in Rule 10-6-3. As per rule 10-6-3b, if the defender is stationary when the scrren is set, the screener can set up from the side or front as close as the screener can get, short of contact. If the defender is moving when the screen is set, you use the concept outlined in R10-6-3c. You have to allow time and distance for the defender to avoid contact with the screener, usually 1-2 steps, but never more than 2 steps.
Unless the defender pushes through the screen, it's usually ruled incidental contact.

I'm confused
 

A1 has ball OOB can can run the endline. A1 is hopping or running and defender B1 is shadowing. Assume that A1 has moved from one corner toward the other and has reached the far lane line where A2 is stationary (has been for more than two steps). Upon reaching A2, B1 creates hard contact knocking A2 down. Do I have the sitch right?

Are you saying no foul, incidental? Seems to me that time and distance was given but I don't have the rule book and can't reference 10-6-3.

Clark Kent,

You have the sitch right - just the players reversed. I think people are thinking that I am asking if the screen is legal or if the foul should be on the person setting the screen. I'm not. Would you rule the contact (by the person being screened) as incidental because the screen was set "outside his visual vision"?

Whether the screen was "outside the field of vision" has nothing to do with judging incidental contact by the person being screened -- it has everything to do with judging incidental contact by the person setting the screen.

Bob,

Read 10-6-3-d page 66 beginning with IN CASES OF SCREENS SET OUTSIDE THE VISUAL FIELD and see if it could apply to my play. Am I reading that wrong because it indicates to me that the incidental contact applies to the person being screened if the screen is set outside his visual field? Or, maybe what I am trying to say is that I would not call a foul on this player if he ran into the screener and tried to stop. Even if contact was severe?

That's what I said in my first respnse to this thread.