A myriad of sitchs - Page 2

blindzebra · #16 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:26pm

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

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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Smitty · #17 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT. [/B]

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

blindzebra · #18 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul. [/B]

You are reading into the rule.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say.

[Edited by blindzebra on Feb 1st, 2005 at 12:48 PM]

Smitty · #19 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

You did not quote the entire rule, so no it DOES not say what you want it to say.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say. [/B]

I really did read the entire rule. I'm trying to see your point of view, but I just am not seeing it. Tell me which part justifies the point that a screen set anywhere but behind a defender means that the screen is absolutely within the defenders visual field. I'm just not seeing that in the rule. Help me see it.

I agree that perhaps we are seeing this play two different ways, but here is a snippet from the original post:

"I know this is a had to be there play, but I'm not sure that I've had to ever call a foul for contact that wasn't just a part of the game where a screen was involved. No arms, elbows or shoulders were extended or otherwise. The level of contact was more than usual because B1 was moving quickly to keep up with A1."

It appears to me that the poster went out of his way to explain that no contact other than the initial screenee running into the screener occurred.

You make this statement: which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I see that as a contradiction. How can you stop to avoid contact outside your visual field if it's outside your visual field?

Dan_ref · #20 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

You did not quote the entire rule, so no it DOES not say what you want it to say.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say. [/B]

wtf...

It also doesn't say he was wearing an illegal number or carrying a concealed weapon.

The play as written is legal contact.

blindzebra · #21 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:59pm

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
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

You did not quote the entire rule, so no it DOES not say what you want it to say.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say.

I really did read the entire rule. I'm trying to see your point of view, but I just am not seeing it. Tell me which part justifies the point that a screen set anywhere but behind a defender means that the screen is absolutely within the defenders visual field. I'm just not seeing that in the rule. Help me see it.

I agree that perhaps we are seeing this play two different ways, but here is a snippet from the original post:

"I know this is a had to be there play, but I'm not sure that I've had to ever call a foul for contact that wasn't just a part of the game where a screen was involved. No arms, elbows or shoulders were extended or otherwise. The level of contact was more than usual because B1 was moving quickly to keep up with A1."

It appears to me that the poster went out of his way to explain that no contact other than the initial screenee running into the screener occurred.

You make this statement: which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I see that as a contradiction. How can you stop to avoid contact outside your visual field if it's outside your visual field?
[/B]

Talk to the NF they wrote the rule.

A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases 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.

blindzebra · #22 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

You did not quote the entire rule, so no it DOES not say what you want it to say.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say.

wtf...

It also doesn't say he was wearing an illegal number or carrying a concealed weapon.

The play as written is legal contact. [/B]

No the play as written COULD be legal contact, it can also be a foul.

Smitty · #23 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
Talk to the NF they wrote the rule.

A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases 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.

[/B]

OK. I get that. How am I misinterpreting it? I'll bet this kid stopped on contact, or at least eventually stopped. I'll bet he didn't step on top of the screener that fell to the floor to try and finish guarding the dribbler. Sounded like the screen was pretty effective. The poster said there was nothing to indicate any contact after the initial bang. So how could this be a foul? What are you seeing in this play that could make it, as described, a foul?

Dan_ref · #24 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty
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.

No that IS NOT what is says. It is reiterating that a screen WITHIN the visual field may be set anywhere short of contact.

You also fail to acknowledge that a foul CAN be called on a blind screen if the opponent DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP ON CONTACT.

Well I just plain disagree with your first statement.

Your second statement is correct, but has nothing to do with the original situation in this thread. The defender was running hard down the court. The screener set the screen outside the defender's field of vision. The contact was severe. It didn't say the defender then shoved the screener to the floor. It said the screener ended up on the floor from the initial contact. Heck of a screen. But no foul.

You did not quote the entire rule, so no it DOES not say what you want it to say.

Where in the origional post does it say B1 turned away, stopped, attempted to stop, or attempted to move to the side?

We both made a call based on not seeing the play, the difference is I'm saying there COULD be a foul...which is in the rule for contact within the visual field and for NOT attempting to stop at contact outside the visual field.

I'm supplying the rule in it's entirety and you are picking and choosing what you want it to say.

wtf...

It also doesn't say he was wearing an illegal number or carrying a concealed weapon.

The play as written is legal contact.

No the play as written COULD be legal contact, it can also be a foul.

[/B]

Care to point out where, as written, any of the action is illegal?

blindzebra · #25 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
Talk to the NF they wrote the rule.

A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases 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.

OK. I get that. How am I misinterpreting it? I'll bet this kid stopped on contact, or at least eventually stopped. I'll bet he didn't step on top of the screener that fell to the floor to try and finish guarding the dribbler. Sounded like the screen was pretty effective. The poster said there was nothing to indicate any contact after the initial bang. So how could this be a foul? What are you seeing in this play that could make it, as described, a foul? [/B]

Unless B1 is 200lbs and A2 is 125, I'm seeing contact through the screener and to me that is not attempting to stop on contact.

Smitty · #26 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:21pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
Talk to the NF they wrote the rule.

A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases 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.

OK. I get that. How am I misinterpreting it? I'll bet this kid stopped on contact, or at least eventually stopped. I'll bet he didn't step on top of the screener that fell to the floor to try and finish guarding the dribbler. Sounded like the screen was pretty effective. The poster said there was nothing to indicate any contact after the initial bang. So how could this be a foul? What are you seeing in this play that could make it, as described, a foul?

Unless B1 is 200lbs and A2 is 125, I'm seeing contact through the screener and to me that is not attempting to stop on contact. [/B]

Now you're the one that needs to "Come on". Even if the screener and defender are the same weight, if one is barreling down the court at full speed and one is standing there, the contact is going to be severe when they hit. You can't tell me that the moving player can stop immediately when he feels the jersey of the guy standing there. That's just ridiculous. I believe that's why the rulebook says "even though the contact may be severe".

blindzebra · #27 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
Talk to the NF they wrote the rule.

A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases 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.

OK. I get that. How am I misinterpreting it? I'll bet this kid stopped on contact, or at least eventually stopped. I'll bet he didn't step on top of the screener that fell to the floor to try and finish guarding the dribbler. Sounded like the screen was pretty effective. The poster said there was nothing to indicate any contact after the initial bang. So how could this be a foul? What are you seeing in this play that could make it, as described, a foul?

Unless B1 is 200lbs and A2 is 125, I'm seeing contact through the screener and to me that is not attempting to stop on contact.

Now you're the one that needs to "Come on". Even if the screener and defender are the same weight, if one is barreling down the court at full speed and one is standing there, the contact is going to be severe when they hit. You can't tell me that the moving player can stop immediately when he feels the jersey of the guy standing there. That's just ridiculous. I believe that's why the rulebook says "even though the contact may be severe". [/B]

We'll just keep disagreeing.

theboys · #28 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:34pm

I saw a very similar situation in which the foul was called. Under a minute to go, B up 34-33. Ball inbounded in front of visitors' bench (in A's backcourt). A1 dribbles across court, with B1 closely guarding. A1 leads B1 into a blind screen set by A2 in the backcourt. B1 runs into A2, knocking B1 down. Foul called on B1, two FTs for A2.

A lot of conversation about the call afterwards, as you can imagine. At the time I thought it was a legitimate call, although I thought it was pretty cheap by A (I admit, I was rooting for B - but I would think its cheap, regardless).

Now, I'm not so sure whether the call should've been made. Its what makes reffing basketball so tough - so much judgment involved.