Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:52pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
|
|
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.
|
Threaded Mode
