What is the definition of "is"?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rwest

Let me see if I can stir the pot a bit!

If B1 is facing the basket with his back to A1 and A1 runs into the back of B1 with the ball, is it a PC? B1 did not have LGP on A1? Does that matter for a PC?

I'd call a PC foul, myself.

You would be correct to call a player control foul on A1, because even though B1 did not have a legal guarding postion against A1, but he had set a legal legal screen against A1.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Stan

PC or not
http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...4&pagenumber=1

This is a germane thread. I think if you answer one you'll answer the other. I'm waiting for the big/old/experienced/learned/burned out dogs to answer.

Not really, PC or not was about INCIDENTAL CONTACT.

The question is does the rule book use "path" literally or logically.

Literally means straight-line whatever direction, this is what caused the problems in the closely guarded thread because it would require B to "defend" a boundary to maintain "guarding" if A turned back toward the division line.

Logically means between A and their basket as well as straight-line.

I like logic.

[Adam]

MTD,
Can a player set a legal screen with a foot on the out of bounds line?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You would be correct to call a player control foul on A1, because even though B1 did not have a legal guarding postion against A1, but he had set a legal legal screen against A1.

MTD, Sr.

When did it become absolutely illegal by definition if there's contact between the screener and the screenee?

[David M]

Did a BJV game last night. Point guard for A was all right. The defender stayed on his right hand so he was not in front. Is this LGP?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

When did it become absolutely illegal by definition if there's contact between the screener and the screenee?

You correct that the contact between the screener and screenee (I hoped we spelled that word correctly) is only a foul if two things occur: 1) The screener is displaced. AND 2) The screenee goes through the screen. Having said that, I cannot remember the last time that a screenee who was moving at top speed was able to stop isntantly upon contact with the screener.

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You correct that the contact between the screener and screenee (I hoped we spelled that word correctly) is only a foul if two things occur: 1) The screener is displaced. AND 2) The screenee goes through the screen. Having said that, I cannot remember the last time that a screenee who was moving at top speed was able to stop isntantly upon contact with the screener.

MTD, Sr.

OK, but I'm not sure if I agree that a dribbler coming down the lane is always moving at top speed. Could be, but not always.

In any event, why is this screening action? Isn't the dribbler responsible for *not* charging into opponents, outside of any screening principles? He does under ncaa.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

In any event, why is this screening action? Isn't the dribbler responsible for *not* charging into opponents, outside of any screening principles? He does under ncaa. [/B]

It ain't a "screening" action and never was. It doesn't meet the definition of a "screen" under rule 4-39-1. B1 isn't trying to delay or prevent an opponent from reaching a desired position, as the definition says. B1 just picked out a spot and is legally standing there. The action does meet the restriction in R10-6-2 that says "a dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path....unless the space is such as to to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact". That's the reason it's a PC foul.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It ain't a "screening" action and never was. It doesn't meet the definition of a "screen" under rule 4-39-1. B1 isn't trying to delay or prevent an opponent from reaching a desired position, as the definition says. B1 just picked out a spot and is legally standing there. The action does meet the restriction in R10-6-2 that says "a dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path....unless the space is such as to to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact". That's the reason it's a PC foul. [/B]

OK, you can take it for a while.

We'll get this thing up to 10 pages soon enough!



Once Mark comes back down from his attic that is.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It ain't a "screening" action and never was. It doesn't meet the definition of a "screen" under rule 4-39-1. B1 isn't trying to delay or prevent an opponent from reaching a desired position, as the definition says. B1 just picked out a spot and is legally standing there. The action does meet the restriction in R10-6-2 that says "a dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path....unless the space is such as to to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact". That's the reason it's a PC foul. [/B]

JR:

I hope your above quoted post was a joke. Because you proved my point for me. R4-S39-A1 and R10-S6-A2 go hand-in-hand in this play in fact you have to use both rules to make the call. B1 has a legal postion on the court. If A1 wants to get to a spot on the court that is on the other side of B1 he has to go around B1 not through him. That means that B1 is in a screening position.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

[/B]

If B1 is facing the basket with his back to A1 and A1 runs into the back of B1 with the ball, is it a PC? B1 did not have LGP on A1? Does that matter for a PC?

I'd call a PC foul, myself.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I hope your above quoted post was a joke. Because you proved my point for me. R4-S39-A1 and R10-S6-A2 go hand-in-hand in this play in fact you have to use both rules to make the call. B1 has a legal postion on the court. If A1 wants to get to a spot on the court that is on the other side of B1 he has to go around B1 not through him. That means that B1 is in a screening position.

[/B][/QUOTE]My above quoted posts cited actual rules, not one of MTD Sr. little flights of fantasy. If B1 has his back turned and doesn't know that a dribbler is coming up behind him, then B1 is not setting a screen under the definition of a "screen" in R4-39-1. There is nowayinhell that B1 can be said to be trying to "delay or prevent" anything. Howintheck can he be if he don't know that the dribbler is behind him? B1 is just legally standing on his own l'il part of the floor, and if the dribbler runs into him, it's a PC foul under 10-6-2. You can bafflegab from here to next week with your goofy interpretations, but you ain't gonna change those facts.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If B1 is facing the basket with his back to A1 and A1 runs into the back of B1 with the ball, is it a PC? B1 did not have LGP on A1? Does that matter for a PC?

I'd call a PC foul, myself.

[/B]

I hope your above quoted post was a joke. Because you proved my point for me. R4-S39-A1 and R10-S6-A2 go hand-in-hand in this play in fact you have to use both rules to make the call. B1 has a legal postion on the court. If A1 wants to get to a spot on the court that is on the other side of B1 he has to go around B1 not through him. That means that B1 is in a screening position.

[/B][/QUOTE]My above quoted posts cited actual rules, not one of MTD Sr. little flights of fantasy. If B1 has his back turned and doesn't know that a dribbler is coming up behind him, then B1 is not setting a screen under the definition of a "screen" in R4-39-1. There is nowayinhell that B1 can be said to be trying to "delay or prevent" anything. Howintheck can he be if he don't know that the dribbler is behind him? B1 is just legally standing on his own l'il part of the floor, and if the dribbler runs into him, it's a PC foul under 10-6-2. You can bafflegab from here to next week with your goofy interpretations, but you ain't gonna change those facts. [/B][/QUOTE]



Bafflegab??!! ROFLMAO

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

That's it???!!!!

Very disappointing.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


That's it???!!!!

Very disappointing.

I want to know what the heck is bafflegab?

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I want to know what the heck is bafflegab?

MTD, Sr.

Any post made by you about qualifies.