The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   contact on a blind screen (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/3636-contact-blind-screen.html)

Ang Mon Jan 07, 2002 09:33pm

Here's the situation. NF rules. B1 is guarding dribbler A1. A2 sets a legal blind screen on B1, allowing for time and distance. B1 makes SEVERE contact with the screener A2 displacing the screener A2. A2 ends up on the floor. B1 did not see A2 in his peripheral vision. What's the call ? Is it a no call, Incidental contact? Or a pushing foul on B1 for displacing A2 even though he did not see B1.

Thanks

Ang

Ontario, Canada

rgaudreau Mon Jan 07, 2002 09:38pm

Hmmm. Good scenario Ang.

We can discuss it this weekend during the Gold Cup!

Ren

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:01pm

To determine whether B1 has committed a foul the following question has to be answered: Did B1 stop immediately upon making contact with A2 (he could even then go around A2) or did he continue on through A2? If B1 stopped (and go around A2) then B1 did not commit a foul. If B1 continued through A2 then B1 committed a foul. See the last paragraph of NFHS R10-S6-A3 (bottom of page 63 of this year's rules book). NCAA Rules agree.

PP Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:52pm

Ummm...how fast was B1 going ? ...because if B1 was running rapidly, the contact may be severe...911...then what ? is this a good rule ?

crew Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:59pm

assuming a2 set a legal screen it is the responsibility of b1 to avoid contact of a2. it does not matter how fast or how big b1 is he is not allowed to plow over a2.

Mark Dexter Mon Jan 07, 2002 11:08pm

I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as A1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on A1.

NCAA, I agree with crew. There is no provision (that I can see) for the trying to stop contact.

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:00 AM]

Brian Watson Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:01am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as A2 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on A2.

NCAA, I agree with crew. There is no provision (that I can see) for the trying to stop contact.

Mark - Do you maen B1?

Larks Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:17am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
To determine whether B1 has committed a foul the following question has to be answered: Did B1 stop immediately upon making contact with A2 (he could even then go around A2) or did he continue on through A2? If B1 stopped (and go around A2) then B1 did not commit a foul. If B1 continued through A2 then B1 committed a foul. See the last paragraph of NFHS R10-S6-A3 (bottom of page 63 of this year's rules book). NCAA Rules agree.
MTD,

I can see a scenario where B1 is running while guarding A1. A2 blind screens. B1 doesnt see the pick and worse, his teammates dont warn him. Boom.....bodies on the floor. My comment is that B1 should have to stop if he sees the pick. He does not have the right to plow A2. The flip side is that this is a fast game. I can see cases where this is a no-call. A2 chose to jump in front of the moving train. Why call a foul on B1 for trying to guard his man?

Take my case...I am 6'4", 285 football player build. Many times in Rec ball these 5'1" soccer player type guards try to set a pick while I am guarding someone, sometimes blind...sometimes not. Based on my size, gravity, inertia or sometimes after a flop, Mr. Soccer ends up on the deck. Foul? (FYI, if it happened 15 times in 5 years, the Refs called a foul on me maybe twice...not that they are right, just how they called it)

My point is that there is going to be contact almost every time there is a pick. If A2 sets a blind screen and gets plowed, I have a hard time calling a foul on B1 unless I know he saw him, made zero effort to miss him or attempted to increase the effect of the collision.

At least IMRHO.

Larks

Bart Tyson Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:29am

Larks, I have to disagree with you on this one. The rules don't say B1 has to see A2. Blind screens are part of the game. that is the object of the screen, as long as it is legal.

zebraman Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:44am

From the Points of Emphasis on Page 69 of the NFHS rule book:

C. Screens:
The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. <B> Excessive contact </b> or "pushing through" the screen is illegal. Sounds to me like you had excessive contact.

Z

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
From the Points of Emphasis on Page 69 of the NFHS rule book:

C. Screens:
The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. <B> Excessive contact </b> or "pushing through" the screen is illegal. Sounds to me like you had excessive contact.

Z


NFHS R10-S6-A3 states that even though the screener was knocked down, as long as the player being screened stops on contact the contact between the two players is legal. Only when the screened player continues on through the screen does his contact become a foul by him.

Mark Dexter Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian Watson
Mark - Do you maen B1?
No. I meant A1. Changed it for some reason, though . . .

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:01 AM]

Larks Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:58am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
From the Points of Emphasis on Page 69 of the NFHS rule book:

C. Screens:
The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. <B> Excessive contact </b> or "pushing through" the screen is illegal. Sounds to me like you had excessive contact.

Z


NFHS R10-S6-A3 states that even though the screener was knocked down, as long as the player being screened stops on contact the contact between the two players is legal. Only when the screened player continues on through the screen does his contact become a foul by him.

Ok, so if B1 makes contact with the blind screener (A2)while running...A2 falls and B1 falls on top of or next to him do I have a foul? In this case, B2 just didnt see him and the resulting collision sends both to the deck.

I know what the rules are saying but why punish good defense?

Thanks Mark

Larks - I love these split second decisions!

zebraman Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:00am

Points of Emphasis, NFHS.

Screens:
The screen player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. <b> Excessive contact </b> or "pushing through" the screen is illegal.

The situation described soundslike excessive contact to me.

Z

Bart Tyson Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:09am

If it is a blind screen then it is also unlikely B1 stopped. My guess is this will be a foul on B1. You have player on the floor which also involves the ball. This is the kind of rough play we need to clean up. For me not to call a foul on this one, it will have to be obvious to everyone, it was a flop.

devdog69 Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
From the Points of Emphasis on Page 69 of the NFHS rule book:

C. Screens:
The screened player is expected to stop or attempt to stop on contact and move around the screen. <B> Excessive contact </b> or "pushing through" the screen is illegal. Sounds to me like you had excessive contact.

Z

The last paragraph on page 63 of the NFHS rulebook says:
...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 as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball....

As long as they don't push through with the arms or do anything else, I would most likely have a "no call". This exact situation happened in a game I was watching this year and RevRef's partner called a foul on B. I tried to bring it up at halftime and suggest a no-call, she thought I was out of my mind because it was a big collision.

BktBallRef Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:47am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as B1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on B1.

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

PP Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:52am

Rule 10.6.3...Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.
What do they mean the screener is not deplaced if she/he has the ball.
Usually you do not set a screen if you a have the ball ?

bigwhistle Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:56am

see the play after the initial contact
 
Even if both bodies go to the floor on a blind screen with hard contact, there may not be a foul. This needs to be determined by the defensive player's actions AFTER he makes contact. If his legs keep driving through the position where the screener was, YES he has now not tried to avoid the screen. If he tries to change direction or quits pumping his legs, the contact is a legal part of the game.

Remember, the screener did his job and got his teammate open as the play was designed. Therefore, if the defender does nothing out of the ordinary, it is a "play on".

Mark Dexter Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:59am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as B1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on B1.

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

Actually, I'm reversing my correction - it was called a foul on A1. :confused:

I'm really out of it this morning - must be because I have to wait until Friday to find the rest of my schedule.

bigwhistle Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by PP
What do they mean the screener is not deplaced if she/he has the ball.
Usually you do not set a screen if you a have the ball ?

PP,

Remember the old "split the post" play where the ball is passed into the post at the free throw line and then the guard tries to brush his defender off on the post as he runs by in order to get a return pass for a lay up? This is an occasion where the screener can be the person with the ball.

But then again, there are a lot of officials here who have never seen that play, since it is not a play run as much as when Jurassic Ref started blowing his air horn, ur, tooting his whistle. :D

Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:18am

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
If it is a blind screen then it is also unlikely B1 stopped. My guess is this will be a foul on B1. You have player on the floor which also involves the ball. This is the kind of rough play we need to clean up. For me not to call a foul on this one, it will have to be obvious to everyone, it was a flop.
Rough play in my book is play that intends to be rough. Fast play with blind screens is by nature going to be rough, and the screening team should expect contact when they set the blind screen. When you have A1 and B1 as the two fastest players on the court and you blind screen on B1, there may be contact but I do not consider B1 guilty of rough play. B1 is working his/her butt off to stay on the ball and not get beat. If anything, in these situations the only reason the play is rough is the offense's decision to set a blind screnn, not the defender's decision to guard their player. By setting a blind screen, the offense decided they were willing to exchange hard contact for getting B1 off A1.

Now, having said that, is it a foul? As A's coach, I expect to have hard contact on the screen - it's blind and I am running my quick player off the screen to get B1 off of her. I want to gain an advantage from the screen, and I fully expect to catch B1 off guard and that B1 will hit A2 pretty hard. My players must brace for hard contact in these situations. The advantage I seek is not an on-the-floor foul on B1 - it is an open lane to the basket and a good scoring opportunity. This is an advantage you deny me if you blow the whistle when B1 contacts A2.

If B1 runs through A2's screen and pretty much stays with A1, then A did not get the advantage they deserved for setting a good screen, and therefore B committed a foul. If B1 stops on contact, regardless of how or why, and A1 is now unimpeded going to the hole, you got no call. Frequently in these situations, both players are crashing hard and there is no way to see if B intended to stop, but you sure can see that B did stop and A got what they wanted from the screen. Why would you whistle a foul for this?

Had this twice in one game this weekend, my parents screamed for a foul and I told the ref good no-call. There is a reason the case book interpretation is written the way that Mark DeNucci cites!

devdog69 Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I doubt it's been changed for this year, but the NF rulebook and casebook seem to disagree on this one.

10-6-3 states that the contact is not a foul as long as B1 tries to stop.

10.6.3(D) calls this a foul on B1.

The case book must have changed plays this year. 10.6.3D has both situatiions as a foul on A1.

10.6.3 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1. Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.

BTW, I realistically don't see this as a screening situation but a guarding situation.

Actually situation (a) does not say it is a foul on A1 it only says A1 is responsible for the contact. I take that to mean, if there is a foul it would be on A1.

bob jenkins Tue Jan 08, 2002 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bigwhistle
Quote:

Originally posted by PP
What do they mean the screener is not deplaced if she/he has the ball.
Usually you do not set a screen if you a have the ball ?

PP,

Remember the old "split the post" play where the ball is passed into the post at the free throw line and then the guard tries to brush his defender off on the post as he runs by in order to get a return pass for a lay up? This is an occasion where the screener can be the person with the ball.

But then again, there are a lot of officials here who have never seen that play, since it is not a play run as much as when Jurassic Ref started blowing his air horn, ur, tooting his whistle. :D

RIght -- and then we need to call the displacement a foul because otherwise the post "traveled."

Too often now, I see this play and the post player sets an illegal screen. I think coaches (okay, SOME coaches) are teaching that it's the sceener's responsibility to initiate contact -- not the player being defended.

Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I think coaches (okay, SOME coaches) are teaching that it's the sceener's responsibility to initiate contact -- not the player being defended.
You are right that many screeners end up trying to initiate contact, but I am not sure they are really being taght to do so. I teach players that the screener is responsible to a point in that they must position themselves in such a way that the player being defended can run off the screen. But the screener must stop and it becomes the teammate that must get skin-to-skin on the screen. Most illegal screens are the fault of poor cuts and screeners trying to make sure the screen happens anyway.

And even though I teach it, my cutters still make bad cuts and my screeners still try to help them. And because they get away with it about 2/3s of the time, they always look at me like "Whaaat!" when they actually get called for one!

Bart Tyson Tue Jan 08, 2002 03:37pm

Well Coach, we will have to agree to disagree. B1 has an obligation to stop or go around a screen. If the screen is legal then it does not matter how fast he is moving.

Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 04:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Well Coach, we will have to agree to disagree. B1 has an obligation to stop or go around a screen. If the screen is legal then it does not matter how fast he is moving.
You do not disagree with me, you disagree with the rule book Here is the book, word for word, 10-6-3-d.

"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 as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball."

Because the screening contact rule allows for severe contact, it clearly recognizes that B1 cannot possibly come to an immediate stop as soon as B1 hits A2 when they never saw A2 (and A2 probably wanted it that way!). The rule anticipates and allows that a rapidly moving B1 will have a severe collision with a screener who positions themselves outside B1's visual field.

Physics will tell you that to have severe contact (contact that causes bodies to go flying) requires that a player move through someone. Now what matters by rule is what happens next. B1 stops (even by falling over A2), no foul. B1 bulls over A2 and continues defending A1, foul.

As the coach of the team that is supposedly punished by not giving B1 a foul, I am saying that I not only believe that this is the intent of a pretty straighforward rule, but that I agree that the rule should read and be enforced precisely in this way. As team A, we look for that contact because it removes that pesky, speedy B1 from the play and allows A1 to take a layup or drive and dish for A3, A4, or A5 to score. You blow the whistle and take that from A and you just gave an advantage to B. And you also give a good defender who is playing solid defense a foul that the player does not deserve.

zebraman Tue Jan 08, 2002 05:09pm

Is it just me, or do I see about a 50/50 split here? NFHS has screening contact as a point of emphasis, so I hope next year they are a little more clear on the rule and case book study on this. Sorry to be a "fence sitter," but I think people made pretty good arguments both ways on this one using the rule book/case book as their fodder.

Z

Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 05:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
Is it just me, or do I see about a 50/50 split here? NFHS has screening contact as a point of emphasis, so I hope next year they are a little more clear on the rule and case book study on this. Sorry to be a "fence sitter," but I think people made pretty good arguments both ways on this one using the rule book/case book as their fodder.

Z

The case book Mark Dexter cited was not a screening situation. It refers to A1, who is always an offensive player in cases (as Tony pointed out later). It is an entirely different case when an offensive player takes a defender out, because you now have an unfair offensive advantage. B1 is trying to prevent A1 from gaining this advantage.

In the case of the blind screen, as long as B1 stops (by rule and logic) the advantage stays with the team that successfully set the blind screen. I have yet to see rule or case which indicates otherwise. If there is one, someone should cite it here.

With regard to the POE, it does not clearly distinguish between the blind screen and the visible screen. Excessive contact should be called whenever it is made to get through a visible screen. The difference is that the defender was given the opportunity to stop and chose not to do so, and therefore made a conscious attempt to go through the screener to gain an advantage. The blind screen is intended to surprise a defender and is set with the anticipation that hard contact may occur. After the contact, if the defender stops, they did not attempt to nor did they gain an unfair advantage through their actions.

I do not believe that the POE is trying to stop collisions on blind screens from occurring. You could set blind screens all day, run your fastest ball handler off them, and set quick defender B1 up for some cheap fouls.

zebraman Tue Jan 08, 2002 05:48pm

The original post gives no indication that B tried to stop. Are we really going to expect a ref to say, "well, after the severe contact, I thought B tried to stop?" How do I judge that? "No foul coach, as A was falling to the floor, I thought I saw a hint of regret on B's face."

Z

physicsref Tue Jan 08, 2002 07:17pm

Quote:

Physics will tell you that to have severe contact (contact that causes bodies to go flying) requires that a player move through someone. Now what matters by rule is what happens next. B1 stops (even by falling over A2), no foul. B1 bulls over A2 and continues defending A1, foul.
[/B]
Coach. I agree with your rules interpretation here. I gotta question your physics, though. It's pretty easy to send a body flying without going through someone. For example, one billiard ball hits another and the 2nd ball continues on, while the first stops. Similarly, consider the case where the 130 lbs. guard sets a screen against a 230 lb. forward. B1 (230 lbs) hits the blind screen, stops on contact, and watches A2 (130 lbs.) fly into the mats against the wall. Just like the desk toys with the ball-bearings rocking back and forth.

In any case, as long as B doesn't go through the screen, don't blow the whistle. The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.


Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:47pm

Physicsteacherref I get your point :)

I am thinking in terms of the amount of force required to move any player, and that force cannot be applied without moving at least in part into the space previously occupied by that player. (much as a kicker kicks through the ball to apply the force to a much smaller object) More to the point, you cannot apply that much force, have that much momentum (230 pounds at top speed, whatever that is!), and react quickly enough to stop yourself at the instant you make contact. But you may stop within a foot of where you initially hit the player, and that's ok. You stopped, and the 130 pound point guard is bouncing off a wall at the opposite end of the court (call the bank shot please :D )

Hawks Coach Tue Jan 08, 2002 09:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
The original post gives no indication that B tried to stop. Are we really going to expect a ref to say, "well, after the severe contact, I thought B tried to stop?" How do I judge that? "No foul coach, as A was falling to the floor, I thought I saw a hint of regret on B's face."

Z

I agree, the orignal post doesn't say. That's why I gave two scenarios. I gave an example of B1 staying with A1 (probably didn't try to stop there, boss) and B1 getting left in the dust as A1 goes in for layup. Either of these may have happened in the scenario as stated. If it is the former, you got a foul by rule. If it is the latter, sounds like A got what they wanted and B1's intent is relatively irrelevant. Something in between, the call is in your hands, my friend.

I am sorry you have trouble determining intent. But the rules clearly say "attempts to stop" (NF's words, not mine), so I guess you get paid to make that determination. I for one will be very upset if you take away every one of my blind screen layups because of severe contact that is permissible by rule. On the other hand, all my players' parents will love you, because they think all contact is a foul on the other team.

It appears that you believe being knocked to the floor is excessive contact. I believe that severe contact is exactly that, severe. It will often result in bodies bouncing in many directions, sometimes to the floor. But more than one rule in the book says that contact can be severe and remain incidental to the play.

Ang Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:17pm

Thanks for your input. The defender B1 did stop on contact and A2 went flying so next time I will not call a foul on B1 , Play on !

Ang

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by physicsref
Quote:

Physics will tell you that to have severe contact (contact that causes bodies to go flying) requires that a player move through someone. Now what matters by rule is what happens next. B1 stops (even by falling over A2), no foul. B1 bulls over A2 and continues defending A1, foul.
Coach. I agree with your rules interpretation here. I gotta question your physics, though. It's pretty easy to send a body flying without going through someone. For example, one billiard ball hits another and the 2nd ball continues on, while the first stops. Similarly, consider the case where the 130 lbs. guard sets a screen against a 230 lb. forward. B1 (230 lbs) hits the blind screen, stops on contact, and watches A2 (130 lbs.) fly into the mats against the wall. Just like the desk toys with the ball-bearings rocking back and forth.

In any case, as long as B doesn't go through the screen, don't blow the whistle. The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.

[/B]

Yes,I love your explaination. As a structural engineer, everytime I use the same explaination people do not believe me. I believe that where ever Newton is he is smiling.

zebraman Wed Jan 09, 2002 01:22am

<i>The whole purpose of a screen is to attract contact.</i>

When I was coaching, the purpose of it was to free up a player for an open shot. But contact did occur at times.

<i>I am sorry you have trouble determining intent.</i>

Anyone who says that's an easy call is lying. When a player runs into a blind screen at full speed, it's tough to figure out if they tried to stop or not. It'd be real nice if the teammate communicated and let them know that a screen was coming. My only point was that this is a tough one and I'd like to see NFHS do a specific case study since I've seen this one posted several times on a variety of boards. If your team set the screen and got barreled over, you are in the <b> very small minority </b> if you aren't screaming for a foul with your parents. 99% of the coaches I work for not only scream for a foul, but that's when the comments like, "somebody is going to get hurt out there if you don't call that" start.

<i>I for one will be very upset if you take away every one of my blind screen layups because of severe contact that is permissible by rule.</i>

I haven't had any games where I've had severe contact more than once or twice this year so I won't take away too many. Hopefully I'll get it right. But when I say, "I didn't think the screened player tried to stop," and you don't agree, you'll have no choice but to accept my call.

:)

Z


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1