This is where you're wrong. While you have the right conclusion, the reason is wrong.

By definition, knocking over a blind screen is not a foul...no matter how hard the contact. You implied that the amount of contact determined whether there would be a foul. The fact that it is blind is all you need to know....if the screened player then stops upon making contact.

If the player stops upon contact, there will never be a collision hard enough that requires a foul to be called, in my opinion. Application of the rule book is important.

Incorrect. It does matter whether he sees him. Irrelevant to the play in question.
This was correct.Irrelevant to the play in question.This is all irrelevant.

This is correct.

which is why the "visual field" part is ambiguous and why coaches run this play in this situation

I agree it's a bit ambiguous, and they may run it with the hope that they may draw a foul. However, the primary purpose of this play is to free the inbounder from pressure.
And "why" they run the play has nothing to do with the way it needs to be called. Hell, one coach recently had his player goal tend a free throw to ensure he had an inbounds pass following the free throw. It didn't work because, well, he didn't know the rule.

good point :)

What??? That makes no sense. The contact happens first....then the player must stop. The amount of contact is, again, irrelevant. You can't stop for something you dont' see until you either see it or hit it....too late to slow down and lessen the contact.

I agree with what you think is important...that's why I suggest you acutally not only read it but understand it.

I believe that if a defender hits a legal screener hard enough to negate the offensive advantage created by the screen, OR the contact is severe enough that it will lead to increased unnecessary physical play between teams in a game, it is a foul. It is up to the official to make that decision. Those who disagree, that is fine with me. No big deal.

Although you post under TheOracle, just out of curiousity how can you predict the future?

Ah, I see now. Just choose to ignore an explicit rule telling you otherwise.

There is no explicit rule. You can explain these calls on both sides. I'm more than happy to blow the whistle on a bonecrushing collision on a screen where the screener gets jacked up to prevent a fight or cheap shots later on. All I have to say according to the rule is that the defender did not stop on contact. Easy. But you can take the other side. I even understand it. In the grand scheme, it makes little difference.

You're right. Except for the explicit rule that you are choosing to ignore.

You mean the one that says that contact by a defender running into a blind screen is incidental.

....guess I better go rip that page out of my book.

Just because it is popular or an easy call to make doesn't make it right.

Another Judge ...
 

Isn't there a second judgment on this play, whether or not the player attempts to stop.

In my opinion:
Judgment #1: Blind screen
Judgment #2: Player attempted to stop
Thus: No foul

However, this is a tough play to call, in real time, and on the replay, and I'm willing to accept other interpretations.