Bilas

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Counselor:

I say so because G2 met all of the requirements of the definition of screening. Furthermore, the late Ed Ferrigno, a former member of the NFHS Rules Committee and State Interpreter for Connecticut was probably the most knowledgeable person regarding guarding/screening in the country and I helped him give seminars on block/charge, so I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about guarding and screening too. So when I say that G2 set a legal screen you can pretty well take it to the bank.

MTD, Sr.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

To this observer, it seems clear that reasonable people can disagree on the play. You may reject that notion (and you may even be correct), but fallacious arguments don't help anyone get anywhere.