This should have been your first post. You were wrong to insist that "Contact on a blind screen is not a foul."

Still not right. Just because the opponent was looking the other direction and didn't see the screen doesn't mean that the screen was set outside of that person's visual field. In the play described the screen was clearly set to the side of the player and not from behind.

NFHS RULES
4-40-3 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side (within
the visual field), the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
4-40-4 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from behind (outside the
visual field), the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward
without contact.

4-40-7 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact by going around the screener. 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.


The only legitimate question is how does the NCAA define "outside of the visual field"?

Refererences are to stationary screen. Screener A1 sets a screen along the endline where the lane line meets the baseline. Defender B1 is guarding A2 who is running along the end line from the 3 pt line towards the middle of the court. Defender B1 moves along the endline guarding A2 and contacts screener A1. B1 clearly did not see the screen. You are calling the foul on B1?

No, references in the NCAA book are to screens set on a stationary opponent outside his/her visual field. There is no "visual field" requirement on screens set on a moving opponent in the NCAA rule book. So if the defender runs over the legally set screener, then it is absolutely a foul on the defender.

BioTeacher:

You need to re-read the defintion of screening. The definition of screening is identical for both NFHS and NCAA (and FIBA too), therefore, casebook plays from either rules set are equally applicable. You are missing the point in this discussion. While contact, even contact that can knock the screener on his or her tuchus, the screenee must stop upon making contact with the screener. If screenee runs through the screener, that is a foul by the screenee and from the description of the play that is what happened.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,
It also wasn't a screen set out of the visual field. It was set to the side of the body of the opponent who was moving laterally.

hbioteach seems to be having great difficulty grasping that the severe incidental contact situation involves the blind screen which is set out of the field of vision, and that means from behind, not just in a direction in which the player isn't looking. The player is required to see an opponent to his left or right.

One should never generalize.
 

I'm not saying that it is a violation, or a foul, but, I'm also not saying that it is a violation, or a foul. Didn't we just have a very long thread discussing this a few weeks ago? Did we come up with a definitive answer to this. Snaqwells seems very confident in his answer. Do we all agree with him? I'd like to know the right answer.

Confidence is part of my nature and not indicative of my accuracy. That said, in order for a player to get from inbounds to OOB, they have to be allowed to be, at one point, standing with one foot in and one foot out. Unless you're going to call a violation on the following play:

Following a made basket, A1 grabs the ball and heads OOB for the proper endline throwin. A2 then steps OOB as well and receives a pass from A1. A1 then leans forward due to balance and steps over the line before A2 releases the pass for the throwin.

If the screen was blind, the defender can not run through it. Using the arms is not required for a foul here.

I also do not believe it qualifies as a blind screen just because the defender wasn't looking that way. It depends on how you define "field of vision."

This is the most important part of the (Fed) rule. You should call this a foul if the opponent runs through the screen, whether inadvertent or intentional.

Also, keep in mind that the coach is not going to know this rule, so if you rule incidental contact (for whatever reason), be prepared to explain. "A situation like that is, by rule, incidental contact and not a foul..." Or, something like that.

I tried to tell him the same thing earlier.

This play happens in NCAA-M basketball all the time at the end of games and the refuse to call it...I think they deem it a "bush league" way to draw a foul.

I though it was a very well thought up play by W Carolina.

I saw the play on ESPN, and my first question was whether or not the screener had afforded the "screenee" time and distance to stop or avoid. Did anyone else get the same impression? I'm not suggesting the call was incorrect; I just wanted to see it again.

I also agree with the earlier post that expressed surprise this play still works. We always discuss the possibility of such a play in the waning moments of a tight game.

Ever wonder why you have to click on "Start" to stop Windows 98?
 

OK. Let's change it up a little. Team B scores. A1 legally steps out of bounds to make his throwin to A2, however, B1 immediately steals the thowin and is driving along the endline to the basket. Seeing what is about to happen, without delay in returning inbounds, A1 steps inbounds to take the charge. Everything that A1 does in terms of legal guarding position, is 100% legal, by the book, except A1 had one foot on the endline boundary line. Blocking foul on A1 because he had a foot on the boundary line, per a NFHS interpretation a few years ago, or player control foul because A1 was legally out of bounds? Now let's go back to the screen. Is the screen legal if the screener has one foot on the endline boundary line, and I already know that screens have nothing to do with legal guarding position? I honestly don't know the correct answer to this, but would love to be convinced one way, or the other.

We've had this (rather long) discussion a little while back when the NFHS ruling came out. First, all the NFHS said was A1 cannot have LGP, because one foot is OOB, or on the line. The discussion was whether A1 could still take a charge, even without LGP. I happen to feel that, even though A1 does not have LGP, they could still draw a charge if they were set and in the spot well before B1 got there. Not having LGP doesn't mean A1 can never draw a charge, only that they are more responsible for contact if it occurs in a close situation.

In your situation, I would say the same applies - even though A1 was legally OOB to begin with, they still do not have LGP when it comes B1. 4-23 (Guarding) specifically mentions in order for the player to obtain intial LGP, both feet must be on the playing court (inbounds). So their status would be no different than a player who was inbounds to start with.