1st time ever

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

Even when A1 has the ball?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would use "screening" principles on this (as opposed to "guarding" principles). Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

That makes sense to me. Since he's not facing the player he's not guarding him, but he did set a screen.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even when A1 has the ball?

Having the ball only makes a difference if you are guarding him. To be guarding him, he'd have to have a LGP. Since he doesn't, we use the screening principle to determine if he legally acquired the position.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even when A1 has the ball?

See the "COMMENT" in case book play 10.6.7.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See the "COMMENT" in case book play 10.6.7.

I get the application, but this case play is in the reverse; a player with the ball screening an opponent without the ball (obviously). It really says nothing about a player without the ball and his back turned and screening a ball handler without LGP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It really says nothing about a player without the ball and his back turned and screening a ball handler without LGP.

Disagree. It lays the concept out for you.

In the first sentence of the COMMENT it states that screening principles apply to the dribbler.

The last sentence of the COMMENT states "If both the dribbler and opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops." Iow you have a defender who gained a legal position on the court(without having to establish LGP) in front of the dribbler and in the same path and direction of the dribbler. The defender can now slow down or stop in the dribbler's path, and if the dribbler plows into him, it's on the dribbler.

Pretty clear to me....and it sounds just like what we're discussing.