Defensive Blind Screen?

[vbzebra]

but isn't the screenER moving here, not the screenEE? A blind screen is when the screenER is stationary and the screenEE is moving backwards, right? Here, the defender is stationary, and the screenER is moving blindly.

By the way, who's on first?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by vbzebra

1. but isn't the screenER moving here, not the screenEE? A blind screen is when the screenER is stationary and the screenEE is moving backwards, right? Here, the defender is stationary, and the screenER is moving blindly.

2. By the way, who's on first?

1. I think you're confusing "screener" for offensive player. In this play, the defense is attempting to set a screen. There's nothing in the definition of screen that requires it to be offensive.

"A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position." (4-40-1)

2. Exactly!

[Pantherdreams]

Maybe I'm confused but the play described is not a screen. The player defending A5 (B5) is waiting in the middle of the floor with LGP when A5 runs into him and knocks him over.

If B5 was standing in the middle of the paint and A5 ran into his chest bowling him over on cut to the basket it would be a foul, it really should be here too.

The original post said it reminded him of the action that happens on a blind screen on offense, but this isn't a screen this is a defender holding space they are entitled too.

[vbzebra]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Maybe I'm confused but the play described is not a screen. The player defending A5 (B5) is waiting in the middle of the floor with LGP when A5 runs into him and knocks him over.

If B5 was standing in the middle of the paint and A5 ran into his chest bowling him over on cut to the basket it would be a foul, it really should be here too.

The original post said it reminded him of the action that happens on a blind screen on offense, but this isn't a screen this is a defender holding space they are entitled too.

+100!

That was what I meant, you just said it better! I'm embarrased to say I'm a communications major

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

The original post said it reminded him of the action that happens on a blind screen on offense, but this isn't a screen this is a defender holding space they are entitled too.

Which is a screen.

It's the picturebook definition of screen. Or are you saying there's some sort of requirement that a screen be set by the offense?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Which is a screen.

It's the picturebook definition of screen. Or are you saying there's some sort of requirement that a screen be set by the offense?

But is is also LGP, standing around minding your own buisness, covering your area in the zone, playing helpside defense, etc etc. But yes it is also the same position you could use to set a screen, but on defense the intent is to occupy a space so that the offense can't pass through it (granted same as a screen) . . .

so at what point does knocking someone down and off the spot gain a clear path to the rim, to take their spot, or to generally just knock them around become a foul on the offense??? I would agree you would be expected to endure some contact but if the player continues through you knocking you off your spot to the ground it wouldn't it become a foul a some point, even on a screen???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

so at what point does knocking someone down and off the spot gain a clear path to the rim, to take their spot, or to generally just knock them around become a foul on the offense??? I would agree you would be expected to endure some contact but if the player continues through you knocking you off your spot to the ground it wouldn't it become a foul a some point, even on a screen???

Absolutely, the caveat here is that the screened player must attempt to stop upon contact. If he just runs through, it's a foul.

And for the record, if he knocks the screener to the floor, it had better be quite obvious that he attempted to stop, because I'm going to lean towards a foul unless his attempt to stop is very very obvious.

[Nevadaref]

One other thought -- the NFHS has a play in the Case Book which states that a screen from the front or side is considered within the field of vision of a player and so cannot be a "blind screen." The defender is not responsible for which direction the opponent is looking. If he set up in front of the moving opponent, none of the principles for a blind screen could possibly apply.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Which is a screen.

It's the picturebook definition of screen. Or are you saying there's some sort of requirement that a screen be set by the offense?

I really think it is BOTH screening and guarding. The rules overlap to a large degree.

[Anchor]

Can the defender continue to defend anybody while on his butt in the middle of the floor? Then he was put at a disadvantage. Call the TC foul like you should.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Anchor

Can the defender continue to defend anybody while on his butt in the middle of the floor? Then he was put at a disadvantage. Call the TC foul like you should.

Does he have to defend an opponent who is also on their butt, as pointed out in the original post of this thread?

Where is the disadvantage for ANYBODY in the situation where BOTH players are down?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Anchor

Can the defender continue to defend anybody while on his butt in the middle of the floor? Then he was put at a disadvantage. Call the TC foul like you should.

Nope, he can't. And an offensive screener can't catch a pass if he gets knocked on his *** on a blind screen either.

And yet, by rule, it's incidental contact provied the screened opponent attempts to stop.

Rule it incidental contact just as the rule says you should.