Defensive Blind Screen?

[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?

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

How many offensive players are on the floor? If it was a game of one on one you may have a point. But as I recall it is a game of 5 on 5, and the defender, who has every right to be wherever he can get to on the floor and guard whoever his heart desires has been relegated to a small amount of butt-space in the middle guarding the guy sitting on his chest. TC foul. Call it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Anchor

How many offensive players are on the floor? If it was a game of one on one you may have a point. But as I recall it is a game of 5 on 5, and the defender, who has every right to be wherever he can get to on the floor and guard whoever his heart desires has been relegated to a small amount of butt-space in the middle guarding the guy sitting on his chest. TC foul. Call it.

Your preference naturally. I disagree completely with your reasoning though. If both players are on the floor, neither has gained any advantage over the other player in any way that I can think of. It meets the criteria for incidental contact under rule 4-27 in all ways imo.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[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.

[Welpe]

The OP is almost exactly like CB play 10.6.11 Situation D. In both plays in Sit D, the CB play says this is a foul on A5.

Would this be considered a screen outside of A5's visual field? While it is true he is looking away from the defender, he is running blindly running down the court while looking directly behind him. It would seem to me that A5 should be expected to see the defender in this situation if he is paying attention.

Just my $0.02.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by KCRef

B1 scores a basket, and A1 throws in to A2. A5 is jogging up the court (still in his backcourt), looking back at his teammate with the ball. B5 is facing A5, and has obtained a LGP with plenty of steps infront of A5. A5 collides into B5, and they both go down. Is there any foul? I say no.

I believe that it would be similar to when the offense sets a blind screen for his teammate that has the ball. If the defense never sees the screen, then there is no foul when they collide.

Why are you characterizing this as a screen? Team A has the ball. B5 has obtained LGP against A5 who is a moving player without the basketball. Why wouldn't you consider this to be guarding and apply the rules for that?

Looked at in that manner this would be a charging foul for displacing the defensive player from his legally obtained spot on the floor.

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by KCRef

B1 scores a basket, and A1 throws in to A2. A5 is jogging up the court (still in his backcourt), looking back at his teammate with the ball. B5 is facing A5, and has obtained a LGP with plenty of steps infront of A5. A5 collides into B5, and they both go down. Is there any foul? I say no.

I believe that it would be similar to when the offense sets a blind screen for his teammate that has the ball. If the defense never sees the screen, then there is no foul when they collide.

1) We all know that the guarding rule applies only to the five defensive players.

2) We all know that the screening rule apples to all ten players (both offensive (including the player in control of the ball) and defensive players).

3) The play in the OP is a conundrum (boy, I hope I spelled that correctly, ) because the official has to decide which B5 did: (a) Did B5 obtain (NFHS)/established (NCAA and FIBA) a LGP, or (b) Did B5 set a legal blind screen?

4) The answer to both items in (3) is YES. So what do we do?

5) In this play I am inclined to rule LGP, because B5 was facing A5. Remember to obtain/establish a LGP, the defender must be facing the offensive player, while in setting a screen the screener does NOT have to be facing the screenee (I hope I spelled this correctly too, ). And NFHS Casebook Play 10.6.11 Situation D supports my position.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS Casebook Play 10.6.11 Situation D supports my position.

10.6.11 SITUATION D: A1 is running toward A’s goal but is looking back to
receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from
B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and
before taking a step contacts B1. RULING: In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible
for contact. In (a), B1’s position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to
contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact
is charging by A1. (4-40)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The play in the OP is a conundrum (boy, I hope I spelled that correctly, )

Indeed you did, sir. If there's ever any question about a word's spelling, I find the easiest thing to do is open another tab and go to dictionary.com.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Conundrum (boy, I hope I spelled that correctly.

I prefer this spelling: Corundum.



(Ruby and Sapphire)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS Casebook Play 10.6.11 Situation D supports my position.

So does your truss. (Apologies to Don Rickles.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Indeed you did, sir. If there's ever any question about a word's spelling, I find the easiest thing to do is open another tab and go to dictionary.com.

It is even easier, just click the spell check button in top right of the post entry form. (You may have to install ieSpell before it will show or will work...and you have to use IE.)