Defensive Blind Screen?
 

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.

I think I would have to take this on a case by case basis but my first instinct is I've gotta call something here if it in anyway effects the ongoing play.

Its tough for me to no call a player holding their ground in the middle of the floor legally so no one can come through getting run over by the offense who had plenty of time and space to avoid them.

I'm interested on other people's take on this.

By rule, as long as the screened player stops or attempts to stop upon contact, the contact is to be ruled incidental. The screener is to expect contact, and the contact may be severe.

+1

The intent of the defender setting the screen has been met. Whether either or both player subsequently goes down isn't relevant as long as the criteria for a legal screen were met.

You need illegal contact to have a foul.

LGP and blind screen are two different situations. in the OP, B5 has obtained LGP in front of A5. Contact. Down goes B5. I've got a TC foul on A5. B's ball at spot nearest foul.:D

So you're saying screening rules apply only to the offense?
Basically, when screening/guarding a player without the ball, screening rules apply.

crap, now I'M confused :D

When guarding a player without the ball, time and distance are a factor for LGP, and based on OP, guard had LGP with plenty of time and space for A5 to move out of the way. I don't think we can penalize B5 with a block/no call for A5 crashing into him when A5 has his head turned. I would have a TC foul on A5 b/c B5 established LGP with enough time/distance for A5 to move, but A5 did not.

It's a screen, so rule 4-40-7 is the one to look at here.

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? :eek:

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!

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 :eek:

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???

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.

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

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?:confused:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, :D) 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, :D). And NFHS Casebook Play 10.6.11 Situation D supports my position.

MTD, Sr.

10.6.11 situation d ...
 

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)

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.

And I'm Not Talking About Stripper Names ...
 

I prefer this spelling: Corundum.

http://thm-a02.yimg.com/nimage/5c063815ced9b5f6 http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/f9a95797eb022de6

(Ruby and Sapphire)

I'll Be Here All Week Folks, Enjoy The Buffet ...
 

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

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.)

I'd rather be permanently relegated to officiating 3rd grade B league games:(:(

I use firefox, chrome, and safari too...even firefox on linux. They really aren't any better. The biggest reason people claim the others are better is just an anti-Microsoft predisposition. They're not bad, but really not better.

My perspective derives from being a computer security consultant. I don't mind when customers want to put themselves at undue risk, it pads my pocket. Just try to avoid using any version of IE myself. Too big a target for the bad guys who would like to purloin your goodies.

FTR, MTD and Nevada have convinced me that, on this particular play, "guarding" is the preferred call here, and thus a TC foul.

There is still a debate to be had regarding whether it's a blind screen when the player is running forward but looking backwards.

My casebook cite wasn't enough? ;)

Billy:

Keeping in mind that I am a structural engineer (Bachelor of Engineering in civil engineering, William Rayen School of Engineering, Youngstown (Ohio) State University, Class of 1980), what type of truss?

Allan
Bailey
Baltimore
Bollmann
Brown
Burr Arch
Callender-Hamilton
Cantilever
Dare
DeBurg
Fink
Haupt
Howe
Kingpost
Lattice
Lenticular with penticular web
Long
Paddleford
Parker
Pegram
Pennsylvania through
Pettit
Pony
Post
Pratt
Smith
Thacher
Town lattice
Truesdell
Vierendeel
Waddell "A"
Warren
Whipple


Of course my favorite is the Bailey Bridge, which played a major role in the bridging of many streams and rivers by the Allies during World War II. A major reference is in the movie A Bridge Too Far which is based on Cornelius Ryan's book describing Operation Market-Garden, when the Allies attempted to capture five bridges in the Netherlands across the Meuse, Wall, and Lower Rhine Rivers, in September 1944.

MTD, Sr.

"And Welpe." :)

Just as long as we're clear about WHY it is a target....

The unsensationalized facts are that it is NOT fundamentally more/less secure at all. There are just that far more people using it and therefore a better target for someone wanting to attack as broad of an audience as possible with hopes of getting lucky.

Same thing with Mac vs. Windows. If you were writing a virus and wanted to have the most impact, why would you bother targeting an OS with such small market share. You would target the system most widely used. Thus, the Mac APPEARS at first glance to be less prone to viruses. When in fact, it is less only targeted becasue there are far fewer or them.

It's also possible that some people target the product because they don't like the business practices of the company producing it.

I'll admit that your explanation is far more logical and thus likely, but one can't totally discount the impact of the bad press.