And mbyron's point is that failure to provide time and distance when required means the player moved just prior to contact. You're both saying the same thing and arguing over semantics now.

What have you then if A2 and B2 are 1 step apart facing each other and then B2 turns his back to A2 to see the play and then B2 turns back to run and after 1 step plows over A2?

Foul on B2. What's your point? Are you saying that A2's screen is now a blind screen?

The point is that time/distance can be mitigated by other circumstances.

Yes I agree with that. I never said it was sacrosanct. Just that time and distance does not apply to just a moving screener, but a stationary one as well. True he was moving to get to the spot but if he didn't give enough space or time when he became stationary then it is a foul on the screener.

That's when he violated the provisions on screening, and created a blind screen, right? That's my point, as Snaqs has divined.

Interesting question. Can we assume this isn't a blind screen since B2 was facing A2 when the screen was set? Or does it become a blind screen? In this scenario, I'd say even a blind screen wouldn't need more than 1 step T&D. If two is the max allowed, even on a dead sprint, then one is sufficient in this play.

No
 

B2 is moving around the screen of A2. A3 sets a screen right in the path of B2. B2 sees him but is not given enough time or distance to stop. A3 is stationary when the contact occurs, but because the time and distance factor the foul is on A3.

Rule 4.40.5 - When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction. The speed of the player to be screened will determine where the screener may take his/her STATIONARY position. The position will vary and may be one to two normal steps or strides from the opponent.

And I repeat myself:

You keep saying 'no' and then agreeing with me. I'll stop trying to convince you of the last part. :rolleyes:

So we're going to let A2 "transform" a TC foul into a block as he runs over B2 just by turning his back to B2 right before the crash? I think not!

Agreed. The more I think about the play, the more I think it's not a blind screen, even if B2 slides right up against A2 (facing each other) before A2 turns to receive the pass.

This is why you're "just a coach"

The last thing I want to discuss is what we all feel the word "muffed" means . . .

In my mind I'm imagining, a tipped or missed pass that results in the train wreck and a ball now loose.

So you've got a hapless defender no sprawled out on the floor, a clumsy/unlucky offensive player sprawled on the floor and a ball bouncing/bounding/ rolling loose.

Above and beyond the rest of the conversation about who, what when and where. No one here seems particularly or clearly disadvantaged or more impeded more or less then anyone else as the game progresses. Unless you have concerns over rough play, enjoy the calamity and play on.

No call.

"Hapless defender?" I think the defender did his job, within the rules, and is now punished by being knocked to the floor.
Here's what I see.
Offensive player clearly responsible for contact.
Defensive player clearly within his rights.
Both players end up on the floor.
This is a clear advantage for the offense by knocking the defender to the ground. Regardless of rough play concerns, I've got a TC foul here unless A3 makes a clear attempt to stop upon contact with B3.