The Visual Field (Screening)

[bainsey]

The question was more about the definition of "visual field." Again, I see it as a little bigger than a semicircle, from the left side to the right side of one's field of vision, as the neck is turned. I wanted to know if others see it that way. (No pun intended.)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you always wait until the injured player's team has the ball before blowing it dead?

Not always, but usually. This kid was taken out pretty hard, and I kept an eye on him as the play developed, but a shot was taken pretty quickly, and as soon as his team got the rebound, I whistled.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The question was more about the definition of "visual field." Again, I see it as a little bigger than a semicircle, from the left side to the right side of one's field of vision, as the neck is turned.

Just the semicircle. Limited to 180 degrees. When the neck is turned, the semicircle is turned.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just the semicircle. Limited to 180 degrees. When the neck is turned, the semicircle is turned.

Hmmm, so let's say A-1 is running forward while looking over his left shoulder behind him. B-2 has LGP, and is directly in front of A-1. Since A-1's neck and semicircle are turned, would be B-2 be out of the field of vision, or is the semicircle based upon a player facing forward?

[Adam]

What difference does it make?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Hmmm, so let's say A-1 is running forward while looking over his left shoulder behind him. B-2 has LGP, and is directly in front of A-1. Since A-1's neck and semicircle are turned, would be B-2 be out of the field of vision, or is the semicircle based upon a player facing forward?

In determining the legality of the screen, "field of vision" applies only to a stationary opponent.

"Field of vision" does come into play in determing whether the player being screend commits a foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In determining the legality of the screen, "field of vision" applies only to a stationary opponent.

Gotcha, so this isn't even applicable to the formula I was developing. Thanks.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Gotcha, so this isn't even applicable to the formula I was developing. Thanks.

This is what I was getting at earlier; it only matters in determining how much contact you allow before you call a foul on the screened player.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In determining the legality of the screen, "field of vision" applies only to a stationary opponent.

"Field of vision" does come into play in determing whether the player being screend commits a foul.

Bob, somehow that statement doesn't sound right to me. As I mentioned earlier, I felt the "field of vision" doesn't determine the legality of the screen in that a player can legally set a screen within or outside the field of vision of an opponent. Rather, it is distance that determines the legality of the screen (should contact occur) on a screen set outside the visual field of the stationary defender. Would that be correct?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Bob, somehow that statement doesn't sound right to me.

It's correct in the context of the post to which I was replying. "Field of vision" comes into play only when screening a stationary opponent; it is not a consideration when setting a screen on a moving opponent.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's correct in the context of the post to which I was replying. "Field of vision" comes into play only when screening a stationary opponent; it is not a consideration when setting a screen on a moving opponent.

"Comes into play." That's the wording I was thinking of and also clears up (for me) why I was questioning your statement. Thank you (and to so many others on this forum) that give us knowledgable and consistently accurate answers. It has really been of help to me.