The Visual Field (Screening)
 

Yesterday's game, freshman boys. A-1 is dribbling in the backcourt, guarded by B-2. A-3 sets a screen in the backcourt, and B-2, who's half A-3's size, takes two steps forward and crashes into the brick wall that is A-3. B-2 goes down in a heap.

I have nothing, as time as distance were in place. B-2 remains down in the backcourt for ten seconds or so, until B-4 snares the defensive rebound, and I immediately whistle.

Coach B plays the "visual field" card, as in "he didn't see him." (Not his words, but that's the gist.) Let's review that.

I consider the visual field to be slightly larger than a semicircle, going from the left side to the right side, as one can turn his neck. While B-2's eyes and head were turned to the right, A-3 was directly in front of him, therefore still within his visual field, if I have this defined correctly.

Thoughts?

The interpretations I have seen allow for up to two steps if you can see the screen and you must allow a step if they cannot (set legally of course). I do not see distance as being a factor as players can take a step longer than a semi-circle in some situations.

Peace

I believe the wording goes something like: .........screening moving opponent outside his visual field, screener must allow the opponent time and distance to change direction. This distance need not exceed two strides. If the screener was stationary in your play, and the opponent took two strides, it is not a foul whether he was in the visual field or not.

Relatively new guy here, are you saying that a screen set directly behind a defender is illegal? No matter how much space the defender is given?

I don't think anybody said that.

The "visual field" has nothing to do with establishing a legal screening position (4-40-2). A legal screen can be within or outside the visual field of the opponent. If set behind (outside the vision) of a stationary opponent only distance (1 step) is required. If the opponent is moving, time and distance are required but whether the screen is within or outside the visual field is not a factor. Actually, "visual field" eventually becomes a responsibility of the person being screened. See 4-40-7.

Kid gave plenty of time and distance regardless, so the only complaint the coach could have had would have been if the defender knocked the screener down and you called a foul. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

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

Ah ok, I see. I didn't read it correctly. So if a defender is unseen, he must give a step.

If it's serious, or the player is in further danger, stop play immediately.

Otherwise, wait until the injured player's team has the ball, or the other team stops attacking the goal.

I normally wait until the other team either stops attacking or call it right away if they aren't attacking, but isn't there a case play (can't find it) or interp that says to blow the whistle as soon as a shot is taken? Now I'm questioning my recollection, however.

I also realize that adherance to this (even if it's there) is going to be a Rome thing.

I agree. In a recent training meeting, we were told to "always wait until the opponents finish their attempt to score." I had to tell them that if the injury is serious, stop the play immediately! That might include, an unconscious player, obvious joint dislocation, bleeding, convulsions, etc. Use some common sense and sensitivity.

2010-2011 Rules interp ...

SITUATION 4: A1’s unsuccessful try for goal is rebounded by B1. As A1 returns to the floor after the missed try, he/she twists and then grabs the ankle and goes to the floor. B1 passes the ball to B2, who dribbles into the frontcourt and (a) attempts a try for goal which is not successful but is immediately rebounded by B4 and successfully scored; or (b) attempts a three-point try for goal which is successful. RULING: In both (a) and (b), an official stops play by sounding his/her whistle when the try for goal is released by the B player (player/team control ends on the release for a try). In (a), the successful try by B4 is not scored and play is resumed using the alternating-possession procedure. In (b), play is resumed with a throw-in to Team A anywhere along the end line. (5-8-2 Note)

What more do you need?

Not a big fan of "...sounding his/her whistle when the try for goal is released."

Same Page ...
 

Agree, but that's what they want us to do.

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.)

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.

I Use My Protractor ...
 

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?

What difference does it make?

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.

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.

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?

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.