I guess in my mind the situation that I'm giving full 2 steps to is a situation where the player has no chance to see or stop in time so I'm giving them the maximum time to have something communicated or for them to change their route or angle. Ie a player back pedaling hard but couldn't possibly see a screener coming directly at their back. This screener should be giving two steps of room.

This does bring up a point about "blind screens" that's been rumbling around in my head. Obviously players can't run around with their eyes closed but when I think about blind screens I've always interpreted that as a screen that is set to a players back where they are incapable of seeing the screen. If a player positions themselves in another periferal vision but the other just doesn't see them because they are not aware I don't see that as the same thing.

In the case of the OP she is not looking in the direction she's running I don't consider that a "blind screen".

I was always thought that a player who is backpedaling is not looking in the direction he is running. ;)

Don't "blind screens" apply only when the player being screened is stationary? If so, that's not applicable in this play.

You are correct.

The difference between a blind screen on a moving opponent and a blind screen on a stationary opponent is how much room the screener must give the opponent. If they're moving, it's the standard one to two normal steps/strides relative to the opponent's speed. If they're stationary it's one normal step (whatever "normal" may be).

Panther you're right: This wasn't a blind screen because it was set to the defender's side. If she doesn't see it, that's her problem but the time/distance part of the equation still applies.

Let's Chat About Screens ...
 

NFHS 4-40 Screen
ART. 1 A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact,
delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same
path and the same direction.
d. The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance
approximately shoulder width apart.
ART. 3 When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side (within
the visual field), the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
ART. 4 When screening a stationary opponent from behind (outside the
visual field), the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward
without contact.
ART. 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.
ART. 6 When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and
direction as the screener, the player behind is responsible if contact is made
because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns
his/her opponent.
ART. 7 A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual
field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the
opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled
as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact
and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if
he/she has the ball.
ART. 8 A player may not use the arms, hands, hips or shoulders to force
his/her way through a screen or to hold the screener and then push the screener
aside in order to maintain a guarding position on an opponent.

Note: I looked this up online: The visual field refers to the total area in which objects can be seen in the side (peripheral) vision while you focus your eyes on a central point. It doesn't say anything about the direction that the body is facing, it's based on the direction that the eyes are focused. If a player has their body facing north, but has their head turned 180 degrees around like an owl (extreme example not based on reality), then their visual field is the peripheral vision on either side of south.

Is this (below) the NFHS "definition" of a blind screen?

4-27 Incidental Contact
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which
does not constitute a foul.
Art. 4 A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In
cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent
contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact,
provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

Once again, I see little about the direction that the player's body is facing, it seems to be more about the direction that the eyes are facing.

Billy,
Consult your NFHS Casebook. There is a play in it which states that screens from the side are within the visual field and only screens from behind are "blind."

Thanks ...
 

I tried a casebook search for the word "screen" and couldn't find any such play. That doesn't mean that it's not there, it must means that I can't find it.

I also did a casebook search, and a rulebook search, for the word "blind" and nothing came up.

Here's one which addresses your body and head direction while running question.

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)

I am going to vote for illegal screen on this play. The rules don't say you have to be full run to give the two steps. ... In an open court situation like the one in this play and moving as fast as it was is enough for the two steps. But as everyone says this is what naked this a judgment call

In The Pudding ...
 

... Which seems to support my contention that, in determining whether, or not, a screen is "blind", it's the direction of the head (eyes and visual field) that's the determining factor, not he direction of the body.

(I'm still looking for Nevadaref's case play that differentiates between screens from the "side", and screens from "behind".)

It has been established before that the "central point" (using the terminology from the definition you posted above) is, for basketball, based on the body's direction. A player doesn't gain extra rights by looking away from where they might expect a screen or defender. The blind spot is the spot where the head can't be turned to see...which is based on where the body is facing.

Billy,
You had it all along! The definitions which I thought were in the Casebook are actually contained within the Rules book. The articles above tell you that the front or side is within the visual field and that from behind is not.
Although these articles are for stationary opponents the definitions provided for what constitutes the visual field apply to moving players as well.

Field Of View ...
 

Where has the NFHS "established" that central point is based on the body's direction?

Peripheral vision, i.e., field of view (in basketball terms), is not measured based how far the head can be turned, but, rather, by how much can be seen, right, left, up, down, without turning one's head.

If one defines peripheral vision based on the ability to turn one's head, then the peripheral vision would be in excess of 360 degrees, and there would never be a blind screen. Never. Ever.

Parenthetical ...
 

Politely disagree. You view the definition as the NFHS defining field of view based on front, and side. I view the definition as the NFHS defining front, and side, based on the field of view. I can see how you could interpret it one way, your way. Can you see how one may interpret it another way, my way? I'm not 100% sure that my way is correct, but I have yet to see any contrary citation.

If a player has an opportunity to see (within their visual field, let's, for sake of argument, say it's 90 degrees to the left, and to the right, of the direction that they are looking) a screen based on which way their head (not their body) is turned, then, in my opinion, it's not a blind screen.