Illegal or legal screen (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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."

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

[Kelvin green]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

... 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".)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.