|
Any time you want to modify a rule, you should always ask what the intended goal of that change is. I'm having a hard time seeing the goal here.
There is never anything wrong with screening, as it's defined. Too many have confused this term with something else, though, and I find it unwise to install a rule against a perfectly legal act.
Screening, as defined by NFHS rules, an act where the screener doesn't cause contact. (See 4-40-1.) While contact may occur when the "screenee" bumps into the screener, that contact is typically incidental, which is legal. Why lobby for a rule against a legal act?
If a foul takes place during an attempted screen, call the foul. It's the fouls that should be discouraged, not the screens.
Teaching kids to screen properly is good basketball. I'd like to know more about the point of such a proposed rule change.
|