The only difference if if you are guarding you are trying to prevent a player from going where they want to go. A screen is trying to re-direct that player.

Chucking a cutter fails at both, and the call is the same, so it is pretty nit-picking.

Exactly!! It's not a screen if it doesn't meet the requirements of 4-39-2. It's blocking. Therefore, it's NOT a screen. :D

Tony:

You are not bothering to read my entire post. I keep saying that when a player does not set a screen properly and illegal contact occurs, the foul is a blocking foul. When a defensive player does not obtain (NFHS)/establish (NCAA and FIBA) a legal guarding position properly and illegal contact occurs, the foul is a blocking foul.

In my example B4 attempted to screen A1. B4's attempt at setting a screen against A1 did not meeting the requirments of NFHS R4-S39, and when contact occured, B4 is guilty of a blocking foul. Please re-read my expample, you will see that R4-S39 applies and R4-S23 does not.

MTD, Sr.

When a defender sets a screen that is just what it is a screen. The defender is not guarding an offensive player but is setting a screen against an offensive player.

MTD, Sr.

Hawks Coach:

You did not quote the entire definition of guarding, but if you go back to it and read it, you will see that one of the differences between guarding and screening is that for a defender to obtain/establish a legal guarding positiong, the defender must first face the offensive player. B1 is not required to be facing A1 when setting a screen against A1. That is why in my example, B4 is guilty of blocking for setting an illegal screen. B4 was not facing A1 when he attempted to set his screen against A1.

MTD, Sr.

blindzebra:

You are not entirely correct about screening:

Read R4-S39-A1: A screen is a legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an oponent from reaching a desired position.

MTD, Sr.

HUH!?!?!?!?

He's not required to be facing, but he's guilty for not facing?

Mark, for all your yapping, 4 consecutive replies, you have yet to describe a situation where a defender sets a screen. Instead, you keep describing plays where the defender commits a blocking foul. That's my point! A blocking foul is not a screen. Please describe a play where the defender is legally screening.

We're still waiting.

Excuse me, but if I set a screen and there is no contact you must stop or go around, that means RE-DIRECTION does it not.

Tony:

Go back to my example. If B4 gives time and distance to A1, then B4 has set a legal screen. R4-S39 defines what a screen is supposed to do. If B4 sets a legal screen then we do not have a blocking foul. A player sets a screen, either the player has set the screen legally or he has not. If the player has not set the screen legally and contact occurs then the player has committed a blocking foul.

I do not understand why people are having a problem with the fact that defenders can set screens.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,
Why is it not guarding? It seems the simplest answer would be to officiate it as guarding. That's what they're doing.

Okay, I'm confused. let's see if we can ask the questions that will straighten this thing out a little.

1) (a)It appears that screening and guarding are two different animals and (b) the rules that apply to them are different. Is that the case? (PS This is a two-part yes/no question. No essay required).

2) From the rule book it seems that guarding is done only by defenders. The definition appears to exclude offense from guarding. Right? Yes/No -- with some small explanation

3) The rule book doesn't seem to eliminate the possibility that a defender would set an illegal screen. It apparently doesn't happen very often, but it's still within the legal definitions?

4) What are the subtle differences between illegal screens and legal guarding? between legal screens and illegal guarding? etc

Probably because the rule book says that those defenders are freaking GUARDING. Rule 4-23-1 - <i>"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent"</i>. I repeat- <b>OFFENSIVE OPPONENT</b>!!!! If B4 gives time and distance to A1,as in your example, then B4 is LEGALLY GUARDING A1. A1 would then be responsible for any contact.If B4 isn't LEGALLY GUARDING A1, then B4 is responsible for any contact and the call is a block on B4 for a defender ILLEGALLY GUARDING an offensive opponent. I can't understand why you are compelled to try to make another rule fit that was never intended to be used for this particuar situation,when there is a perfectly good and explicit rule available in R4-23.

Jurassic -- So what you're saying is that whenever a defender gets in the way of an offensive player (we're talking off-ball here, right?) it's guarding, even if the same physical action would fit the definition of screening if it were done by an offensive player?

Juulie, just use "guarding" for defensive players and "screening" for offensive players. Nice and simple that way. Doing either illegally just ends up as "blocking" fouls anyway for both of them, with the proviso that if an offensive player with the ball commits an illegal screen, it is also a PC for blocking. Don't overthink these types of plays. There's absolutely no need for a semantics exercise to try and use them any other way. Waste of time.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 28th, 2004 at 10:13 AM]