Screening vs Guarding

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Mark
What I am struggling with is where you draw the line between guarding and screening on defense. Why is this a failed attempt to screen rather than a failed attempt to guard?

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
When a screen is set that does not meet the requirements of R4-S39-A2, the result is a blocking foul by the person attempting to set the screen.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

But this doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that when a defender does it, it's guarding, and thus the different rules apply?

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I agree with the foul call, but I would also argue that the action could also be construed as guarding (or attempted guarding). I don't think it really matters, because the rules are essentially the same for each when a player cuts off the ball, with the exception that I still do not believe all screening rules apply to a defender. I see no reference to guarding outside an opponent's visual field and the need to make an allowance for that, which is specified in the screening rule.

I know it seems nitpicky, but the entire thread really seems to be one of precise definition rather than application on the court. Foul on someone who steps to guard and gets there late is a block. Foul on someone who steps to screen and gets there late is a block. So it really doesn't matter, except with respect to blind screens, IMO.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

HUH!?!?!?!?

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

[BktBallRef]

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

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.

[Adam]

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

[rainmaker]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

Probably because the rule book says that those defenders are freaking GUARDING. Rule 4-23-1 - "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent". I repeat- OFFENSIVE OPPONENT!!!! 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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Probably because the rule book says that those defenders are freaking GUARDING. Rule 4-23-1 - "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent". I repeat- OFFENSIVE OPPONENT!!!! 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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
What are the subtle differences between illegal screens and legal guarding? between legal screens and illegal guarding? etc

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]