Yup

Agree.

It's not the illegal contact that needs to be defined, it's the legal contact. I can't see any instance where guarding rules wouldn't apply when it comes to defensive initiated contact.

Bingo! This is the question we all want answered from those (MTD) who say the defense can set screens. In what instance would a defensive player set a legal screen that would be illegal guarding?
Mark, you called a foul on the baseline defensive screen, correct? Was she in legal guarding position but not legal screening position? Why did you call a foul?

Thanks for someone finally answering my question. I was starting to feel like Casper the Friendly Ghost. Oh, and I guess I ought to put in a gratuitous insult here, just so we don't get too chummy. Let's see, your mother is an English pig-dog and your father smells of elderberry wine! There, that doesn't sound obsequious, does it?

But seriously, Jurassic, there are some differences between guarding and screening in the rules, and that's what started this whole thread off. Is it the case that defense gets more latitude than offense in fronting the opponent?

I think that what MTD is saying is that an action which would be a legal screen for offensive player, can also be legally committed by the defense. Basically, that's true, isn't it? Whether you call that action a screen or a guard, it's still legal for defense if it's legal for offense, right?

And by the way, if defense are the only people who can guard, why is the person who usually brings the ball up the floor called the Point Guard?

The only way this semantic discussion matters is if there's a play where what would have been a legal guarding maneuver is illegal because it is instead a defensive screen; or what would be an illegal guarding maneuver is legal because it is a defensive screen.
Unless either of those can be shown, then this whole discussion is philisophical.

1) At least you didn't hang Chuck from your rearview mirror when you were young, like someone I know.

2) I think that the reason that the NFHS put "guarding" and "screening" in two separate sections of Rule 4 is that they quite simply meant for one term(guarding) to apply to defensive players, and the other term (screening) to apply just to offensive players. If they had envisioned what MTD is trying to propose, they would have combined those 2 sections. R4-23-1 is quite explicit in saying that "guarding" is an act made a defender. The FED shoulda added in R4-39 that this act applies to offensive players only. Unfortunately, they didn't- so we end up in a pointless argument like this one about grey language in one section. And, also,to answer your question, the defense doesn't get any more latitude than the offense in fronting an opponent either. Both have to go by the rule that applies to them. In the case of the defense fronting an opponent, you can't go wrong if you just apply the "screening" rules to the offense- whether they have the ball or not-, and apply the "guarding" rules to the defense- and then call what happens.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 28th, 2004 at 10:48 AM]

Amen, amen to that fair prayer...

Oh dear, that sounds a little sycophantic. Let me try again...

Jeez Jurassic!! Can't you get anything right? What ever the FED says is gospel truth. Some folks....

Oh dear, that sounds a little sycophantic.

[/B][/QUOTE]LOL! As opposed to "pyschopathic"? :D

LOL! As opposed to "pyschopathic"? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I meant in addition to!

I'm going to stir the pot a little....

Guarding is only performed by the defense (by definition).

Screening can be performed by either team...although it's almost exclusively performed by the offense.

Example of defensive screening:

B1 on A1. A1 dribbles the ball off his foot. Both turn toward the ball which has bounced behind B1. B5 is going for the ball. B1 see this and, rather than going for the ball, screens A1 to give B5 enough time to get the ball. B1 has his back to A1.

That sounds a lot more like a screen than guarding to me and B1 is on defense...until B5 picks up the ball.

(a) Yes
(b) Yes
Yes...as you said, by definition. What's there to guard if you're on offense.
Correct.
You can set a screen having never faced the opponent but you can be moving except directly away from the opponent.

A defender could set a screen on an offensive opponent by legally getting into their path (with sufficient time/distance and becoming stationary) but with their back to them the entire time. They don't have LGP unless they face them. They can't move laterally. But, by putting their body in that path, they've prevent or delayed the offensive opponent from going where they wanted to go.

IIRC, The player positions are more historically descriptive than current.

Forwards played forward and attacked the basket (attempted to score). Guards guarded the other basket (attempt to stop the other team from scoring). Centers assisted both efforts. In some versions of the rules the guards and forwards were limited to staying in their half of the court while centers could cross from end to end.


While looking around the web on this topic, I found the following very interesting link:

http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/amst...ll/changes.htm


[Edited by Camron Rust on May 28th, 2004 at 03:45 PM]

Two scenarios involving "screening," one offense, one defense.

1. A1 just outside the left block, B1 guarding, A2 comes from right block to set a blind screen (order of players from left to right is A1, B1, A2). A1 starts to cut, B1 gets hit by A2's blind screen without getting a full step. By my reading of the rules, outside the visual field of the player, A2 must give B1 one free step to avoid the screen, so this is a foul on A2. Is this correct?

2. B is in a 2-3 zone. Ball is on the left wing. A1 is just outside the left block. B1 is fronting A1, B2 has slid over behind A1, but is playing in a help position (A3 is in the right block), so continues to face the top of the key rather than toward A1. Order of players is B1, A1, B2, with B2 not facing A1 and therefore "screening" her. A2 on wing attempts an ill-advised lob to A1. As A1 extends a hand and begins to step toward hoop to catch ball, she collides with B2, again not getting a full step. Is B2 guarding, standing, or setting a blind screen. How do you decide?

1) Correct, it's an illegal screen as per Rule 4-39-4 and 10-6-3(a).

2) B2 is guarding in this play, imo. She meets the definition of "guarding" in R4-23-1- <i>"Guarding is the act of LEGALLY placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent"</i>. B2, in other words, is ILLEGALLY guarding A1 because she didn't give A1 a step. Casebook play 10.6.2SitB says that screening principles do apply to offensive players also- <i>"Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear."</i>. Note that it says "principles", but doesn't actually label the dribbler's action a "screen", by definition. Weird semantics, but appropriate, I think. Anyhoo....iow, when you apply these screening principles to A1, B2 is now illegally guarding A1 by (1)not giving A1 a full step when B1 set up behind A1 and outside her vision, and(2)never obtaining an initial legal guarding position(she's turned t'other way). Now, if B2 was more than a step away, then A1 would be responsible for the contact. In that case, B2 wasn't facing A1- so she isn't guarding or screening. However, she does have a right to her legal position on the court, so A1 is responsible for any contact that occurs.

As I said before, I use "guarding" for defensive players and "screening" for offensive players. The rules fit for all cases, as far as I know, even with the grey area in the rulebook definition of "screening". That makes it fairly simple, and simple is better, imo.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 29th, 2004 at 12:21 PM]

This doesn't make it more simple, though. What if B2 is just standing there under the basket picking her nose with her back to A1? Not trying to guard, not trying to screen, not even keeping track of who is where? If A1 backs to a stop just short of contact, waits a minute, and then tries to take off backwards, there's no one step of space, but B2 can hardly be held responsible of the contact, can she? She has a right to her space on the floor even though it's less than one step away from A1.



I thought your point has been that screening is what you call it when it's done by the offense. So now why say that it just barely applies to the dribbler? Why wouldn't it apply to the dribbler?

None of this means that I think you're wrong, I just don't understand.

I think the problem with the dribbler is that when the contact comes from behind, the contact is generally considered to be the fault of the defense.