Unless the dribbler extends their butt outside their cone of dribblcality! :D

I can appreciate the explanation. However, I would submit that while team control exists, neither team is really on offense or defense. This is why the NBA would refer to this as a loose ball sitaiton. If A committed a foul after B deflects the ball, it would be a loose ball foul, not an offensive foul.

LOL!

I haven't paid very close attention to this thread, but that's just too freakin' good to ignore! :D

All right gang.

I am not going to retype the definitions of guarding and screening because I am just too tired from officiating six games today and I still have yet to shower and get packed for the drive home tomorrow.

The definition of guarding defines it as something that is done by a "defensive player." The definition of screening defines it as something that is done be a "player," including a player with the ball.

The key points that many people are missing is that for a defenisive player to initially obtain/establish a legal guarding position, the defensive player must be facing the offensive player. Does a player need to be facing an opponent to set a screen? No. Therefore a defensive player can set a screen against an offensive player just as well as a offensive player can set a screen against a defensive player.

If one goes back to the example that I gave in my very first (at least I think it was my first) post in this thread, B4 set a screen against A1. Why was it a screen? When B4 took his position in front of A1, B4 was not facing A1. Because he was not facing A1, B4 was effecting a screen and was not attempting to obtain/establish a legal guarding position. The result is the same. B4 did not give time and distance to A1 when setting his screen and therefore B4 was guilty of a blocking foul.

As I have stated before, the result of guarding and screening is blocking and charging.

Someone asked the question about legal screen and illegal guarding. When a defensive player is setting a screen he is not attempting to obtain/establish a legal guarding position. The thing to remember is that the defintions of guarding and screening help us to determine whether a player has a legal right to a spot on the floor.

If B1 runs to a spot on the floor that is fifteen feet from any other player on the court. It can be said that while he may not be attempting to obtain/establish a legal guarding position against an opponent, he at the very least has set a legal screen against any player whose straight line path from Point A to Point B goes through the spot where B4 is standing, whether B4 is facing his opponent or not. Of course if B4 is facing A1 then we can say that he has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1 and if he is not facing A1 then he is setting a screen against A1.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on May 30th, 2004 at 09:57 PM]

Mark,
Quick follow up question:

Aren't time and distance required when establishing legal guarding position against a player without the ball?

If B4 is standing still for an hour, not facing A2, and A2 runs into B4; foul on A2. I'm not calling a foul on a player who hasn't moved. Perhaps this is an instance where I'd have to invoke the screening rules?

I'm not sure.

The questionable play would be when a defender sets what would be a legal screen if offense set it, but does not establish legal guarding position. I can see that it wouldn't happen very often, but it does appear by the wording of the rules to be possible. The question is, what's the ruling?

So B4 leaves time and distance and stands stock still, but isn't facing the opponent. Legal screen if offense does this, but there's no legal guarding position, because B4 is facing sideways. If there's contact, who's the foul on?

If B4 got there first legally they are entitled to that spot on the floor. If you use that and the regular guarding rules there is no problem.

The rule book is full of these little semantic loopholes, and the harder you make them, the harder it gets to apply the rules.

Take JR's advice and keep it simple.

If what you say were true, you could never guard someone who is posting up. They have their back to you. They move one way and you move to adjust but you'd have to give them a step if they never turned their head. I don't think so. Guarding a stationary opponent requires no time or distance....blind or not.

Man, this thread is getting confusing.

Camron, in Juulie's play above, A1 did NOT have the ball- i.e. lob being thrown into her. The point that I was trying to make, and I'm not even sure anymore whether it really is applicable to Juulie's exact case above, is that a "help" defender switching over to a pivot player on a lob MUST give time and distance-similar to a screen. Once A1 has the ball however, time and distance no longer apply(as long as A1 wasn't in the air when she received the lob naturally). Casebook plays 10.6.3SitC&D. If the defensive player wasn't switching over, but was just standing there, then they are entitled to their spot on the floor.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 1st, 2004 at 05:53 AM]

Yes it is - and stop calling me Juulie :D

Surely I'll do that(there's your set-up line). :D

Now you know how confused this sucker has got me.

All I really know is that if the foul is on the defense, it's gonna be a block or a hold. If it's on the offense, it's gonna be a charge or a push. T'hell with who happened to be guarding or screening at the time.

I call most illegal screens that are worthy of a foul as a <em>block</em>. They usually involve putting their body into the path of the defender without leaving time or distance or are moving at the time of contact. If they are using their hands to aid in the screen, a hold would be my call. If they not only get into their path but knock them way off their line, a push is my call.

I use the same creteria for screening or guarding.

It does not matter what kind of foul you call on an illegal screen. What is important is saying loud and clear, "ILLEGAL SCREEN," then go report whatever you want.

I've seen plenty of officials close, on a group of players, with an emphatic block signal and nobody knew what they had UNTIL they reported the foul.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jun 1st, 2004 at 03:58 PM]

I disagree. The first call should be the real call with explanations afterwards.

I whistle, indicate (by signal and voice) block, immediately indicate a direction and color to communicate that the foul was on the offense and that we're heading to the other end. I do exactly the same thing for other common offensive but non-screening fouls. It resembles a common PC foul mechanic wherein officials punch the direction as part of the call.

Everyone gets the picture without confusing the call by calling it an illegal screen. Calling it such often results in coaches and/or fans calling for an "illegal screen" to be called when a screener moves but creates no contact.

They know what a block or a hold is and it doesn't confuse anyone if you clearly indicate the color and direction along with it.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 1st, 2004 at 05:16 PM]