Case Book 10.6.1 Situation A:

Ruling: No The principles which apply to guarding a player who has the ball apply equally to guarding a player who does not have the ball, except in the case of switching to guard a player who does not have the ball. Thus, if B1 is guarding A1, who does not have the ball, and is in a guarding position (facing and in the path of A1), when A1 moves B1 may shift to remain in the path of A1 <i> or to regain a position in the path of A2. If B1 loses the position in the path of A1 momentarily, but is able to regain a guarding position at the last moment, B1 is considered to be employing legal guarding tactics. </i> If A1 charges into B1 under these conditions, A1 is responsible for the contact.

WOW! The part in italics puzzles me greatly. These maneuvers are NOT legal during screening, are they? How are guarding and screening different? Is this difference really what is intended by NFHS? Does anyone distinguish these situations in real life?

When guarding, the defender can be moving at the time of contact...laterally or obliquely away.

When screening, the player can only be moving directly away from the opponent, not laterally.

Time and distance are required by both but getting stationary is not.

So screening is when someone is trying to get a pick. Guarding is just defending a loose person?

This is similar to a discussion we had on another thread. Screening is an offensive maneuver, guarding is a defensive maneuver. It is assumed that the offense can dictate where they go, but the defender's path is dictated by where the offense goes. So the restriction on time and distance for screening reflects the fact that the defender has less choice than the offensive player regarding the path she travels.

Is this a hard and fast rule? I mean, can't there be a defensive screen? Do offensive players never guard?

Hawks Coach:

You are second sentence is only fifty percent correct. Yes, guarding is a defensive maneuver, but screening is a maneuver that can be applied by either an offensive player or a defensive player.

MTD, Sr.

At first I had a hard time thinking of a defensive screen, but it quickly dawned on me.

"Hedge and recover" is essentially a defensive screen. More specifically, it's a "counter-screen." However, the "hedge" would most likely be treated by officials as guarding behavior rather than screening.

99.9% of the time, it will be an offensive player setting a screen.

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?

Rule 4
SECTION 23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
ART. 5 . . . Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

Hedging is not a defensive screen as I understand the rules. It is a new defender establishing legal guarding position on an offensive player, as I read the rules. I cannot conceptualize a defensive screen as the rules are written. Anytime a defensive player steps in the path of an offensive player, it is considered to be guarding. If the offensive player does not have the ball, screening rules effectively apply, but the act itself is not considered screening. And I don't see the difference related to blind screens as applying to the defense. That is, I have always believed that offensive players are supposed to be able to see where they are going, defensive players are not assumed to be able to do so.

I am not saying this to be argumentative. I have tried to run through various defensive scenarios in my mind, and every time I find myself seeing legal guarding position rather than a screen. Is this wrong?

First I would like to thank Hawks Coach for quoting the definition of guarding. It saved me some typing.


NFHS R4-S39: Screen

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

A2: To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be staionary, except when both
are moving in the same path and the same direction.

A3: When screening a stationar opponent from the front
or side, the screener may be anwhere short of
contact.

A4: When screening a stationary opponent from behind,
the screener must allow the opponent one normal step
backward without contact.

A5: When screening a moving opponent, the screener must
allow the opponent time and distance to avoid
contact. The distance need not be more that two
strides.

A6: When screening an opponent who is moving in the same
path and direction as the screener is moving, the
opponent is responsible for contact if the screener
slows up or stops.

The definition of guarding defines what a defensive player can and cannot do with respect to defending against an offensive player. The defintion of screening defines actions that any player on the court can and cannot do with respect to any opponent.


Example of a screen by a defensive player:

Team B is playing a 2-3 zone defense. Team A has control of the ball in its front court. A1 runs along the endline going from one corner to the other corner. As A1 running from one corner to the other corner, B4, who is playing the middle position of the three backline defenders takes a step backwards just as A1 gets to him. Contact occurs between A1 and B4. B4 was not guarding A1, but he was attempting to set a screen against A1. B4 is not facing A1. B4 did not A1 time and distance. Therefore, B4 is guilty of a blocking foul.


I have seen this type of defensive maneuver many times. I have called it many times. One coach in an AAU girls tournament did not like and continued to have his players do it. We must have called that foul eight times in the first half before the players finally learned not to do it.

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.

That's not a screen, that's blocking. If it was a screen, you wouldn't have called a foul, would you? Blocking is NOT screening.

I did not say that blocking was screening. I have always preferred to use the term "guarding and screening" instead of "block/charge" because it better describes the subject matter being discussed because "block/charge" is the result of illegal contact during "guarding and screening."

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. Player B4 was attempting to set a screen against A1 and did not meet the requirements for a legal screen as set forth in R4-S39-A2 and therefore was guilty of a blocking foul.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on May 27th, 2004 at 12:50 PM]

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.

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]

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.

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]

No such animal . . .

I think you're always better off saying what the foul was - block, hold, charge, etc. Then, if people are still confused, add in a little flair and explain exactly what they did.

I disagree completely.

The block, hold, or push was caused by what? Not setting a LEGAL SCREEN.

This is not like saying reach or over the back, this is clearly saying what occured outside of the rules. It communicates to my partner, the players, the coaches, and the fans EXACTLY what has happened.

There is no confusion, so there is no reason to add a little flair, it is a confident and precise call.

I'm gonna have to go along with zebra on this one. Saying loud and clear "ILLEGAL SCREEN" is what adds the flair and gets everybody's attention in the building. In fact, you really want to get attention, drop the "screen" part and just say loud and clear "ILLEGAL" with emphasis on the first syllable. Then, go report foul.