Screening vs Guarding

[rainmaker]

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 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. 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?

[Camron Rust]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
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?

[Hawks Coach]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
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.

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.

[Adam]

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.

[BktBallRef]

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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?

[Hawks Coach]

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
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.

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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]

[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?