I quoted your exact statement verbatim. That statement was completely wrong and erroneous as per both of the NFHS & NCAA rulesets. Don't you get bent out of shape when somebody points out your very obvious lack of basic rule knowledge in this particular situation. That ain't attacking anybody. That's pointing out a fact. And that's the whole idea of this forum.

And if you do happen to still think that your statement is correct, may I suggest that you try and dig up some rules citations to back up your premise. Good luck with that.

Love, JR.

This may not help, but I'll take a shot. 10.6.7 Comment. Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent..........

Now, we never think of a dribbler as setting a screen, but the principles still apply in certain situations. The same would be true of the guy who thinks he's through setting his screen and is now a "cutter."

No, you didn't. You focused on one sentence and one word. Granted by using the word "any" I was speaking in a generality regarding the immediate action involved. You took it to mean ALL contact regardless of any other factor. I can understand the reasons this would confuse some.
I only get bent out of shape when you jump to conclusions before you have all of the information clarified. Instead of indicting someone's rules knowledge and ability, it might be a good idea to ask that person to expand or be more specific on the certain words or phrase that are causing concern.

What!?!? I think you are just trying to make this a longer thread than the "52 years old...." thread:D

What is the difference between "rolling straight to the basket" and "faking a roll to the basket" if, while doing so, contact is made which obstructs the defender?

Serious question...which rules are you referring to? You're losing me on this one.

Apparently every detail needs to be covered.

Note the definition of a screen. .....legal action by a player who, without causing contact delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Note that intent is not a part of the definition. It is not uncommon for a player to use a teammate as a screen without it being a designed play, sometimes without the teammate even being aware of what is transpiring.

BUT, the other side of the definition is there as well. If the same player causes contact which prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position, it is an illegal screen, (foul) even if said player had no intention of setting/continuing a screen in the first place.

I think those rules were from some type of butcher's training manual.

Or perhaps this... Cutter

Let's try this quotation thing again so I can pinpoint for you where I think you misspoke.

Each sentence here is wrong, IMO.
It doesn't matter what the screener's intent is; only what the result is.

I'm not sure of any other way to read the word "any" hear than the way we have. With the word "inclined" (that I cut out), it seems to us you are alluding to your final sentence, where you'd have a whislte only if you think he was "faking a roll to the basket." Our point is, regardless of whether he was rolling to the basket or not, if he obstructs the defender without meeting the requirements of a legal screen, it's a foul.

Again, it doesn't matter what he's trying to do or if he's just faking it. Even if he's rolling to the basket, if he illegally gets into B1's path and physically prevents B1 from getting to his desired spot, it's a foul. He's not a "cutter," there's no such animal in the rules, he's a screener and must do it legally.

Had I been the only one to misread your post, or had Jurassic been the only one to misread your post, or had jar been the only one to misread your post, or had Camron been the only one to misread your post..... See the pattern? These are people who do not agree all the time on details, yet they all read you the same.

Very well. Here's simple...

Screening = legal. (NFHS 4-40-1)
Illegal ≠ legal. (Well known antonyms)
Therefore, an illegal screen doesn't exist.

I'm completely with you regarding the "cutter, picker, roller" argument, as those words tend to cloud what could be a simpler analysis. I'm talking solely about a term that many people accept, but probably never considered is non-existent.

Sorry, your logic is flawed. Screens are legal until they're illegal. Just as contact is legal until it's illegal, and dribbling is legal until it's illegal, and guarding is legal until it's illegal.

The fact that the rules define the term 'screen' does not imply that all screening is legal, but that SOME screening is legal.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

Dribbling, guarding, and contact aren't defined as being legal. Screening is. The rule book points out where illegal dribbling, guarding, and contact exist. Screening is only defined as legal. There's the difference.

Once the intended screener causes contact, it cannot be a screen anymore. And just so we're clear, none of this changes the way we enforce screening/blocking/illegal contact rules. This is only about that term.

Not true, sir. Check the book again.

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Indeed so. Thanks, jar.

That may explain why we've never use "illegal guard."

Why not? If it is not a screen, what is it?