[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here is what the rule says (4-23):

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Is there any time in this situation that the player is not in the path?

It also says (about OBTAINING position)....

If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Note that it doesn't say anything about a spot or at the point of contact....just about when LGP must be obtained. This is in the section about OBTAINING position. Do you agree that the player in this situation has LGP before stepping back? Did the player obtain initial LGP? Yes.

Correct. The key factors are being in the path of the opponent and having obtained legal position before the opponent goes airborne.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But he's wrong when he states that the rule addresses "when LGP must be obtained". It only addresses obtaining a "legal position".

So since the rule isn't talking about LGP, what does it mean to obtain a legal position? It just means to get to your spot on the floor without being out of bounds. And you have to get there before the opponent became airborne.

You are making an error in writing "a" before "legal position," as that implies a particular location. Please note that the rule does not have this article and only requires the defender to have obtained "legal position," which entails placing his body in the path of the opponent. The defender doesn't have to get there, as you write, rather he can be anywhere along the path. That's fundamental to correctly understanding this play.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Am I stretching? Yeah, probably. But to me, this makes more sense than saying that it's not legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing spot but that it is legal to move backwards into an opponent's landing spot.

A player who must move laterally to reach the location where an airborne opponent will land and cause a crash would not have been in his path and thus didn't have legal position. However, a player who moves directly backwards did have his body in the path of the opponent prior to him leaving the floor. That is how I can rationalize a difference in ruling on these two actions.

There is no way that the intent and purpose of the rule is to penalize a defender for stepping backwards after an onrushing opponent jumps towards him. For the rules to state that it would be a foul on the defender in this case would not maintain the carefully crafted balance between the offense and the defense which the NFHS states the rules are intended to create.