Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
So. . .
B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 moves laterally in an attempt to dribble around B1. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso. Can we agree that this is a player control foul? I think so.
|
Yes. PC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Now. . .
B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 jumps laterally in an attempt to release a try. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso (before A1 returns to the floor). You guys are saying that this is a blocking foul (which, of course, it is).
|
Yes, as long as the lateral movement by the defender came AFTER A1 jumped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
How do you justify the difference? B1 was originally in the path of A1 in both plays. A1 took a different path in both those plays. B1 was able to get back into the path before the contact in both those plays. B1 was not moving toward A1 at the time of contact in either play. Yet one is a PC and one is a block. Why?
It seems you're both saying that B1 maintains LGP on a dribbler who changes paths but LOSES his LGP on a player who changes paths by jumping, as I've highlighted in red above. Is there any rule basis at all for such a distinction?  |
100% agree. The dribbler is not airborne and this allows BY RULE the defender to move laterally or obliquely to maintain legal position as the offensive player changes his path.
However, the rules are different after a player becomes airborne. (These rules have already been quoted and you know them anyway.) If the defender was in the airborne player's path before he left the floor, then he is fine, and doesn't have to relinquish that position (other than not moving forward), but if the airborne player picked a new path and jumped in that direction which is NOT the one along which the defender currently is, then the defender has to let him go. The defender cannot slide over to get in this new path AFTER the opponent has become airborne. Any illegal contact caused by doing so would be the fault of the defender.
It's really that simple.