[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In that particular example, no it's not the only distinction. But the distinction made in both examples has to do with whether B1 obtained their spot before or after A1 has left the floor. Since that particular distinction is made in both examples, that tells me whether A1 is airborne is the important distinction, not just the path.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But the case play you quoted doesn't make that distinction:

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before
A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor..... However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. .... (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

The only distinction being made in both cases is whether B1 obtained the position before or after A1 leaves the floor.

It doesn't say "if B1 moves within the path" or "if B1 moves to a new spot" or "if B1 changes the point of contact." It simply says "moves into the path." To move into the path, you have to have been out of that path.