Quote:
Originally posted by JeffTheRef
from a number of other explicit rules. There are multiple ways to construct the case - all take some time and the the appplication of reason. I'll try to get to it.
|
Then cite those rules and construct your case. You've yet to provide one single rule to back it up. You simply keep offering opinions with rule reference.
Quote:
|
In the meantime, any but the most simple axiomatic system will have rules that are not explicit. Are you telling me that if there are two players standing facing each other 6 feet apart and the ball is thrown between them and one leaps first, forward, to catch the ball, the other can run to the spot where the leaper will land, which was unoccupied at the moment he took off, and the foul is on the player in the air?
|
No, and the rule covers this. The rule is very clear that a DEFENDER cannot assume a spot on the floor after a player with the ball or one who is going after the ball is airborne. However, there is no support for your stance that an
offensive player with the ball cannot move to a spot after the defender is airborne. That's the whole point of the discussion. The "right to land" does not exist for the guard, the defender.