[JeffTheRef]

"I really can't see the difference. In the sitch that started this thread,the defender wouldn't have made any physical contact at all,if the shooter hadn't moved into the defender's path AFTER the defender left his feet."

Exactly.

Many commentators here are delving into special cases - two opponents whose 'state' falls within the 'guarding' statutes, for example. But those are not the point. BasktBallRef, I believe, takes the position that all the possible rules of the game, either explicit (rulebook) or implied (casebook) have been brought to light. I don't think so. I think there are some very important 'rules' that either haven't been addressed in the casebook yet are absolutely a part of the way the game is played and officiated or that are of a meta-rule nature.

The 'right to land' is explicit for an airborne shooter; the defender may not move into the shooter's landing spot after the shooter has taken off. This 'rule' is made most clear in Rule 10-6-3-d-note, "The guard [a defender who has obtained legal guarding position] may not cause contact by moving under or in front of a passer or thrower after he or she is in the air with both feet off the floor." I am saying that the principles behind this rule - safety, fairness - dictate that in at least the circumstances I have described in ealier posts, the 'right to land on a spot unoccupied at the time of takeoff' exists in how the game is played and officiated.

[By the way, BsktBallRef, I worship your backcourt quiz. I review it often. There's no way one can run the logic to produce some of those calls fast enough - it is pure recognition.]